The URL can be used to link to this page

pc_09 02 1999LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 2,1999 4:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number. II.Members Present:Herb HawnBillPutnam Judith Faust Rohn Muse Hugh Earnest Bob Lowry Obray Nunnley,Jr. Craig Berry Mizan Rahman Richard Downing Members Absent:Pam Adcock City Attorney:Steve Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING SEPTEMBER 2,1999 4:00 P.M. I.DEFERRED ITEM: A.S-1257 Westview Medical Addition —Preliminary Plat II.NEW ITEMS: 1.Z-6716 7401 Mabelvale Cut-Off R-2 to C-3 2.LU99-14-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs East Planning District from Multi Family to Mixed Office Commercial for 9101 Lew Drive. 3.LU99-16-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District from Single Family to Light Industrial for an area north of the rail road and south of the Crooked Creek including 12805 Interstate I-30. 4.LU99-17-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District from Single Family to Mixed UseatthenortheastcornerofHammondRoadandCrystal Valley Road. 5.LU99-20-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Commercial and Office to Mixed Office Commercial at the intersections of Cantrell Road with Chenonceau Boulevard and Ranch Boulevard. 6.Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 7.College Station Land Use Plan Amendments 8.College Station Extraterritorial Zoning 9.Downtown Plan Amendments 10.Downtown Zoning 11.Valley/Wildwood Annexation 12.Island Annexation I PU B L I C HE A R I N G '. 1 1- = . ' T E M S IL 5 UI XI RI V E R CI T Y LI N N T S MA R K M A N MA R K M PR O E VA l l E Y I 41 0 U 1. 4 1 0 RA I N S l FI A S TH 3 @T H IH I a O '+ 0 a WI N C H I a g Ir II g DA N RO O S E V E L T CC E I. ~ 10 RO O S E V E L T AI S ~T H 1. 1 1 0 lA W S O N VI FR A T E R PM E LA W S O R 8 FE U D E R o DA R 11 0 3 DO D D 4$ 1H SA I N T S 0 VA L L E Y I I 0 IY LN H UI 5 LX 14 1 DI X O N BA S E L W E IU DI X O N HA R P E R V a O' I T E N NN I E L V A L E NA B TO F F CR E E K WE S T UI U U. II VI N S O N IPIU o II DR E H E R Q AL E X A N D E R YE R SP C S . 4 CI O F F CU T O F F N g CU T O F F 10 0 AS H E R 'I T Y LI M H S AD ' 4 1 PR A T T MS T H PL A N N I N G CO M M I S S I O N AG E N D A SE P T E M B E R 2, 19 9 9 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:S-1257 NAME:Westview Medical Addition —Preliminary Plat LOCATION:Southwest corner of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Freeway Park Properties,LLC White-Daters and Associates 100 Morgan Keegan Dr.401 S.Victory Street Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:6.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT:11 CENSUS TRACT:24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway spacing for the driveways proposed for Lots 1 and 2. A.PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.9 acres of property at the southwest corner of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive into two (2)lots.The area for Lot 1 is proposed to be 2 acres, with Lot 2 being 4.9 acres in size.The property is zoned0-3 and will allow future office developments.The applicant proposes to final plat the lots one at a time, beginning with Lot 2.No new streets are proposed. September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded.The property immediately south and east across Centerview Drive is also undeveloped and wooded.There are two single-familyresidencesonlargelotstothenorthacrossKanis Road. There is a mixture of commercial and residential uses to thewestandeastalongKanisRoad. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Sandpiper Neighborhood Association was notified of thepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline is required (includes additional 10 feet for turn lane per Master Street Plan). 2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of Kanis Road and Centerview.3.Provide design and construct improvements for right turn lane to Centerview from Kanis Road. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Streetlights to be provided on Centerview by Developer with underground service. 6.Show driveway locations on the plat.Shared drive on Centerview with Lots 1 and 2 will be required per Ordinance ¹18031.No access to Kanis is allowed by Ordinance. 7.Provide in-lieu for traffic signal (25%of construction and engineering cost). 8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is required. 9.Grading Permit per Sec.29-186(c)and (d)is required.10.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty. 2 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 AP&L:No Comment received. Arkla:No Comment. Southwestern Bell:No Comment received. Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply in addition to normal charges. Fire Department:No Comment. Count Plannin :No Comment received. CATA:Very near CATA Route ¹5 —West Markham;approved fortransitpurposesassubmitted. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: No Comment. Landsca e Issues: No Comment. G.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on August 5,1999.The revised plat addresses most of the concerns as raised by the Subdivision Committee and staff. The revised plat shows the required platted building lineforLot1,names of abutting recorded subdivisions and namesofabuttingpropertyowners.The sources of title and the addresses of the property owners for this property need to be shown on a revised plat.The 25 foot building line on Lot 1 along Kanis Road needs to be measured from the new property line,after right-of-way dedication. The revised plat also shows the driveway locations as required.Two (2)one-way drives are shown for Lot 2 along Centerview Drive and two (2)drives are shown for Lot 1,one on Centerview and one on Kanis Road.The applicant is requesting a variance for driveway spacing as the drives do not conform to current ordinance standards. The northernmost drive on Lot 2 is located 75 feet from the north property line (125 foot spacing required)and the southernmost drive is also 75 feet from the south propertyline(125 foot spacing also required).The spacing between 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 the two drives is approximately 235 feet (chord distance). The required spacing is 250 feet.A lot along a collector street requires a minimum street frontage of 500 linear feet for two drives.The property frontage for Lot 2 is just under 400 feet. The proposed drive along Centerview Drive on Lot 1 is approximately 73 feet from the south property line and approximately 205 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way. The minimum required spacing from the south property line is 150 feet and 250 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way.The proposed drive along Kanis Road is 30 feet from the west property line and approximately 260 feet from the Centerview Drive right-of-way.The required spacing is 150 feet from the west property line and 300 feet from the Centerview Drive right-of-way.According to ordinance standards,no independent drive would be allowed for Lot 1.A shared drive between Lots 1 and 2 would be recommended. All of the drives shown are 40 feet in width.The maximum allowed width for a driveway,according to ordinance,is 36feet.As of this writing,Public Works has not made a recommendation on the variance request. In a letter provided to staff,the applicant notes that the developer of the property does not agree with the 25% contribution to the traffic signal at Kanis Road and Centerview Drive as requested by Public Works.The applicant notes,"Should an office building be constructed on both of the proposed lots,warrants for a signal would not be met.Therefore,the developer does not think it is appropriate that he contribute any amount of money to this signal especially when considering this property is 7 acres at the intersection of a commercial collector and an arterial street.Development of this property would insignificantly contribute to the traffic counts on these two streets."The traffic signal issue needs to be discussed and resolved by the full commission. Otherwise,the plat is in generally good order.The proposed lot areas and widths conform to ordinance standards.The proposed plat should have no adverse effect on the general area. 4 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 2.The issue relating to driveway locations must be resolved.Public Works will make a recommendation on the requested variance for driveway spacing prior to the public hearing.3.The issue relating to in-lieu contribution for traffic signal construction must be resolved. 4.The applicant must submit a revised preliminary plat noting the sources of title,addresses of property owners,and 25 foot building line for Lot 1 measured from the new property line (after right-of-way dedication for Kanis Road). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999) Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat,pointing out several notations which need to be shown on a revised plat drawing. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed, specifically driveway locations and traffic signal participation. Mr.White noted that one (1)driveway would be shown on Lot 1 and two (2)driveways on Lot 2.Bob Turner of Public Works, indicated that the driveways would not conform to the ordinance spacing requirements and variances would need to be requested. Traffic signal participation for the intersection of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive was briefly discussed.Mr.White stated that he would meet with the property owner regarding the participation and respond to staff. There being no further issues for discussion,the preliminary plat was forwarded to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999) Joe White was present,representing the application.Mr.White requested that this application be deferred to the September 2, 1999 agenda due to the fact that only six (6)commissioners were 5 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 present.The deferral opportunity was offered by the Commission and will not be charged to the applicant. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 2,1999 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Joe White and Robert Vogel were present,representing the application.There were no objectors present.Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat with a recommendation of approval,noting that the applicant had met all of the technical,ordinance requirements.Staff also noted that the driveway locations had been worked out by the applicant and Public Works.Public Works recommended approval of the variance for driveway spacing.Staff noted that the traffic signal issue was the only unresolved issue. Stephen Giles,City Attorney,provided the Commission with a memorandum during the agenda meeting.The memo stated that the Commission could not require traffic signal contribution as a condition of the plat because it is not one of the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the traffic signal issue,initiated by comments made by Commissioner Downing. Topics of the discussion included whether or not there was clear authority within the ordinance to require traffic signals with preliminary plats,possible ordinance amendments to includetrafficsignalrequirementsandtheCity's practices in the past with respect to traffic signal construction participation. Joe White and Robert Vogel addressed the Commission during the discussion,in support of the application.Mr.Vogel stated that he felt it was the City's responsibility to provide the traffic signal and not his as a developer of a relatively small amount of property. Bob Turner,of Public Works,also spoke during the discussion. Mr.Turner quoted specific ordinance sections which,in his opinion,could include a traffic signal requirement.Mr.Turner 6 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 and Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,also commented on past practices for traffic signal participation, which included consent by the applicant. There was a motion and a second to defer the application in order for the City Attorney to provide more information to the Commission.The motion and second were ultimately withdrawn in order for more discussion regarding the Commission'authority in dealing with the traffic signal issue and the City Attorney's memo and opinion. There was a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat application.There was also a motion and a second to defer the application.It was determined that the motion to defer took precedence over the motion to approve.The motion to defer was passed by a vote of 7 ayes,3 nays and 1 absent.It was decided that this item would be placed on the agenda for the special called meeting on September 16,1999. The discussion on this item ended with the Commission requesting additional information and opinion from the City Attorney'sofficeregardingthetrafficsignalparticipationwithregards to the Commission's authority. 