pc_12 02 1999LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 2,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11)in number.
II.Members Present:Pam AdcockBillRector
Judith Faust
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Craig Berry
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Herb Hawn
Rohn Muse
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Steve Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING AGENDA
DECEMBER 2,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.LU99-13-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the 65 StreetEastPlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilytoSuburban
Office for 4807 Ballinger Road
B.LU99-15-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer
Springs West Planning District from Commercial and
Multifamily to Mixed for 9125 Mann Road
C.Pfeifer East Annexation
D .Z-4452-B Rush Engine —Revised Short-Form PCD and
Preliminary Plat
E.LU99-19-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal
Planning District —Office to Mixed Office
Commercial
F.Z-4470-B Chenal Commercial Park (Lot 3R)Short-Form
PD-C and Revised Preliminary Plat
G.LU99-08-09 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central City
Planning District —Single Family to Mixed
Use
H.Z-6765 Beard —Short-Form PCD
I.Z-6767 The Toddy Shop —Short-Form PD-C
J.G-23-298 Alley Right-of-Way Abandonment —Block 72,
Original City of Little Rock
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-5057-A 4721 Confederate C-3 to R-2
1.1.Z-5057-B Porter Accessory C.U.P.
Dwelling
II.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.)
2.LU99-16-04 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter
Creek Planning District from Single Family and Mixed Use
to Multi-Family for 9222 Stagecoach Road
2.1.Z-6178-A 9222 Stagecoach PD-C to MF-18
3.Z-6769 3500 Longcoy R-3 to C-3
4.Z-6770 Henderson Road R-2 to R-7A
and Site Plan
Review
5.Z-6772 11719 Hinson Road R-2 to 0-3
6.Z-6768 Holmes Day Care S.U.P.
Family Home
III.OTHER MATTER:
Update from Land Alteration and Landscape Review Task Force
2
Pu
b
ic
He
a
r
i
n
g
te
m
s
2
6
5
I
3
RI
V
E
R
M
HA
M
x
I
PR
I
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
I-
6
1-
6
3
0
KA
N
I
S
IH
12
1
M
1C
d
CI
X
I
M
I-
36
-
3
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
(
I 4
LA
W
S
O
N
2E
U
B
E
R
DA
N
R
6
A
1
~1
.
1
g
(A
X
X
X
I
65
1
H
65
M
N
RA
X
I
E
S
+
VA
L
L
E
Y
I=
TY
UM
I
T
S
QA
g
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
U
N
E
(
DI
X
O
N
36
5
HA
R
P
E
R
f5
2
2.
1
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
M
V
T
5
SU
N
K
E
R
WE
S
IL
.
K5
I
K
8
6
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
SP
C
S
.
P
OF
F
CU
T
C
F
F
CU
T
O
F
F
EL
36
S
AS
H
E
R
QT
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
16
7
PR
A
T
T
I
AS
M
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
2,
3
99
9
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU99-13-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —65th Street East
Planning District
Location:4807 Ballinger Rd.
RecCuest:Single-Family tc Suburban Office
Source:Emmanuel Ilodiamya
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street East PlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilytoSuburbanOffice.The Suburban
Office category provides for low intensity development ofofficeorofficeparksincloseproximitytolowerdensity
residential to assure compatibility.A Planned ZoningDistrict(PZD)is required.
The applicant proposes to open an out patient family
counseling office.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately .94+acres in size.Currently,a single-
family residence occupies the site.A railroad track runs
through a tract of wooded property in an R-2 zone on the
north side of Ballinger Road.Single-family dwelling unitssitonBallingerRoadinanR-2 zone to the northeast of thesiteinquestion.A small vacant apartment complex occupies
the property to the southeast in an R-5 Urban Residence
zone.The neighborhood to the south and west consists of
single family dwelling units built on property zoned R-3
Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The property is located in,and surrounded by,areas shown
as Single-Family.
On July 6,1999 a change was made from Single Family to
Park/Open Spaces and Mixed Commercial and Industrial on
Woodcrest Drive between Battle Road and Southern Oaks Drive
about a half-mile southwest of the applicant's property.
On June 4,1996,a change was made from Commercial to
Industrial on Forbing Road west of the Geyer Springs
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-02
intersection about a three fourths of a mile southwest of
the applicant's property.
On February 20,1996 a small change was made from Commercial
to Suburban Office and Mixed Use on Geyer Springs Road near
the intersection of Forbing Road about three fourths of a
mile southwest of the applicant's property.
MASTER STREET PLAN
Ballinger Road is shown as a local residential street on the
Master Street Plan.
PARKS:
The applicant's property is located south of the Benny Craig
Park.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property is not located in an area covered
by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The property in question matches the rural characteristics
of the houses along Hoffman Road with large lots and houses
near the front of the property.It sits next to the edge of
residential subdivision characterized by smaller lots
typical of mid-sixties and early seventies development.The
vacant apartment complex located southeast of the
applicant's property was developed at the rear of the
neighboring property while retaining the house at the front
of the property.The Union Pacific Railroad tracks separate
the applicant's neighborhood and the neighborhood to the
north.
Suburban Office has been used in other areas as a buffer
between more intense uses and Single Family.In this case,
there is nothing to buffer since all of the abutting uses
are residential.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Wakefield N.A.and Geyer Springs N.A.Staff
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-02
has received no comments from area residents.The applicant
provided us with a petition that contains 35 signatures of
support from area residents.Wakefield Neighborhood
Association,in which this application lies,is in support
of the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The
applicant's property is located in an area completely
surrounded by residential uses.The applicant's property is
located on a residential street.A change to Suburban
Office would intrude on the residential character of the
neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
The applicant requested a deferral due to ill health.The
bylaws were waved for the five-day notice.This item was
placed on the consent agenda for deferral and was approved
with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.This item was
deferred to the December 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Emmanuel Ilodiamoia,the applicant stated that they chose
this location near a bus stop for a counseling serviceclinictobeaccessibletoclients.
Mr.Don Darnell,President of the Wakefield Neighborhood
Association,spoke in support of the application and stated
that the neighborhood association voted to support this
application.
Commissioner Herb Hawn asked Mr.Darnell if the neighborhood
association discussed this issue as a land use issue
independent of the counseling center.Mr.Darnell responded
that the neighborhood association discussed the land use
issue independent of the counseling center and voted to
support the land use change.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-02
Vice Chair Pam Adcock asked Mr.Ilodiamoia how he planned to
work with the schools on family counseling.He stated that
the Family Counseling would work with the school counselors
to provide counseling services to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bill Rector asked if the clinic would be
located in an existing structure.Mr.Ilodiamoia replied
that the clinic would be located in an existing house.
Commissioner Rector explained that the regardless of theclinic,the Suburban Office use of the property could applytoamultitudeofdifferenttypesofoffices.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director stated
that even with approval of the land use change,the
applicant would need to apply for a Planned Office
Development (POD).
Commissioner Hawn stated that he felt that a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP)should be sufficient for a counseling clinic
without changing the land use plan.Mr.Dana Carney ofstaffstatedthatagrouphomewouldbepermittedwith a
Conditional Use Permit in an area zoned R-2 residential
because to the residential nature of a group home.Theclinic,however,is not a residential use and that a
Conditional Use Permit would not be sufficient for the
applicant's purpose.
A conversation took place between the commission and staff
about the merits of denying the land use change but
approving a zone change.
Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked Mr.Darnell why the
neighborhood supported the land use change regardless of
what the applicant wanted to do with the property.Mr.
Darnell stated that the property faced a railroad track
across the street and the property was not really suitable
for residential uses.
Commissioner Hawn stated that he felt that the members of
the neighborhood association understood what they were
supporting.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked Mr.Darnell what drove the
neighborhood to support the land use change.Mr.Darnell
stated that the house on the applicant's property and the
nearby apartments were a detriment to the neighborhood and
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)PILE NO.:LU99-13-02
that Suburban Office use would improve the neighborhood
while getting rid of unsuitable types of residential
dwelling units.
Commissioner Berry stated that he had problems with
approving the land use change.Chair Hugh Earnest asked
Walter Malone,of Staff,to explain to the applicant the
steps to be taken if the land use plan amendment was to be
denied.Mr.Malone explained the steps to be taken if the
application is either approved or denied.The applicant
could apply for a Planned Development.The Commission and
staff had a discussion concerning the merits of this land
use.