7 September 2,1999 t ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6716 Owner:Singleton Electric,Inc. Applicant:Jim Singleton Location:7401 Mabelvale Cut-Off Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose:Additional parking for adjacent business Size:.5 acres Existing Use:Vacant lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Single Family and YMCA Summer Day Camp; zoned R-2 South —Single Family;zoned R-2 East —Offices for Singleton Electric and Lawson'Tutoring Service;zoned C-3 West —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1.Mabelvale Cut-Off is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. WITH BUILDING PERMIT 2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,032. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.A route extends down Chicot Road and west on Mabelvale Cut-Off,one block west of this site. September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6716 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All owners of property located within 200 feet,all residents within 300 feet,Norm Floyd and the Chicot,Rob Roy,Yorkwood,Legion Hut and West Baseline Neighborhood Associations vere notified of the rezoning request. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is located in the Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrict.The adopted Plan recommends Commercial for thesiteandtheadjacentpropertiesextendingwesttothe intersection of Chicot and Mabelvale Cut-Off.There has been no neighborhood action plan for the area south of Mabelvale Cut-Off,east of Chicot Road.The C-3 zoning request conforms to the Land Use Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,.5 acre lot from R-2 Single Family to C-3 General Commercial.Once rezoned,the lot will be developed to provide additional parking for Singleton Electric Company, located on the C-3 zoned property adjacent to the east. Although the predominate use in the larger area is single- family,uses in the more immediate vicinity are more varied. The C-3 zoned property adjacent to the east is occupied by two buildings,one containing a tutoring service and one containing the applicant'electrical contractor'office. A large,undeveloped,wooded tract is adjacent to the west. A YMCA summer day camp and a single family home are located across Mabelvale Cut-Off to the north.Two single family homes,one being a single-wide manufactured home,are located south of the site. The site falls within a commercial node established by the Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan for the intersection of Chicot Road and Mabelvale Cut-Off.The C-3 zoning request conforms to the adopted Plan.There has been no neighborhood action plan prepared for this area south of Mabelvale Cut-Off east of Chicot Road. 2 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6716 Development of the site must conform to the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances,whether the site is developed as surface parking or a building is constructed to provide secured parking for the applicant's vehicles. The C-3 zoning recpxest conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan and is compatible with uses and zoning in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the recpxested C-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) The applicant,Tim Singleton,was present.There were two objectors present.A letter of support had been received from Mike and Amy Chastain,owners of the adjacent propertyat7321MabelvaleCut-Off.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Tim Singleton addressed the Commission is support of his rezoning recpxest.Mr.Singleton stated that he had 7 trucks and that was able to park 4 of them in his building at night.He stated that he needed more room,including a place to park his remaining trucks. Rob MacGregor,of 41 Rob Roy Way,spoke in opposition. Mr.MacGregor expressed concern about traffic on the site around the Lawson Tutoring Center,located on the front half of Mr.Singleton'current site.Mr.MacGregor commented that Singleton Electric and Lawson Tutoring were the only businesses located on the south side of Mabelvale Cut-Off, east of Chicot.He stated that he would like to see a privacy fence between the site and adjacent residential properties.Mr.MacGregor read from a letter of opposition from the Rob Roy Neighborhood Association.(Staff did not receive a copy of the letter.) Donald Riggin,of 7201 Mabelvale Cut-Off,spoke to the Commission.Mr.Riggin identified a private driveway located adjacent to and west of the property proposed for rezoning.He stated that he wanted it made clear that Mr.Singleton did not have a right to use that driveway. 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6716 Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff,addressed the driveway issue.He stated that the gravel driveway in cgxestion was not a public right-of-way but appeared to be an easement of some sort across the adjacent property to provide access to properties to the rear of Mr.Singleton'.Mr.Carney stated that use of the gravel driveway was an issue that needed to be resolved by Mr.Singleton,the affected landowner and the neighbors but that it was not an issue for the Commission to be involved in at this time.He suggested that the persons involved review deed records available at the County Court House to determine the status of and any restrictions regarding the driveway. Commissioner Hawn noted that existing city regulations will address landscaping,screening and buffering of the site when it is developed. A motion was made to approve the recgxested C-3 zoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 4 September 2,1999 l ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:LU99-14-01 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Spring East Planning District Location:9101 Lew Drive Receuest:Multifamily to Mixed Office Commercial and Commercial Source:Jeffrey K.Carmack PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Spring East Planning District from Multifamily (MF)to Mixed Office Commercial (MOC).MOC provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur.Acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial.A Planned Zoning District (PZD)is requirediftheuseismixedofficeandcommercial. The application was expanded to include an area across Lew Drive to acknowledge an existing commercial use.This expanded area is proposed to change from multi Family to Commercial.The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesales of products,personal and professional services,and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on the trade area they serve.With these changes,the MOC & Commercial land use area to the north will extend to the south to include the applicant's property. The applicant desires to use the property for wholesale and storage operations. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately .59+acres in size. A church occupies the neighboring property to the north in an R-2 zone.Five quad-plex apartment buildings sit on the property to the south in an R-5 zone.A mobile home park occupies the R-2 zone to the east.Across the street slightly to the northwest sits a warehouse in a C-3 zone to the west. September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-14-01 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The current land use designation of the applicant's propertyisMultifamily(MF).Multifamily land uses lie directly to the south.MOC uses lie to the north of the applicant' property.A Low-Density Residential (LDR)area sits immediately to the east.The Multifamily land use designation covers the mostly vacant property across the street to the west. On September 1,1998,a change was made from LDR to C at 4201 Baseline Rd.and Reck Rd. On September 16,1997,a change was made from SF to MF at 3615 —3706 American Manor Dr. MASTER STREET PLAN: Lew Drive is shown as a local street on the plan and has curb and gutter on both sides.Baseline Rd.is a five-lane street and is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. PARKS: The Master Parks Plan does not show parks in the immediate area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property is located inside the area covered by the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan.The Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan is an item on the agenda for the September 2,1999 Planning Commission meeting.There are not any Land Use Plan changes scheduled as part of the neighborhood plan process.This plan change does conform to the goals of economic development in the neighborhood. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property contains an existing commercial building in a developed area.The multi-family market in this area is marginal,as evidenced by the mostly vacant structures along Crenshaw and Lew Drives.In addition, apartments have not been built on the vacant property in the commercially zoned Multifamily land use area directly across the street to the west.A change to MOC would recognize 2 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-14-01 the existing structure and attaches the applicant's property to the MOC land use area immediately to the north.This category of MOC does require a PZD if not wholly office. This will allow for adjacent property owners and occupants to review zoning changes. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:O.U.R.Neighborhood Association,Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association,Windamere Neighborhood Association,and Woodland Ridge Property Owners Association. Staff has received one comment from an area resident that was neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate.Chances for redevelopment of this site for multi-family uses are small. The use of an existing commercial-built building is the best use for this piece of property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion was made for approval of the agenda as read and to include agreements between the city and applicants.The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:LU99-16-03 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning District Location:12805 Interstate 30 R~eest:Single Family to Light Industrial Source:Capital Truck Service,Inc. PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District from Single-Family (SF)to Light Industrial (LI).LI land use category provides for light warehouse,distribution or storage uses,and/or other industrial uses that are developed in a well designed "park like"setting.The applicant proposes to use the property for trucking logistics and parking. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include all of the land between the railroad tracks and the Park/Open Space (PK/OS) to the north and south of the applicant.Part of the expanded area to the southwest is an area of I-2 zoning which would be consistent with the Light Industrial category. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately 6.9+acres in size.The current use is a trucking company. The McClellan Optimist go-cart racetrack occupies the neighboring property to the north and lies in an R-2 zone. The property to the south and east consists of vacant land in a large R-2 zone.A vacant I-2 zone lies immediately to the west of the applicant's property.A little further to the northwest is an OS zone. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The applicant'property sits in a SF land use area.LI & PK/OS land split the neighboring land to the north.Land on both the south and east side of the applicant'property lie September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-03 in a large SF land use area.The property immediately to the west is split by SF &PK/OS land uses. October 6,1998,A change was made from CS to C south at the northeast corner of the I-30/I-430 interchange. On November 4,1997,various (26)changes took place near I- 30 and I-430. On August 5,1997,a change was from MF to SF south of Baseline Rd east of Wimbledon Loop. On July 1,1997,a change was made from CS to C at 12024 I- 30 north to Otter Creek Rd. On July 1,1997,a change was made from SF to PK/OS,NC to MH,and MCI to MH along Stagecoach Rd. On April 2,1996,a change was made from MF to SF at Otter Creek Pkwy near Walnut Circle. On March 19,1996,a change was made from PK/OS to I to the Northeast of Vimy Ridge Rd.&Alexander Rd. MASTER STREET PLAN: I-30 is shown on the Master Street Plan as a freeway.The applicant's property is located at the end off,and accessed by,a private drive extending south from the frontage road on the south side of I-30.The private drive is located west of Vimy Ridge Road that is a collector street running north and south.No new roads are proposed for the area by the Master Street Plan. PARKS: The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed parks in the area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The area covered by the application is located in the area covered in the Chicot West I-30 South neighborhood action plan.The neighborhood action plan supported the establishment of the LI land uses area to the south and westoftheJacuzziplant.The Economic Development goal of"Attract more light industrial uses to the area"would be met by this expansion of an existing business. 2 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-03 ANALYSIS: The applicant'property is located in a developing rural area in the southwest corner of the city.Heavy commercial properties,large open spaces (drainage ways and floodways), and a manufacturing facility characterize the development in this area between the railroad and I-30.The access to the area is through industrial and commercial properties.It is unlikely residential development will cross the railroad from the south.The railroad tracks are elevated above the natural terrain,but would not screen the buildings and/or trucks from any possible residential uses to the south.The area south of the railroad and north of Alexander Road is heavily wooded.Currently,there is ample buffer to the homes on Alexander,but if residential uses continued north off Alexander,buffering this use and the railroad tracks could become an issue. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,Otter Creek Homeowners Association,Quail Run Neighborhood Association,Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association,and Chicot West I-30 South Neighborhood Plan —Norm Floyd.Staff has received one comment from Quail Run Neighborhood Association which was neutral at the time of printing. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate.The railroad tracks are likely to serve as a barrier to prevent residential development from the south.The applicant's use of the property is compatible to the Light Industrial uses to the northeast. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion was made for approval of the agenda as read and to include agreements between the city and applicants.The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 3 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:LU99-17-03 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Crystal Valley Planning District Location:Corner of Hammond Road and Crystal Valley Road geest:Single Family to Mixed Use Source:Ricky A.&Rebecca M.Caldwell PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District from Single Family (SF)to Mixed Use (MX).MX category provides for a mixture of residential,office and commercial uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District (PZD)is required if the use is entirely office or commercial oriftheuseisamixtureofthethree.The applicant proposes to build an upholstery repair use on the property in addition to a dwelling. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the entirety of the applicant's property to the west bounded by Crystal Valley Hammond Roads.This change would recognize the existing uses of the applicant's property (a residential use and the upholstery shop). EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately .43+acres in size.The current use is an automotive upholstery shop on the expanded area to the west.The original tract to the east is vacant. All of the land immediately adjacent to the applicant's property lies in an R-2 zone.The R-2 area north and south of the applicant'property contains large open spaces with large lot residences.Manufactured homes on large lots occupy the R-2 land to the east.Even larger open areasfilltheR-2 zone across Crystal Valley Rd.to the west.A large CUP occupies the R-2 zone west of the applicant's property for the Crystal Valley Baptist Church. September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-17-03 Further to the north,0-2,0-3,and I-2 zoning covers large areas near the intersection of Crystal Valley and Lawson Road. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The applicant's property is located in,and surrounded by,Single Family land uses.To the north,a Public Institutional (PI)land use area lies on both sides of Crystal Valley Road at the intersection of Crystal valley and Lawson Road. On June 1,1999,a change was made from SF to NC west of Sullivan Rd.on Lawson Rd. On February 4,1992,various changes were made on Col.Glenn Rd.and SF to LI,LI&SF to I,SF to NS,SF to 0 &MF,SF toPI,NS to PI at Lawson Rd.and Crystal Valley Rd. MASTER STREET PLAN: Hamond Rd.is not shown on the plan but is considered alocalstreet.Lawson Rd.is shown as a Minor Arterial running east &west.Crystal Valley Rd.is shown as a Principal Arterial running north —south and is part of the proposed outer loop. PARKS: The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed parks in this area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: There are no city recognized neighborhood action plans inthisarea. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property lies in a rural area outside citylimitsbutinsidetheExtraTerritorialJurisdiction(ETJ)line.A change to MX will introduce an intensification of uses in an area characterized by rural residential development.The zoning to recognize the existing upholstery shop was not changed at the time of the ETJ establishment. 2 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-17-03 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Crystal Valley Property Owners Association and Plantation House Homeowners Association.Staff has received 13 comments from area residents.11 are in support and one is neutral.Crystal Valley Neighborhood Associations is supportive of the change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has requested to be deferred to the September 30,1999 Planning Commission meeting.Staff supports this deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 30,1999 meeting.The motion was made for approval of the agenda as read and to include agreements between the city and applicants.The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:LU99-20-01 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Pinnacle Planning District Location:17600 &17800 Cantrell Rd R~eeat:Office aod Commercial to Mixed Office Commercial Source:Ranch Properties,Inc. PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Office (0)&Commercial (C)to Mixed Office and Commercial (MOC).The MOC land use category provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur.Acceptable uses area office or mixed office and commercial.A Planned Zoning District is required for any development not whollyoffice.The applicant stated Mixed Office and Commercial Development on the application as the proposed use of the property. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The application covers two separate pieces of property. The west tract of property is currently zoned 0-2 and is approximately 35.8+acres in size.The east tract of property is currently zoned C-2 and is approximately 30 + acres in size. A vacant tract of C-2 located on Ranch Drive separates the applicant'two pieces of property.The mostly vacant property to the north consists of MF-18,R-2,and two PCD zoning districts.Professional offices occupy one PCD while the Leisure Arts office campus occupies the other.A stripofOSzoningontheCantrellRdfrontageofbothproperties separates the applicant'properties from the C-3,0-1,and R-2 zones to the south. A church lies in the R-2 zone to the west.The open tract of land east of Ranch drive lies in a C-2 district. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The future land use designation for the western tract is Office.The land uses surrounding the western tract consist September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-20-01 Currently,the zoning of the two pieces of property correspond to the Land Use Plan;i.e.C-2 in Commercial and 0-2 in Office.Although a change to a less intense land uses may be desirable,intensification is not.A change from commercial land uses to MOC would recommend a less intense land use in the Commercial area.In contrast,a change from Office to MOC would recommend intensification of land uses in the area.Land use Plan changes that would recommend additional commercially zoned property is not a desirable effect in this area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association,and Westchester~Heatherbrae Property Owners Association.Staff has received three comments from area residents.One is in support,and the two neutrals are the Johnson Ranch and Westchester Neighborhood Associations. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the application as filed is not appropriateatthistime.Meetings have occurred to develop an agreement between the city and owners to limit the amount of acreage of commercially zoned property in their holdings.If an agreement can be reached to limit the acreage to the amount that they currently have,Staff'recommendation would be that the change would be appropriate.Until that time,Staff's opinion will be denial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2 g 1 999) This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion was made for approval of the agenda as read and to include agreements between the city and applicants.The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 3 September 2,1999 Item No.:6 Name:Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan In the summer of 1998,Planning Staff contacted O.U.R., Upper Baseline and Windamere neighborhood associations to determine interest in the development of a neighborhood action plan for the area.In the initial meeting,staff and representatives of the neighborhood associations defined the boundaries of the plan area.Once interest was established,city staff mailed surveys to addresses in the plan area. The committee was comprised of persons who responded to a survey mailed in August 1998,local business owners and representatives of the three neighborhood associations. The Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan area is bounded by I-30 to the north,the Fourche Creek to the east following the creek and the railroad tracks south to thecitylimitswhichisthesouthernboundaryandGeyerSpringsisthewesternboundary.Although some of the area is not"covered"by a neighborhood association,the threeassociationsrepresentasignificantportionofthearea. The committee began meeting in January 1999 and met on a bi- weekly basis.Informational meetings between committee members and city staff began the process with representatives of Economic Development,Housing and Neighborhood Programs,Planning and Development and Public Works.Once the informational meetings were completed,the committee members began the development of the goals,objectives and action statements.The results of the surveys and the "open-ended"responses to the survey questions proved beneficial in development.The committee members examined infrastructure needs identified in the survey in addition to the listing of infrastructure needs provided by Public Works. Since the majority of the area was developed prior to annexation by the City of Little Rock and without the current subdivision controls most of the infrastructure in the area is substandard.This includes streets,drainagestructures,sidewalks and water pressure.In addition notallresidentsarecurrentlyservedbythecity's sanitary sewer system.Funding is a major concern of the area not September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.) only for projects in their area but citywide as well. Several infrastructure and traffic control projects have been included in the plan but were not ranked in a priority order.This would allow the city more flexibility in implementation when monies become available.Health and safety issues are the primary concern in the area.Should funding become available to implement projects consideration should be given to these two items. The committee did however,rank three projects as the top three priorities:Construction of Scott Hamilton Road to a four lane roadway with sidewalks;sidewalks on Hilaro Springs Road;and a traffic signal at Baseline Road and Stanton Road.The action statements in the plan address the project limits of each project. The committee members were concerned with the decline of the area.According to Census data available for the