Mr.Ron Woods spoke on behalf of the applicant.Mr.Ron
Woods stated that he agreed with commissioners'oncerns
about separating the land use and zoning in this case and
had opposed the idea that Mr.Ilodiamoia needed to apply for
a land use change before applying for a zone change.
Vice Chair Adcock stated that approval of this change would
help to improve the neighborhood.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was
approved with a vote of 6 ayes,5 noes and 0 absent.
5
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:LU99-15-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Springs West
Planning District
Location:9125 Mann Rd.
RecCuest:Commercial a Multi-Family to Mixed Use
Source:Tom Folkner,Tom's Tavern
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrictfromCommercial&Multi-Family to Mixed Use.Mixed
Use 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 wishes to use the property for a tavern,
apartments and a mini-storage warehouse.
Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request,the
Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the
entirety of the Commercial area which includes the West
Baseline Alert Center.Expansion of the boundaries will
make the boundaries more logical.With the expansion of the
review area,the entirety of the commercial area shown on
the land use plan between Stardust Trail and Terrace Place
would be eliminated.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property,approximately 1.93+acres in size,is zoned a mixture of C-3 General Commercial along Mann Road
and R-2 Single Family and R-5 Urban Residence zoning on
Terrace Place.The expanded area is 2.65+acres.The West
Baseline Alert Center,at the northeast corner of StardustTrailandMannRoadiszonedC-3 General Commercial.A
commercial building at the corner of Terrace Place and Mann
Road is also zoned C-3.Three apartment buildings located
on Terrace Place are zoned R-5.The remainder of the
surrounding properties,including a mobile home park across
the railroad tracks to the north,is zoned R-2.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-02
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The property is shown as Commercial along Mann Road and
Multi-Family for the remainder.The land north of the
property lies in a Commercial land use area with frontage on
Baseline Road.Multi-Family borders the property on theeastside.The property to the south is shown as Single
Family.
On June 15,1999 a change was made from Single Family to
Suburban Office and Service Trades District at the northwest
corner of Baseline Road and the Mabelvale Pike /I-30
interchange about a mile northwest of the applicant's
property.
On December 5,1995,a change was made from Single Family to
Mixed Use on Mabelvale Cutoff west of Chicot Road about a
mile southeast of the applicant's property.
On December 6,1994,a change was made from Park Open SpacetoCommercialatBaselineandI-30 about three-quarters of
mile northwest of the applicant's property.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Mann Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a CollectorstreetfromBaselineRoadtoMabelvaleMainStreet.The
Master Street Plan also indicates a proposed Class I BikewaythatwillfollowthissectionofMannRoadandlinkForbing
Road to the proposed South Loop.
PARKS:
The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed
parks for this area.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property is located in the area covered bytheChicotWest/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Economic Development goal of the plan includes the objectiveofretainingexistingbusinesseseTheHousingand
Neighborhood Revitalization goal contains the objectives of
concentrating development in the more urbanized northern
section of the study area (wherein this lies)while
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-02
encouraging home ownership throughout the study area.The
Community Image goal includes the objectives of stricter
code enforcement and zoning reviews in the study area.
ANALYSIS:
All development along Mann Road is along the south side of
the street because of the railroad right-of-way that
parallels Mann Road on the north.This area was annexed in
1980 and the use pattern of residential and pockets of
commercial uses was already in existence.There are other
pockets of commercial uses along Mann Road.However,verylittlenewcommercialdevelopmenthastakenplacealongthis
section of Mann Road.Much of the residential uses to the
south consist of the single-family residential patternscharacteristicofthe1960'and 1970'.Typically,heavier
uses,which would include mini-storage,would be placed onarterialsoratleasttheintersectionofacollectorand anarterial.Mixed Use will allow non-residential uses in this
area surrounded by multi-family and single family
residential uses,intruding deeply into the residential
area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Nest Baseline N.A.,Cloverdale N.A.,and the
Town and Country Neighborhood Association.Staff has
received three comments from area residents.One is in
support,one was neutral,and one is negative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The depth of
the applicant'lot would allow non-residential uses to
penetrate deeply into the residential subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and
was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
This item was deferred to December 2.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-02
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Mr.Alan Beasley spoke on behalf of the applicant,Mr.Tom
Faulkner.Mr.Beasley described the character of the
proposed mini-storage warehouse and the dilapidated nature
of the nearby apartments.