area, there has been a steady decline in population over the past 20 years. Based on the survey results,45.89%of the area residentsfeltmoreowner-occupied housing was needed in the area. Upon review of the draft plan Housing and Neighborhood Programs indicated the need for increased and specifically defined goals to address housing needs.As a part of implementation a commitment will be to develop these more specifically defined goals.One suggestion is to work with various city departments and agencies to provide information to area residents on financing options to allow for increased homeownership in the area. The continuing decline of the area and the high number of non-conforming uses,which were in existence prior to the city annexing the area in 1985,should be examined in greater details A portion of the existing businesses,someofwhicharenon-conforming,are "good neighbors"and should be allowed to continue to operate.As a part of the implementation of the Action Plan the committee has determined an "in-depth"review of the future land use plan and the area zoning will be conducted.Property owners will then be contacted to encourage a change in the future land use plan designation and the "rezoning"of properties. During this process the committee will work for the development of a marketing strategy for their neighborhood. With the accomplishment of this tool the committee will 2 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.) begin actively pursuing new retail establishments,along with marketing to potential homeowners,why their area is a good place to live and work. After a draft plan was completed the committee held a Town Hall meeting at the Baseline Elementary School in July 1999. At this meeting the committee presented the goals,objectives and actions statements to other interestedparties.Based on comments received at the Town Hall meeting the committee formulated a revised draft to be forwarded to the city officials. The Upper Baseline Area Neighborhood Action Plan CommitteeispresentingtothePlanningCommissionandtheBoardofDirectorsadraftplanwithhopesthatitwillbesupported by resolution.Upon acknowledgement the committee will begin the process of implementation and working to maketheirgoals,objectives and action statements realities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution of support. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Donna James,planning staff,introduced the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan for endorsement by the Planning Commission.She briefly described the boundaries for the plan area and explained the process,which the neighborhood plan committee followed to achieve the presented plan.She then introduced the committee chairperson,Pat Gee. Ms.Gee,recognized staff for guidance and expressed to the commission that she found the process very informative.She brought attention to pages 17,18,20 and 22 of the plan. These pages,she explained,gave details about several issues that are extremely important to the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan committee including,construction of Scott Hamilton to a four-lane roadway with sidewalks along bothsides.She also stated that while the plan does not specifically say it,the neighborhood is not in support of additional manufactured housing in its area. 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.) Richard Downing,Planning Commissioner,asked if there were other members of the committee present.Ms.Gee stated that she was the only one present but had the support of the committee. Craig Berry,Planning Commissioner,asked the City Attorneyifthecitywasinvolvedinacaseregardingabsentee property owners.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney, stated that an ordinance would be presented to the City Board of Directors next week related to this.The Environmental Court would be used to enforce the new ordinance. Commissioner Berry asked staff if businesses were included in the survey.Staff responded in the affirmative. Hugh Earnest,Planning Commissioner Chairperson,asked about the rental inspection data.Staff informed him that they had requested the information from Housing and Neighborhood Programs in July and had not yet received the data. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution supporting the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan as submitted in Item ¹6.The item passed 10-0. 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARPHLNSAS IN SUPPORT OF THE UPPER BASELINE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN WHEREAS,the area residents and Neighborhood Associations formed a Planning Committee to develop a Neighborhood Plan;and WHEREAS,after several months of work by the Planning Committee,a set of goals,objectives and action statements wasdevelopedandpresentedataTownHallmeetingandwasalsodistributedtovariousgroupsandindividualsintheneighborhood;and WHEREAS,the residents and other "stakeholders"in the areaparticipatedintheTownHallmeetingtoidentifyadditionalissueswhichshouldbeincludedintheareaplan;and WHEREAS,the Plan (Goals,Objectives,and ActionStatements)provides a way for both neighborhood-based groupsandothersworkinginandaroundtheneighborhoodtoadvancethedesiresandmeettheneedsoftheresidents,property owners, and business owners. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,AEUCANSAS. SECTION 1.The Planning Commission of the City of LittleRockdoessupportthevisionandgoalsasexpressedintheUpperBaselineActionPlan. ADOPTED: ATTEST: SECRETARY CHAIRMAN September 2,1999 ITEMS NO.:7 AND 8 NAME:College Station Land Use Plan Amendments and Extraterritorial Zoning STAFF REPORT In March of 1997,the College Station community was hit by a tornado and experienced significant damage.As part of theefforttorebuildCollegeStation,a federal grant was awarded to construct a community sewer system.Because of the grant,College Station made a request to the City ofLittleRocktoextendsewerserviceoutsidethecitylimitstoservethecommunity.(The grant requires the area to be served to remain unincorporated and not part of the City ofLittleRock.)In the fall of 1997,the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended extending the City's sewer service to College Station.Included in the Planning Commission's action was a recommendation to extend the City's zoning jurisdiction to College Station to ensure that the redevelopment of community would not overtax the sanitary sewer system.Final action by the Board ofDirectorstoextendthezoningdidnotoccuruntilOctober 1998 (Resolution No.10,376).The delay was due to a numberofissuesandfinalapprovalofthecontractbetweenthe City of Little Rock,the College Station Sewer ImprovementDistrict,and Pulaski County. Ten years ago,the City of Little Rock expressed the intent, by resolution,to extend zoning to three areas in the City' planning area.Two of the defined areas,on the western edge of the City,were zoned within several years after passage of the resolution.The third area,Area III,which includes College Station,has never been zoned.In 1996,afailedattemptwasmadetoextendzoningjurisdictiontoallofAreaIII.The process was initiated because a group of College Station residents had submitted a petition requesting zoning protection for the community.All of AreaIIIwasincludedintheeffortbecauseofthe1989 resolution.There was strong opposition from property owners throughout the area and the Board of Directors denied the ordinance zoning Area III.(Because the current effort only involves the College Station community,another resolution was needed to define the new area for zoning.) September 2,1999 I ITEMS NO.:7 AND 8 (Cont.) In December 1998,Staff met with the College Station Community Redevelopment Coalition to begin the process of zoning College Station.The Coalition is made-up of representatives from five community organizations and theyare: ~College Station Community Development Corporation ~Progressive League ~Watershed Project ~College Station Credit Union ~Sewer Improvement District In addition to the regular meetings of the Coalition,two community meetings were held.One was with major property owners and business interests.The other one was for all property owners. As part of the process to extend zoning to College Station,the Coalition first reviewed the future land use plan forthecommunity,the College Station-Sweet Home District Plan.This effort also included reviewing the College Station Recovery Plan,a document developed after the tornado by the community and a team of consultants.The plan included areviewofexistingconditions,community goals,housing needs,planning concepts and recommended actions.TheCoalitionfelttheplanprovidedagoodframeworkfor developing changes to the land use plan and zoning the community.The recovery plan provided some concepts for strengthening College Station'identity and creating asenseofcommunity. The review of the land use plan resulted in a number of recommended changes,some minor,and others moresignificant.The proposed amendments to the plan are asfollows: 1.Reducing the commercial area in the vicinityofBankheadDriveandE.34 Street.2.Eliminating the multi-family along Bankhead Drive and changing a number of blocks for low-density residential.3.Creating a mixed-use node at Bankhead Drive and East 37 Street —includes the site oftheformerhealthclinic. 2 September 2,1999 ITEMS NO.:7 AND 8 (Cont.) 4.Changing one block at Bankhead Drive and East 30 to public institutional,an existing church. 5.Park open space to public institutional for land south of the elementary school. 6.Commercial to mixed use and low density residential on the south side of Frazier Pike. 7.Commercial to multi-family,on the south side of Frazier Pike —location of an existing nursing home. 8.Single Family,multi-family and commercial to mixed use on the north side of Frazier Pike. 9.Multi-family and commercial to low density residential,north of Frazier Pike and adjacent to commercial and mixed use areas. 10.Park open space to public institutional— location of the new community center and health clinic. 11.Public institutional to park and open space on the north side of Frazier Pike. 12.Commercial to mixed use on the north side of Frazier Pike and the western edge of the "commercial"blocks on Frazier Pike. 13.Commercial to single family on both sides of 3M Road and west of Frazier Pike. 14.Single family to public institutional,thesiteofafuturechurch. (See accompanying sketch for exact locations of proposed changes and numbers correspond to those on the map.) And finally,there is an area south of Frazier Pike and east of Jones Street,within the city limits,currently shown on the plan as agricultural.The current development patternisprimarilyresidential,which has been reinforced by the platting of the Apple Blossom Subdivision.It is recommended that this area be amended from agricultural to single family. From the very beginning,the coalition agreed that both the land use plan and zoning needed to reinforce College Station as a residential community.Therefore,the proposed zoning for a large percentage of the area is R3 Single Family.R3 has a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet,which is consistent with the existing platting in College Station. 3 September 2,1999 ITEMS NO.:7 AND 8 (Cont.) The purpose and intent section for R3 states the"....district is established in order to provide an appropriate district for existing developed areas occupied by smaller scale single family housing while at the same time maintaining reasonable standards of light,are and similar amenities for living."Also,R3 allows two-family residences (duplex)as a conditional use which appears to be an appropriate density for infill development in College Station. In addition to strengthening the community's residential character,the coalition also wanted to re-establish Frazier Pike as the "town center"or commercial core.(The recovery plan mentions that "the historic heart of College StationliesalongafourblockstretchofFrazierPike.") Currently,there are a number of established nonresidential uses along Frazier Pike and the recommendation is to zone eight of these sites as part of this process.The suggesteddistrictsareMF18,C1,and 01.The proposed rezonings on Frazier Pike are in conformance with new land use plan and recognize existing uses.The zoning plan also recommends that an existing commercial use at East 33 and Bankhead Drive be zoned C3.It appears that some of the property is currently in the city limits and classified C3;both the current and new plan recommend commercial for the location. Throughout the process,there were two overriding factors the coalition,the planning committee,kept on the table when making decisions and they were: ~Preserve and reinforce College Station as a residential neighborhood;and ~Strengthen Frazier Pike as the community's commercial core or "Town Center". The Coalition feels that the proposed land use changes and zoning are consistent with the two points listed above,twoofthecommunity's primary objectives. In addition to zoning the College Station area,there is a strip of land situated directly north of I-440 that is outside the city limits and not zoned at this time.This acreage was included in the 1998 resolution and needs to be zoned through this current effort.The land is undevelopable and a significant percentage is either in the 4 September 2,1999 ITEMS NO.:7 AND 8 (Cont.) floodplain and floodway.To be consistent with otherextraterritorialzoningandtheCollegeStationzoning,itisrecommendedthatthisacreagebezonedR2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the land use plan amendments and the proposed zoning plan for College Station and the R2 zoning for the land area adjacent to I-440. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Staff informed the Planning Commission that there were no outstanding issues and the items were placed on the Consent Agenda.There were no objectors present.The Commission voted to recommend approval of the land use plan amendments, the zoning plan for College Station and the R-2 zoning for the area adjacent to I-440.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 5 t A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK TO ZONE THE COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY LOCATED WITHIN THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING JURISDICTION. WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock has authority to zone property within 3 miles of the city limits under revised Arkansas Statute 19-2829;and WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock wishes to have orderly and compatible growth within areas adjacent to the City which could become part of the City of Little Rock;and WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock Board of Directors by Resolution No.8,170,passed on June 20,1989,expressed the City's intent to zone this area adjacent to the City;and WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock is preparing to extend sanitary sewer service into the College Station Community;and WHEREAS,the Little Rock Planning Commission,after conducting a public hearing,recommended approval of the extension of sewer service to College Station subject to the implementation of zoning for the area to receive sewer service. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SECTION 1.That the City of Little Rock intends to exercise the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance within the area of the College Station Community located within the Little Rock Planning Boundary and shown on the attached map described as Exhibit ".A." ADOPTED:October 6 1998 ATTEST:APPROVED: s/Robbie Hancock s/Jim Daile City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: g/rXom-Carpenter City Attorney September 2,1999 e Item No.:9 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Downtown District geest:Adopt New Plan for Downtown STAFF REPORT: A citizen committee was formed to review the City's Plans for Downtown.This committee worked as four subcommittees to develop general proposals for the future of Downtown in four geographic areas:Capitol (West),Central Business District (Office Core),MacArthur (East)and East of I-30. These groups developed similar concepts;thus one committee was formed out of the four.From their work the Framework for the Future was developed,this document has been presented to the Commission and recommended. The Framework of the Future recommended that the City Land Use Plan be modified.This item is the first step in that process.Three changes are requested to bring the Land Use Plan into line with the recommendations of the Framework for the Future.First,a new land use category is proposed. This category is meant to help create a more traditional urban development form.The exact use is not as important as the design.Pedestrian friendly design and 24-hour activity are important elements.A mix of uses is desirable.The new category would be MXU —"Mixed Use- Urban."The proposed category is as follows: Mixed Use —Urban:This category provides for a mix of residential,office and commercial uses not only in the same block but within the same structure.This category is intended for older "urban"areas to allow dissimilar uses to exist, which support each other to create a vital area. Development should reinforce the urban fabric creating a 24-hour activity area.Using the Planned Zoning District or the Urban Use District, high and moderate density developments that result in a vital (dense)pedestrian oriented area are appropriate. The second change to the Land Use Plan is a complete change of the plan map for District 5 —Downtown.This is an area from the Arkansas River south to I-630 and from the Missouri September 2,1999 ITEMS NO.:9 (Cont.) Pacific Rail Line east to I-30.(The current classifications date to 1980.)In this area the new land use classifications would be as shown on the attached sketch and described here. The entire district,except those areas described below, would be shown as the new "MXU"—Mixed Use —Urban category. The following areas would be Public Institutional (PI) State Capitol area —west of Woodlane and south of 3'treets;the Federal Buildings —Capital Avenue to 4 Street,Arch Street west to State Street,and City/County Buildings —Broadway/Markham area. The following areas would be shown as Low Density Residential (LDR):6 Street to 9 "Street from Ferry to Cumberland;and 9 to I-630 from Commerce to alley between Scott and Cumberland. The following areas would be shown as Park/Open Space (PK/OS):MacArthur Park —9 Street to I-630, McAlmont to Commerce;and Riverfront Park-Arkansas River to Little Rock and Western Railroad Spur. In addition,the northern portion of the I-30 District fromI-30 to John and Arkansas River to 3 Street is changed to Public Institutional from Industrial (the Presidential Library site)and from 3'treet to 9 Street I-30 to College is changed to Mixed Use —Urban from Industrial and Transition. The third change to the Land Use Plan is a complete replacement of the text for the Downtown District.The new text is from the Framework of the Future.It is basically the vision statement and goals/objectives.The new text would be as follows: DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPALS: Downtown should become a place where people want to live and visit and should have a lasting and recognizable image,distinguishable from all other nearby environments. Because it is the State Capitol and proud symbol of a metropolitan area,Downtown Little Rock has many opportunities.Downtown should be the financial, office and governmental center of the region and as 2 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.) such should be planned as a place where people live,visit and work in a safe,vibrant,pedestrian-friendly environment. The built environmental should encourage a sense of community and safety among residents and visitors. Downtown should be planned to become a place of 24-hour activity.These general planning goals should be reinforced by such urban design and planning interventions as the following: ~Specify land uses for entertainment and residential use. ~Preserve and reuse existing buildings. ~Capitalize on the Presidential Library as an economic development tool. ~Provide an effective transportation plan with a variety of modes. ~Provide landscaping throughout the area. ~Utilize the Presidential Library as a regional educational resource center. ~Develop streetscaping plans designed for specific needs in designated areas. ~Develop a means to encourage property owners to reinvest in Downtown. ~Work with Federal,State and County governments to ensure the success of the vision. ~Specify land uses that will encourage the development of a niche for retail activities. ~Encourage a built form of quality architectural styles that evoke character. ~Preserve civic and historic heritage. ~Recognize the riverfront as a key urban activity generator. protected by,requiring structures be built to thestreetwithstreetlevelactivityandvisualconnection between the street and interior. Action Statement:Modify the development standards to encourage higher density development and zero lot line construction.Modify parking regulations (number of spaces,screening,etc.) 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.) Special design studies should be undertaken and regulations implemented for streets and corridors of community-wide importance. R —" transit system is needed.An investment must be made in a fixed transit system for Downtown that effectively connects the different parts of Downtown and moves people within that area. Action Statement:Build a transit infrastructure— fixed routes to serve the Downtown and immediate vicinity. R —" and successful Downtown.Because the Downtown residential area has lost most of its residential units,the City of Little Rock must invest in downtown housing to assist in reviving the area thereby creating housing opportunities for high as well as moderate- income levels. Action Statement:Create development and use incentives for owner occupied,market rate rental,and affordable rental residential developments in Downtown. R —" most cities a quasi-public agency does this work.The City must establish (with Downtown property owners)an agency to advance the economic development of Downtown. Action Statement:Development a quasi-public downtown development agency to market and assist with the implementation of projects. developments should be mixed use and linked. Action Statement:Using the Framework for the Future document as a reference,establish consensus among quasi-public,City,County,and State entities regarding the vision of Downtown.Implement strategies conducive to the objectives of the established vision. Assist only developments that conform to the Framework guidelines. 4 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.) LAND USE: Residential: The blocks,north and west of MacArthur Park,in the southeast corner of the District are designated as Low Density Residential (LDR).Within this area,north of Ninth Street is predominately Multifamily with some Single Family while south of Ninth Street is predominately Single Family with some Multifamily. Mixed Use: The majority of the district is designated for Mixed Use Urban.The uses range from high-rise office buildings to single family homes.The intent is to create a vital diverse area,which is pedestrian- friendly. Parks and Open Space: Riverfront Park runs along the Arkansas River along the northeast portion of the district boundary.MacArthur Park,the City's first municipal park established in 1892 is in the southeast corner of the district. Public/Institutional: The State Capitol and related buildings are designated as Public Use,in the western end of the district.The Federal Buildings between Capitol Ave.and 4 Street from State to Arch Streets are also designated Public Use.The third Public Use area is the County and City Buildings along Markham Street around Broadway. These changes to the City Land Use Plan will begin the implementation of the Framework for the Future already reviewed by the Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 5 September 2,1999 ITEMS NO.:9 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Because of the changes proposed by this item,the Commission asked that the item be deferred to allow more time for reviewing the proposal.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to September 16,1999.By a vote of 10 for 0 against (Commissioner Adcock absent)the item was deferred. 