Ms.Janet Berry spoke on behalf to the West Baseline
Neighborhood Association in support of the application.Ms.
Berry noted that they considered the long-term ramifications
of a land use plan change.The neighborhood supported the
concept that any commercial development in an area shown as
Mixed Use would have to submit to the Planned Unit
Development process.Finally,the neighborhood believes
that Mixed Use would be an improvement over current uses in
the area.
Mr.Oley Rooker spoke in support of the application.Mr.
Rooker attributed incidents of crime to residents in the
neighboring apartments.The nearby apartments hurt
businesses in the area.
A conversation took place between the commission and staff
about the merits of the land use change and the proposalitself.Mr.Walter Malone of staff explained that this
application was for a minor land use plan amendment.
Commissioner Herb Hawn replied that the land use was the
issue but the actual proposal was a good one.
Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked why staff expanded the area
under review but opposed the change.Mr.Malone explained
that commercial and office uses already existed in the area
and that the expansion included the corner of Mann Rd.and
Stardust Dr.where the alert center is located.
Commissioner Nunnley and Mr.Malone had a discussion about
the Planned Unit Development process.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was
approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:293
ANNEXATION ANALYSIS —Pfeifer-East
I.General Information
Owner:Multiple Owners,Christopher O.Parker,Agent
Location:North side of Highway 10,North and East of
the Chenal Intersection
Legal Description/Size:The SE 4,SW 4,SW 4,SE 4 and
the SE 4,SE 4,Section 10 and the NE 4,NE 4,NW 4,NE
part of the SW 4,NE 4,part of the North 'w,NW &4,
and part of the SE 4,NW 4,Section 15,T-2-N,R-14-W,
Pulaski County,Arkansas,containing 312.75+acres and
0 population.
Purpose of Annexation
Request:To receive city services.
Site Configuration:An irregular shaped parcel being
3,800 feet north by south and 5,000 feet east by west.
Physical Characteristics
of the Site:The majority of the site is generally
tree-covered and undeveloped.The land slopes downward
from the north to the south.
Existing Land Use:The bulk of the land is vacant.
There is,however,an electrical substation,telephone
substation,church and a private school included in the
annexation.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:293
Abutting Land Use
Relationships:North —Vacant
South —Vacant
East —Single Family/Vacant
West —Commercial/Vacant
ZZ.A~nal sis
Prospective Land Use Pattern and
Compatibility with Municipal Plan:This property lies
within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (zoning
and subdivision).It also lies within the PinnacleDistrictLandUsePlan.The plan calls for single
family.The applicant is proposing to develop 450
single family units.The proposed development is
compatible with the City's Land Use Plan.
Community Services/Facilities Effect On:
Parks:No Comment received.
Fire:The annexation of this property is
important for the growth of the City of Little
Rock,especially since it lies between Northwest
Territory subdivision and F.C.Grass Farms both of
which are newly annexed areas of Little Rock.
Land has already been acquired for a new fire
station to serve this area.It is important to
remember that when the area surrounding this
station site has developed to 51%of the averagefiredistrict,the fire station will need to bebuilt,equipped with one pump and one ladder
truck,and staffed with 24 fire fighters.The new
station will be a requirement with or without the
annexation of the Pfeifer property.
Police:None.
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:293
Public Works:Annexation should take into
consideration collector and arterials shown on the
current Master Street Plan.A new collector from
Chenal to one of the shown Master Street Plan
collectors may be required at the time of
preliminary plat plat submittal to provide
connectivity.Because the proposed development
will be commercial in nature,we can anticipate an
increase in traffic on Chenal Parkway.This may
require signalization at the intersection of
Highway 10 at Chenal Parkway due to annexation.
As development of this property is achieved,it
will result in increased street light,striping,
and signage needs.