6 September 2,1999 Item No.:10 Z-6730 through Z-6737 Owner:Various ss — 'ocation:Cross to College,Arkansas River to 15 Street ~Re est:Rezone from various in the Downtown area Pureose:Encourage a more urban,pedestrian oriented development pattern of mixed uses. STAFF REPORT: As part of the Framework for the Future (Downtown)review, alternative development standards were viewed as necessary.The desire was to achieve a development pattern which was more urban and pedestrian oriented.After discussion the committee reviewing downtown decided a new zone classification was necessary to allow and encourage "urban","pedestrian friendly" development.A draft ordinance was prepared which attempted to address the issues raised by the committee.The draft was made a part of the committee's final work —the Framework for the Future. The basic tenant was,use should not be a major issue as long asitisinsideanddoesnotadverselyaffecttheneighbors.Other important issues are described below.Buildings should be on the street with surface parking limited and only to the rear or side. Sidewalks and streets should encourage pedestrian activity and movement.Residential should be allowed everywhere,with MacArthur Park residential protected.There should be a unique urban feel to downtown with pedestrian friendly buildings andstreets. A second committee (three Planning Commissioners,three property owners,three representatives of Downtown Groups (Downtown Partnership,Downtown Neighborhood Association,MacArthur park Residents Association)and a representative of the League of Women Voters)reviewed the concepts developed by the Framework for the Future committee and a new draft ordinance was developed. September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 The second committee surveyed property owners to get their reactions to the concepts.These comments were discussed prior to formation of a draft ordinance.In late spring 1999,a draft ordinance was distributed to property owners for comment. In order to achieve the recommendations of the Framework for the Future committee and Downtown Zoning Committee,three primary actions are needed:addition of new zone district(s), reclassification of areas to the new district(s),and repeal of the Zoning Plan for Central Little Rock Urban Renewal Project. Based on the work of the Downtown Zoning Committee,two zone classifications are proposed for addition to the Zoning Ordinance.They are Urban Use and Low Density Residential. Urban Use District is designed for "older"established commercial or business districts or for area where pedestrian oriented development which is mixed in nature is desired.The Low Density Residential District is patterned after the City's "R-4"Two Family District and Capitol Zoning's "M"Residential District. This district allows for a variety of residential uses and some nonresidential use (as a conditional use).The pattern reflects the existing mix and tries to capture the things liked about Capitol Zoning over the city's regulations. This change requires additions to the definitions section,height and area exception section,districts established section, exception/modifications (zoning buffer)section as well as adding the two new classifications.The attached outline has the proposed changes and wording for the new districts. Once the new districts are part of the ordinance,the recommendation of both committees is to rezone the Downtown area under city zoning regulations to one of the two districts.ThatistheareabetweenCrossStreet east to I-30 and the Arkansas River to I-630 would be the Urban Use District except for Riverfront Park and an area around MacArthur Park.The two Parks would be zoned Open Space (OS).The area between 6 and 9~ Streets,Ferry to Cumberland and 9 Street to I-630,Commerce to Scott north and west of MacArthur Park would be zoned Low Density Residential (see attached sketch map). The final change is to remove the Zoning Plan for Central Little Rock Urban Renewal Project from the zoning code.This portion of the zoning code is over thirty years old and has proven to be difficult for staff to use and explain.Having Downtown zones be 2 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 part of the basic zoning code for the entire city is seen as more desirable and workable. In order to ease the change to the 'new classifications,staff has offered to grant C.U.P.'s with the zone change.These C.U.P. requests will be included as an addendum to allow property owners more time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval ADDENDUM CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR NEW DOWNTOWN ZONING STAFF REPORT: As part of the downtown rezoning effort,property owners were given the opportunity to request conditional use permits.This was done in an attempt to reduce the number of nonconforming uses which might otherwise have occurred.The idea is to allow existing uses to continue to operate as legal uses,if at allpossible. In the letters to property owners,they were given the option of providing a legal description and letter asking for a conditional use.Eight request were received and are described below: Z-6370-A Southwest Hotels,C.U.P.for lots 1-12 Block 292 and 1-3 Block 260 Original City.This is an area which currently has"I-2"Light Industrial zoning.The C.U.P.is for an existing warehouse use and expansion on to lots 10-12 Block 292 Original City using similar construction materials.This is the block between Capitol/4 Street and Cross/Ringo Streets.The C.U.P. further allows for a commercial surface parking lot on lots 1-3 Block 260 Original City.This would replace a lot on lots 10-12 Block 292 Original City.This is the block between Capitol/4 and Ringo/Chester.Both exchanges would be on 4 Street.The C.U.P.allows "I-2"uses and expansion of the use as noted. Z-6730-B Arkansas Graphics,for lots 1-12 Block 175 Original City.Arkansas Graphics currently occupies half of this block 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 and plans to expand into the other half.The area is currently zoned "I-2"Light Industrial.The existing use does not require a C.U.P.in the Urban Use District.The proposed addition may. The addition is to be located on 9 Street.The site is between 8 /9 Streets and State/Gaines Streets.The C.U.P.allows "I-2" uses and the expansion noted. Z-6731-A,Heartland C.U.P.for lots 1-12 Block 13 Original City. This area is currently zoned "GB"General Business and "HR"High Density residential.The site is located between I-630/13 Street and Main-Scott Streets.The business is in place.The request is to allow "I-2"uses on this block. Z-6732-A,McElroy C.U.P.for lots 1-12 Block 9 Rectortown Addition.This area is currently zoned "I-2"Light Industrial. The site is located between I-30/Collins and 4 /Capitol Avenue. There is an existing industrial use.The request is to allow"I-2"uses on this block. Z-6732-B,Hayre C.U.P.for lots 7-9 Block 12 Rectortown Addition. The current zoning is "I-2"Light Industrial.The site is the northwest corner of 6 and Collins.The use is Industrial.The request is to continue the current use,which includes outside storage of materials.The owner also cannot meet the opening requirements and is planning further renovations to the structure,which will not meet this requirement.The owner wishes to continue operations at this site and requires these modifications —"I-2"uses and above modifications as noted on these urban use lots. Z-6734-A,Poe C.U.P.for lots 4-5 Block 44 Original City.The current zoning is "HR"High Density residential.The site is in the 900 Block of Cumberland.The office use is existing.The request is to allow "C-1"uses on these R-4A lots. Z-6734-B,Strehn C.U.P.for southeast corner of Trapnell Block in Stevenson'Addition.The current zoning is "HR"High Density Residential.The site is the northwest corner of 6 and Sherman.This is a multifamily structure with office use as well as residential.The request is to allow "C-1"uses on this R-4Alot. Z-6734-C,2"Baptist C.U.P.for the West 4 lots 4-6 Block 42 Original City.The current zoning is "HR"High Density residential.The site is the northeast corner of 8 and 4 September 2,1999 I ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 Cumberland Streets.The use is for religious education and related uses.The request is to allow "C-1"uses on these R-4A lots. Z-6734-D,Hundley C.U.P.for lots 1-3 Block 44 Original City. The current zoning is "HR"High Density Residential.The site is the southeast corner of 9 and Cumberland.The owner is requesting Multifamily and "C-1"neighborhood uses based on existing and surrounding uses. Z-6735-A,Parkview Towers C.U.P.for parts of Blocks 56 and 57 Original City.The current zoning is "HR"High Density Residential.The site is located 1200 Cumberland.The use is a elderly retired housing with 128 units.The request is for a conditional use permit for Multifamily. Z-6732-C,Meyer C.U.P,for lots 1-6 Block 8 Rectortown and lots1-6 Block 3 Woodruff's Addition.The current zoning is "I-2" Light Industrial.The site is located between Collins/Byrd and 6 /7 Streets.The existing use is Commercial and Industry. The request is for "I-2"uses on these Urban Use lots. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Because of the changes proposed by this item,the Commission asked that this item be deferred to allow for more time to review the proposal.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to September 16,1999.By a vote of 10 for,0 against (Commissioner Adcock absent),the item was deferred. 5 I Zonin Ordinance chan es: I)Amend Section 36-2 Definitions —adding: Drive Through —means an establishment which by design of physical facilities or by the type of service offered,the customer conducts business from a motor vehicle. Pedestrian 'urban'riented —means a development pattern designed at a human (pedestrian)scale and orientation.This includes provision of visual items of interest for the pedestrian --window displays,streetscape amenities. Integral accessory use —means an outdoor or partially enclosed use area,which is an integral part directly servicing in a subordinate role a permitted interior use. Build-to-line —means the line where the exterior facade of a building is to be located excluding any projections. Commercial surface parking lot —means a surface parking lot,which has spaces for lease or sale on a daily,monthly or annual basis. II)Amend Article III,Section 36-156.Height and area exceptions —Changing R-4 to R-4A in paragraph 2c.as follows: "Accessory buildings or structures in the R-1 through R-4A districts..." III)Amend Article IV,Section 36-176.Districts established— adding: R-4A low density residential district UU urban use district IV)Amend Article V,Section 36-337.Districts —adding: R-4A low density residential district UU urban use district V)Remove Article Vl Sections 36-401 through 36-418-Zoning Plan for Central Little Rock Urban Renewal Project. I I Vl)Amend Section 36-524.Exceptionslmodifications (zoning buffers)—adding: (11)Developments within the Urban Use (UU)District shall provide land use buffers only where abutting single-family and duplex use or zoning.Street buffers shall not be required. Land Use buffer.All sites developed.Modified or enlarged shall provide a land use buffer(s)as follows: 1.Side property lines at five (5)percent of the average width of the lot on both sides; 2.Rear property lines at five (5)percent of the average depth of the lot; 3.The minimum dimension shall be six (6)feet in all instances; 4.The maximum dimension required shall be forty (40)feet in all instances. Vll)Adding two new Zone Districts to Article V District Regulations —Urban Use (UU)and Low Density Residential (R- 4A) SECTION .URBAN USE DISTRICT (a)General Purpose and Intent.The Urban Use district established by this chapter is designed to assure the continuation of development consistent with a traditional urban form.The Urban Use district is designed to help create a compact,dense,distinguishable core area.The district is established in order to provide for an urban form allowing mid-rise and high rise structures.This District is to provide for the office,civic and business core of the City.Structures within the Urban Use district are encouraged to provide multiple uses within the same structure.The ground or street level of structures should include street oriented activity and pedestrian amenities.The resulting area is to be pedestrian 'urban'riented. (b)Application of Regulations.The regulations of this District shall apply to new development,redevelopment,expansion of existing development or exterior modifications.Routine repairs and maintenance shall not require compliance with this section. Except for construction of improvements in the public right of way required by the City,and redevelopment or expansion of existing development,all uses, structures or lots which existed on the effective date of this section which do not conform to the standards and guidelines established in this section,shall be treated as nonconforming according to the provisions of Article III of this chapter. (c)Development Criteria. I (1)Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect light away from adjacent residential structures.Fixtures adjacent to roadways shall be of a design that minimizes glare to the motoring public.No excessive or unusual noise,odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it constitutes a nuisance, which substantially exceeds that general level of noise,odor or vibration emitted by uses adjacent to or immediately surrounding the site.Such comparisons shall be made at the boundary of the site. (2)All trash receptacles and pickup shall be oriented away from the street side of the property and screened from the public right-of-way.Trash receptacles shall be placed adjacent to alleys if alleys are available. (3)No new drive-in or drive-through facilities may be visible from the public right-of-way or take direct access from the street. (4)Building materials.Primary building facade materials shall be wood, masonry,or glass. (5)Landscaping a.All vehicular use areas and public right-of-way shall be in compliance with chapter 15,article IV. b.Street trees (tree types as listed in the landscape ordinance)shall be a minimum 3"caliper trees.The trees shall be located a minimum of 2'-0"off back of curb and shall be 30'0"on center,no closer than 30'0"to a street intersection,with a water source provided.The tree canopy shall be maintained at least 8 feet above the sidewalk. c.Unless otherwise approved,the planter well shall have placed at its base a six (6)inch thick section of approximately one (1)inch gravel with filter fabric laid on top to assist with drainage. (6)Sidewalks. a.Sidewalks shall consist of a minimum 5 foot concrete walk,excluding the first 2 feet from the curb.Sidewalks shall provide a minimum 7 foot horizontal clearance at a height of 4 feet from the ground. b.Sidewalk sales and daily display or vending that is stored inside the principal business building during closed business hours,may be allowed.However,these activities shall not obstruct pedestrian movement,fire lanes,or areas designated for access by the physically impaired. (7)Building orI'entation.Buildings must be oriented to the street.The primary entrance of the building shall be at street level on the street at the sidewalk.Entrances shall be designed so that the door will not swing beyond the property line. (8)Street-level floor.The ground-level (street fronting)floor of non-residential structures shall have a minimum of 60 percent transparent or window display. If at least 50 percent of the street-level office and retail space has direct access to the street,the total building square footage may be increased with additional floor(s)at a rate of 2 square feet for each one square foot of leasable space directly accessible to the street.On the street level the maximum area of sign may also be doubled if the above requirement is met. (9)Projections (all requirements for a franchise remain in place). a.Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right of way except for awnings and balconies. b.Awnings shall not project more than 5'-0"from the building facade and have a minimum clearance of 9'-0"above the sidewalk. c.Balconies over the public right of way shall have a minimum clearance of 9'-0"above the sidewalk.The maximum projection shall be 4'0". (10)Parking requirements.No off-street parking shall be required. a.Parking structures.The ground or street-level of a parking structure shall have at least 50 percent of the street-level structure frontage (exclusive of entrance driveways,stairways and pedestrian entryways)for active use other than parking,such as offices,light retail,personal services and entertainment.The structure may be constructed without these alternative uses as long as the first level of the structure has a minimum height of 12 feet to allow for a retrofit adding them in the future. If the parking structure includes the alternative uses at the time of initial construction,then the related structure may add one story in height.In addition,the maximum area devoted to signage on the first story may be doubled if the alternative uses are in place at initial construction. b.Parking lots.Surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure,never between the building and abutting street. Within this district no additional commercial surface parking lots shall be permitted after the date of this ordinance.If a commercial surface lot is removed then a new commercial surface lot may be added within this district as long as the total area which is devoted to this use does not increase from that as of the date of this ordinance. (11)Signs.Off-premise,pole,and monument signs are not allowed; otherwise,permitted signs shall be as in Section 36-553 "Signs permitted in institutional and office zones"of the Zoning Ordinance. (d)Use Regulations (1)Permitted Uses.Uses permitted shall include all those allowed in the Residential Districts,Office Districts and Commercial Districts as 'permitted uses',in Chapter 36.Except that,all uses must be inside or enclosed.Within the front setback where an integral accessory use is provided,the integral accessory use area need not be totally enclosed. (2)Conditional uses.Conditional uses shall include those allowed in the Light Industrial 'I-2'istrict as 'permitted uses',in Chapter 36.Except that all uses must be inside or enclosed. (e)Height regulations.No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height of three (3)stories or 45 feet,whichever is less.Developments which provide a minimum 20 percent of the gross floor area for residential uses are entitled to a maximum height of five (5)stories or 75 feet,whichever is less. Any structure which is certified by CATA (Central Arkansas Transit Authority)as providing a portion of the structure for mass transit (such as a bus stop,etc.),is entitled to one bonus floor.All building height bonuses are cumulative not to exceed ten (10)stories or 150 feet. In the area bounded by Markham Street on the north,8th street on the south, Scott Street on the east,and Broadway Street on the west,building height shall be controlled by the Adams Field Airport Zoning Ordinance (section 7-57,height limitations in the Little Rock Code of Ordinances). (fl Area regulations. (1)Front yard.Five foot build to line.If there is an adjacent structure which is closer than five feet,then the new structure may be built using the line of the pre-existing structure.(In no case may a structure be built in the right-of-way.)A development with an integral accessory use may increase the setback (build-to line)to 20 feet. Along Capitol Avenue,west of Broadway Street and east of Scott Street, the front building line shall be 25 feet.Along Chester Street from I-630 to La Harpe Boulevard the front building line shall be 10 feet. In no case is the storage or parking of vehicles allowed in the front setback. (2)Rear yard.No setback required except where adjacent to lots containing single family detached structures.In this case the rear yard shall have a set back of not less than twenty-five (25)feet. 0 (3)Side yard.No setback required except where adjacent to lots containing single family detached structures.In this case the side yards shall have a set back of not less than four (4)feet. Sec..R4-A Low Density Residential (a)Purpose andintent.The purpose of the R-4A District is to protect existing developed residential neighborhoods.It is intended for single family use with conversions to two family units or the addition of accessory residential units. The R-4A district should be located in developed areas of the city where an environment suitable for moderate-density residential (use)and in an established medium-density residential areas where densification may facilitate their continuation as desirable residential areas.Accessory uses,conditional uses and home occupations are permitted as long as they do not have objectionable characteristics and provided further that they otherwise conform to the provisions of this chapter.The district is intended to be an urban low to moderate-density residential area,where an occasional nonresidential use adds to the overall character of the neighborhood. (b)Use Regulations. (1)Permitted uses.Permitted uses are single-family and two-family residences. (2)Other uses.Accessory,home occupation,temporary,special and conditional uses allowed within the R-4A low-density residential district shall be the same as those in the R-1,R-2,R-3 single-family districts. In addition any by-right uses within the C-1 neighborhood commercial district may be allowed as conditional uses in R-4A as specifically approved by the Planning Commission.These uses must follow the development criteria listed under C-1 neighborhood commercial and have a traditional design consistent with the neighborhood. (3)Within the area bounded by Capitol Avenue on the north,9th street on the south,I-30 on the east,and Cumberland Street on the west,in addition to the above uses,multi-family use,as defined by R-5 urban residential district,shall be a permitted use. (c)Height regulations.No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35)feet. l (d)Area regulations. (1)Front yard.There shall be a front yard setback having a depth of not less than twenty-five (25)feet.If there is an adjacent structure,which is closer than 25 feet,then the new structure may be built using the line of the pre-existing structure.In no case may a structure be built in the right- of-way. (2)Side yard.There shall be a side yard on each side of the building having a width of not less than ten (10)percent of the average width of the lot, not to exceed five (5)feet. (3)Rear yard.There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than twenty-five (25)feet. (4)Lot area regulations.There shall be a lot area of not less than five thousand (5,000)square feet.In addition,there shall be a lot width of not less than fifty (50)feet and a lot depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet. (5)Accessory structures and additions.Accessory structures or principal building additions of conventional on-site construction are permitted by right. VIII)Modify map to change the area,from Cross to l30 and l630 to River,to Urban Use and R-4A Districts. September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 ANNEXATION ANALYSIS -Chenal Valley -Wildwood I.General Information Owner:Multiple Owners,James C.Clark,Jr.,Agent Location:West and North of the Gordon and Denny Road Intersection Legal Description/Size:A portion of Sections 21, 22,26, 28,34,35 and all of Section 27, Township 2 North,Range 14 West (1229.46+ acres). Purpose of Annexation Request:To receive city services. Site Configuration:Generally a rectangular shape being approximately 5,900 feet north to south and 3,000 feet east to west. Physical Characteristics of the Site:The land is heavily wooded and generally slopes downward from the north to the south. Existing Land Use:North of Denny Road is vacant (except for one single family unit east of Gordon Road)while south of Denny is vacant and Public/Quasi-Public (Wildwood). Abutting Land Use Relationships:North —Vacant South —Vacant East —Vacant/Single Family West —Vacant September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 11.A~nal sis Prospective Land Use Pattern and Compatibility with Municipal Plan:This property lies within the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (both subdivision and zoning)and the Chenal and Burlingame District Land Use Plans.The Chenal District Plan (north of Denny Road)calls for Park/Open Space and Single Family while the Burlingame Valley Plan (south of Denny Road)calls for Single Family.The Prospective Land Use (18 hole golf course and 700 single family units)is compatible with the municipal plan. Community Services/Facilities Effect On: Parks:The Parks and Recreation Department has expressed some concern over the annexation request (see attached memo).However,the Planning staff has worked with the Parks staff and the developer to reach a middle ground. The proposal is to develop a series of open space trails that could be used by the public.The property for these trail systems would be designated as open space easements.Trails would be built for walking,running and mountain biking. It became apparent that the most important issue at this time is for the preservation of the open space.The Chenal development is designed with open space corridors and steep slopes that can be permanently preserved. Fire:The Fire Department has expressed some reservation about the response distance from the nearest fire station ¹21 on Chenal Valley Drive (see attached memo).The Planning staff has, however,been working with the developer to insure that this concern would be addressed. 