Little Rock School District:No comment
received.
Utilities Effect On:
Water:Service is not available at this time to
the portion of this property that is over 410 feet
above mean sea level,or to the property which is
north of the ridgeline.To serve the remaining
property,water main extensions installed at the
developer's expense will be required.Exceptional
charges apply for service to this property.Water
service to a portion of this property may be
available from Maumelle Water Corporation.
Sewer:The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has no
objection to this annexation but have the
following comments:The southern and eastern
portion of the annexation can be served by an
extension of the Little Rock Wastewater Utility
collection system.The Little Rock system is not
designed to serve the remaining area to the north
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:293
and west.Requests for service in this area will
be considered by the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer
Committee,and at the committee'direction may be
approved with special conditions.
III.Staff Summa and Summa Recommendation
This proposal lies within the City'
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and is compatible
with the City's Land Use Plan.The annexation
will however create two unincorporated "islands".
A small "island"of about 2.5 acres has been left
out at the property owner's insistence.A much
larger "island"(approximately 182 acres)will be
created due to a series of previous annexations
with this annexation creating the "fourth"side.
While the creation of two "islands"is less than
desirable,the City can initiate its own "island"
annexation action in the future as it is doing
now.The applicant has worked with the City tocreatethebestannexationpossiblebyincluding
Wingfield Methodist Church,an Entergy substation,
a Southwestern Bell substation and the Walnut
Valley Christian Academy.The staff,therefore,
recommends approval as filed.
IV.Plannin Commission Action:(October 14,1999)
The applicant,Mr.Christopher Parker was present
and asked that his item be deferred.He also
asked that there be a discussion on his item so
that he may know of the concerns of the
Commission.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Little Rock Planning
and Development made the staff's presentation.He
stated that the staff had worked on the cost
benefit analysis to refine it and make it more
accurate.He also stated that this annexation
would produce 4.27 dollars of revenue for every
dollar of cost.He further stated that the City
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:293
Manager felt the fire and police pension monies
should be counted as revenue because they would
have to be paid from general revenues.Mr.Lawson
also stated that the staff was working with the
applicant on developing an agreement for some park
land use in the form of biking and/or hikingtrails.
Mr.Parker stated that there were issues to be
resolved such as sewer (the northern and eastern
70 acres that fell into another sewer basin)and
the proper method of dedication of park trails.
A lengthy discussion ensued between the Commission
and the staff about how various revenue and
expense data was ascertained.More discussion
ensued about the two "islands"that would be
created as a result of this annexation.The staff
informed the Commission that objectors were
eliminated by the county judge to create the
smaller "island"and the larger "island"would or
could be annexed by the city in the future just as
the City was attempting to annex the 11 existing"islands".
Mr.Ralph Desmarais,representing citizens for
accountable growth delivered a letter of
opposition to the annexation from Mr.Jim Lynch,co-chair of the Little Rock New Party.He stated
he was only delivering the letter and did not
represent Mr.Lynch.Mr.Desmarais stated that
his coalition had concerns over environmental
issues and other off-site issues that they felt
were not addressed by the staff's analysis.
Ms.Janet Berry,spoke against the annexation.
She stated that there seemed to be a lot of
unanswered questions.
Ms.Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women
Voters spoke in favor of the annexation.She
stated the developer had a good track record and
5
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:293
seemed to be working with the city on sewer and
park issues.She also stated that she had some
reservations about proceeding with annexations in
general without first having some resolution of
smart growth policy issues.
A general discussion ensued.Commissioner Lowry
made a motion to defer this item to the next
Planning and Rezoning meeting December 2,1999.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2 g 1999)
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,stated that the staff's
recommendation was approval and there was not any reason to
restate the particulars.
Mr.Chris Parker,agent for the applicant,made a
presentation to the Commission.He stated that the applicant
had agreed:to delay or defer development of the 65 acres
north of the ridge line that could not be currently served
by gravity sewer;to provide a 15'ccess easement for
hiking,biking trails etc.;throughout the property.Mr.
Parker further amplified and discussed the cost/benefit
analysis provided by the staff.The bottom line he said was
that the proposed development would be upper-middle class
and would more than pay for itself regardless of how the
costs were figured.