2 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 The staff has received a letter from the developer agreeing to construct Chenal Valley Drive to Gordon Road prior to any building or development on site.Chenal Valley's construction will reduce the response distance to 1.5 miles as requested by the Fire Department. Police:No issues or concerns. Public Works: ~Several Master Street Plan collector designated streets are in the area,requiring construction upon development.Denny Road is listed on Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and alignment changes may be required to allow construction to standards. ~Drainage issues may need to be addressed as improvements are made. ~Additional Solid Waste Services will be required.These costs will be recovered with customer fees. Little Rock School District:A letter was mailed June 17,1999 and no comment received. Utilities Effect On: Water:Water service and fire protection are not available to some areas within the proposed annexation.The portion of the property that is below elevation 600 feet mean sea level (msl) could be served off the West Markham Pressure System.This property would be assessed an acreage charge of $300.00 per acre in addition to normal charges.The portion of the property that 3 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 is above 600 feet msl and below approximately 780 feet mean sea level (msl)could be served off the Highland Ridge Pressure System.This property would be assessed an acreage charge of $2,500.00 per acre in addition to,normal charges.Areas above elevation 780 feet msl could either be designated green space or would require the development of an additional pressure system. Extension of water mains would be at the expense of property owners,developers,or improvement districts. Sewer:The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has reviewed the proposed annexation to the City of Little Rock.The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has no objection to this annexation,but have the following comments: The annexation is located in two separate service basins.The northeastern portion of the annexation is located in the Rock Creek Service Basin.The Utility has adequate capacity to serve this entire area.This area can be served by gravity and no pump stations will be required. The western and southern portion of the annexation is located in the Little Maumelle Service Basin. This basin cannot be served by gravity sewer at this time.Pump stations will be required to serve any development in this area.The Utility reserves the right to review each development in this area on a case by case basis depending on flow requirements and available capacity in the Rock Creek Basin at the time of developments The Developer will be required to pay all applicable fees for any project in this annexation,if approval is obtained,including Capacity Contribution Fees,Sewer Main Reimbursement Fees, and standard Utility Connection Fees.In addition,the Developer will extend any sewer mains required to serve any development at his expense following the Utility's standard specifications. 4 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 III.Staff Summar and Summar Recommendation This proposal,lies within the City' Extraterritorial jurisdiction and is compatible with municipal land use plans.There is,however, one issue of concern.The concern is that three unincorporated "islands"will result from this annexation (1.08'cres,4.70+acres and 12.63'cres—total =18.41+acres).All of the"islands"contain single family structures. The northernmost island (4.70+acres)contains one single family unit.The small "island" immediately south (1.08~acres)contains one single family unit).The largest "island"(12.63+acres) lying the furthest south contains three or four single family units.While the staff would prefer that no "islands"be created,we feel that these can be addressed by the City in the future by its initiation of annexation of unincorporated"islands"(the City is currently working with this process to annex 11 unincorporated "islands"). In conclusion,it appears that the unincorporated"island"issue can be satisfactorily addressed. The staff,therefore,recommends approval of the annexation as filed. IV.Plannin Commission Action:(September 2,1999) The applicant was present as were objectors.Jim Lawson,the Planning Director,made the staff recommendation.Mr.Lawson presented an overhead projection that illustrated various statistical information relative to the annexation.He stated that the primary difference in the current fiscal impact analysis from the past studies was that fire and police data was included in a pro-rated fashion.He further stated this analysis was superior to past analyses because of the more accurate police and fire information.Mr.Lawson also stated that the developer and the Parks Department were holding discussions regarding the creation of public walkways and trails. 5 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 Mr.Lawson concluded by recommending approval of the annexation as filed. The applicant,Mr.Jack McCray of Deltic Farm and Timber spoke in favor of the annexation.He stated that Deltic had been a good community citizen and that the development more than paysitsownway. The Chairman then recognized Ms.Elizabeth Plowman.Ms.Plowman stated that annexation needed more study and asked that the Commission vote no on this annexation proposal. Ms.Marlena Grunewald spoke against the annexation proposal.She stated there were many negative aspects to urban sprawl and that Little Rock was suffering from sprawl. Mr.Jim Lynch spoke against the annexation.He stated that there was no demand for the land and that in fact annexation itself was likely to create the demand.He further stated that theoff-site impact of annexation had not been studied adequately. Mr.Ralph Desmarais spoke in opposition to the annexation.He stated that development such as that proposed destroyed habitat and caused pollution.He further stated that the staff had not considered all the impacts caused by annexation and development. A lengthy discussion ensued.Commissioner Berry had several questions for the staff.Mr.Reggie Corbitt,Manager of the Little Rock Wastewater utility spoke to various questions about sewer. A lengthy discussion ensued over the staff'8 revenue projections.Commissioner Berry presented an overhead projection and made a presentation to the Commission.He stated that the staff'8 analysis was inadequate. 6 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:292 A motion was made to defer the annexation proposal to the September 30,1999 Planning Commission meeting.A lengthy discussion ensued.The motion failed 5 ayes,5 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the annexation with a recommendation by the Planning Commission that a more thorough analysis be made to include:(1) fiscal and social impacts;(2)transportation concerns;(3)land use issues associated with housing;and (4)consideration of park and school sites.The recommendation included that the study be done prior to a final vote of the Board of Directors.The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes,7 noes and 1 absent. A lengthy discussion ensued.A motion was then made to forward a recommendation to the Board that it conduct a more thorough analysis of the annexation prior to taking a vote.It was agreed the study should include:(1)Fiscal and social impacts;(2)transportation concerns; (3)land use issues associated with housing;and (4)consideration of park and school sites.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,2 noes and 1 absent. 7 City Of Little ROCk Department of City Hall-Room 108 501-371-4770 I Fax 501-371-6832 Parks and Recreation 500 West Markham Little Rock,Arkansas 72201-1495 TO:VAN MCCLENDON PLANS AND CODE ENFO C MENT ADMINISTRATORrFROM:BRYAN DAY PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT:ANNEXATION-CHENAL VALLEY DATE:JUNE 21,1999 The Department of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the proposed annexation at Chenal Valley.As in the past,we have concerns related to the growth of our city's boundaries. The City has been unable to acquire parks and open space as the City annexes land,and the majority of the City's park land is east of Interstate 430.The western part of our city is not adequately represented with park resources and another annexation will further diminish our ability to provide this service. I encourage you to consider this issue every time a annexation comes before your department.The City should ask the applicant to provide a land donation or funds to allow the City to acquire park lands. If you have questions,please call. City of Little Rock epar men o arming an eve opmen Plani'oning 723 West Markham Subdivi Little Rock,Arkansas 72201-1334 (501)371-4790 1 I I M-E-M-0-R-A-N-D-U-M TO:All Parties Planning and Development Distribution List FROM:Van McClendon,Plans and Code Enforcement Administrator SUBJECT:Annexation Memorandum —Chenal Valley -Wildwood DATE:June 17,1999 Attached is a copy of a sketch illustrating a proposal to annex lands to the City of Little Rock. If there are no issues or concerns with this proposal,please check If there are issues or concerns with this proposal,please comment below: This annex,as are all annexes,is important to the growth and economics of the City of Little Rock.However,we must keep our ISO'ratings in mind.This annex is now 3.3 miles &om the nearest Fire Station (421 on Chenal Valley Drive)to the southeast corner of Denny Road and Gordon Road.I.S.O.requires a fire station within 1.5 miles and a ladder truck within 2.5 miles of any structure within the city.Although,this annexation may not greatly affect our rating at this time,any further annexation will unless a fire station is placed in the vicinity of Denny Road and Kanis or located as the Fire Chief sees fit. This office is asking that you extend Chenal Valley Drive to Gordon Road before any development or building takes place,eby,decreasing our response d'e by 1.5 miles. Name and Department:pi Your comments in this memorandum should be returned to me by June 30,1999. .*YOU MAY FAX YOUR COMMENTS TO ME AT 371-6863. Vaeaa September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:12 PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF ELEVEN (11)UNINCORPORATED "ISLANDS" The City of Little Rock currently contains eleven (11) unincorporated "islands"that encompass 538.7+acres (.84 square miles)and an estimated population of 158 (see sketches and statistical information).Four (4)of the "islands"are populated but only one (1)contains a significant number of people ("Island"J —119 people)."Island"F is the smallest (.5+acres)while "Island"J is the largest (300.5i acres). "ISLAND"STATISTICAL INFORMATION 'kid','~ea-,'."'Setdmete8:,":;~i'„,g jjji:':Std~;:eaa~ A 4O.3 O O O B 2.5 0 0 0 C 39.9 21 13 6 D 104.7 0 0 2 E 4.6 0 0 5 F .5 0 0 0 G 3.5 8 4 0 H 2.6 0 0 0 I 35.6 0 0 0 J 300.5 119 36 1 K 4.0 10 3 0 This item is on the Planning Commission agenda due to the Board of Directors asking the staff to initiate the process.Act 314 of 1979 is a state statute that allows the city to annex unincorporated "islands."The procedure works as follows: I.Initiation Process —The Board passes a resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed annexation (begin a 60 day period in which the public hearing must be held). 1 September 2,1999 ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.) II.Notification Process —At least 15 days prior to the public hearing,the City must have notified the property owners bycertifiedletterandhavepublishedalegalnoticeofpublic hearing. III.Execution Process —The Board may bring up the ordinance for a vote at the next regularly scheduled meeting following the public hearing. The Board of Directors goal is to complete this process prior to the end of this year so that the population can be included in the 2000 decennial census. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Jim Lawson,Planning Director,stated that these "islands"were being brought to the Commission as a result of a recpxest by the Board of Directors.Van McClendon,of the Planning Staff,stated that he had received two letters from neighborhood associations requesting that Island "E"be annexed.The letters were from the West Baseline and Legion Hut Neighborhood Associations.There were no objectors present.A motion was made to approve the 11 island annexations.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 As . ~ c e s f e g ( PL A N N I N G CO M M I S S I O N VO T E RE C O R D Qe ~v o l ~ DA T E cS 8' f9 9 9 ~ ca n t e e n + ~y u / ~ r BE R R Y , CR A I G u & v u & u ~ ~ ~ W W ~ e v'A R N E S T , HU G H v ~ P Y ~ DO W N I N G , RI C H A R D V p y ~ p y ~ V v MU S E , RO H N v ~ W v O RA H M A N , MI Z A N v W ~ FA U S T , JU D I T H v & W y v & ~ v a AD C O C K , PA M A, PU T N A M , BI L L v W v v v a W p v NU N N L E Y , OB RA Y v W v K v v v LO W R Y , BO B v- v v HA W N , HE R B p W p v W v v e y 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 HA W N , HE R B Me e t i n g Ad j o u r n e d +~ P. M . V AY E NA Y E AB S E N T AB S T A I N k September 2,1999 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Date ~~( ec etar Chai an