Ms.Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters,spoke in favor
of the annexation.Mr.Rollin Caristianos,board member of
Walnut Valley Christian Academy,spoke in favor of the
annexation.
A lengthy discussion ensued.Commissioner Hawn made a
motion to approve the annexation.Commissioner Rahman
seconded the motion.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
6
D~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
NAME:Rush Engine —Revised Short-Form PCD and Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Asher Avenue and Elm Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Bill F.Rush Garver Engineers
4100 Asher Avenue 1010 Battery StreetLittleRock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:Approx.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Mixture of Commercial and
Industrial
PROPOSED USE:Mixture of Commercial and
Industrial with the addition
of a third building
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Waiver of the right-of-way dedication for Asher Avenue,ElmStreet,Lewis Street and West 29 Street
BACKGROUND:
On August 6,1985 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
14,925 which rezoned this property from C-3 to PCD for a mixed
commercial/industrial development.There are currently two (2)buildings or the site.The smaller building at the southwest
corner of the property contains a restaurant,with Rush Engine
Remanufacturers occupying the larger building.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved
PCD by subdividing the property into two (2)lots and
proposing a commercial building on the new (Lot 1).AfuturebuildingadditionisalsoproposedfortheRush
D~=ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
Engine building.
The new building proposed is to be 7,000 square feet in area
(one story)and used for auto parts,sales.This building istobelocatedatthesoutheastcornerofthepropertyonthe
newly created lot.A 14,600 square foot future buildingadditionisproposedforthe24,760 square foot Rush Engine
Remanufacturing building.The proposed building,buildingadditionandparkingdesignarenotedontheattachedsite
plan.Cross access easements are proposed along the commonlotlines.
The applicant has noted that an auto parts store (Advance
Auto Parts)will occupy the new building,with Rush Engine
Remanufacturers remaining in the large commercial building.
The applicant is proposing C-3 permitted uses for theexistingcommercialbuildingatthesouthwestcorner of thesite.
The applicant has noted the following hours of operation forthethree(3)buildings:
Rush En ine —8:00 a.m.—5:00 .m.,Monda -Frida
Commercial building (southwest corner of property)10:00 a.m.—7:00 p.m.,Tuesday-Saturday
Advance Auto Parts —8:00 a.m.—9:00 p.m.,Daily
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted previously,there are two (2)existing commercial
buildings on the site.A 24,760 square foot building islocatedwithinthenorthone-half of the property,with an1,810 square foot building near the southwest corner of thesite.The entire site is concreted or paved,property linetopropertyline.
There is a mixture of commercial uses to the eat and west
along the north side of Asher Avenue and to the south across
Asher Avenue.There is a church across Lewis Street to the
west,with single family residences further west.There arealsosinglefamilyresidencesandachurchtothenorthandeastacrossElmStreet.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no comment from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The Midway and Love Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.
2
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Asher Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline will be required.
2.Elm Street,Lewis Street,and West 29"Street are
commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
on all corners.
4.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements
to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
5.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.Repair
existing sidewalk.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
8.Building construction over storm drainage will not be
allowed.
9.Driveway shall conform to Sec.31-210 and Ordinance
18,031.Close unused driveways.
10.Proposed auto parts business should take access from
access easement only.
11.Access easement must be 45 feet of right-of-way and
constructed to City standards,minor commercial street.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:May require private fire hydrant.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
3
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
CATA:CATA Routes ¹14 and ¹16 serve this site;approved
for transit as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-630 Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Commercial for this location.The
expansion of an existing PCD is not a Land Use Plan issue.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The Oak Forest
Neighborhood Action Plan recommends that new commercial be
located along corridors.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed plan does not allow for the required 10 foot
wide buffer along Asher Avenue nor the 8 foot wide buffer
along Elm Street.
A total of six percent of the vehicular use area of the
Advance Auto Parts property must be landscaped with interior
islands.Also,a minimum 4 foot wide landscape strip is
required along the western perimeter and a 3 foot wide
building landscape strip between the public parking area and
building.There is some flexibility allowed with the
building landscaping requirement.
Upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape
Ordinance equal to the building expansion proposed (60%)on
the Rush Engine Remanufacturers property will be required.
Variances from minimum Landscape Ordinance requirements can
only be granted by the City Beautiful Commission.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on October 27,1999.The revised plan
addresses most of the concerns as raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.
The revised plan provides for additional building and
interior landscaped areas within Lot 1 as required by staff.
Staff is comfortable with the landscape areas provided
within Lot 1.Lot 2 will require an upgrade in landscaping
when the future building addition to the large commercial
4
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
building is made.
The revised plan also shows the access easement along the
west property line of Lot 1 to include the parking spaces
along that property line,as requested by staff.The fact
that there is an access easement along both interior
property lines of Lot 1,a requirement for landscaping along
those lot lines is eliminated.
The site plan for this property (Lots 1 and 2)shows a total
of 135 parking spaces.Typically,the ordinance would
require a total of 100 parking spaces for the uses as
proposed.Staff has no problem with the parking plan as
proposed.
The applicant has requested a waiver of the required right-
of-way dedication for Asher Avenue,Elm Street,Lewis Street
and West 29 Street.The applicant notes that the right-
of-way dedication waiver is needed in order to maintain the
necessary area required to make the development of Lot 1
work.Public Works has indicated support of the waiver
request for Elm,Lewis and West 29 "Streets.Public Works
recommends denial of the requested waiver right-of-way
dedication for Asher Avenue.This issue must be discussed
and resolved by the full Commission.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
requesting C-3 permitted uses as alternate uses for the
small commercial building at the southwest corner of the
property (as suggested by staff).However,after further
review,staff feels that it would be reasonable to allow
C-3 permitted uses as alternate uses for all three (3)
buildings shown on the site plan.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed site plan.Staff is
comfortable with the proposed site plan and feels that the
development as proposed will be an excellent improvement
within the Asher Avenue corridor.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Staff recommends C-3 permitted uses as alternate uses for
5
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
all three (3)commercial buildings.3.Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver ofright-of-way dedication for Elm,Lewis and West 29Streets.
4.Staff recommends denial of the requested waiver of right-
of-way dedication for Asher Avenue.5.A landscape upgrade will need to be provided with thefutureadditiontothelargecommercialbuilding.6.Any additional site lighting should be directed away fromadjacentresidentialproperty.7.A preliminary/final plat must be complete (staff level)prior to a building permit being issued.8.The existing driveway from Elm Street at the northeastcorneroftheproperty(noted by the applicant "to remainclosed")must be closed and replaced with curb andgutter.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Ben Rush and Bill Ruck were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the revised PCD.
The primary topic of discussion was the landscape issues
associated with the planned development of the property.Mr.
Ruck noted that building and interior landscaped areas would be
added to the lot at the corner of Asher Avenue and Elm Street.It was also noted that no landscaping would be required along theinteriorlotlinesifanaccesseasementwasproposedalongtheselines.Staff noted that the upgrade in landscaping for the
larger lot (Rush Engine building)could be done,with plans
submitted,when the future addition is constructed.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.The
applicant noted that a waiver of right-of-way dedication for
Asher Avenue and West 29 Street would probably be requested.
Other Public Works issues (stormwater detention and driveway
locations)were briefly discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised PCD to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Bill Rush,Bill Ruck and Bob Fresson were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the proposed revised
PCD,with a recommendation of approval with conditions to include
a waiver of right-of-way dedication for Elm,Lewis and West 29
6
De~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
Streets.Staff recommended denial of the requested waiver of
right-of-way dedication for Asher Avenue.Staff noted that the
required notices were mailed two (2)days late.
The Commission first discussed waiving the bylaws to accept the
notification as completed by the applicant.There was a motion
to waive the bylaws and accept the notification two (2)dayslate.
Bill Rush stated that he thought the notices were mailed only one
day late.Commissioner Lowry stated that there were no grounds
for waiving the bylaws.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,2 nays,1 absent and
1 open position.
Bill Rush addressed the Commission in support of the application
and explained the project and the Asher Avenue area in general.
He stated that the proposed development would be an upgrade to
the property and be an asset to the general area and provide
added security to the area.Mr.Rush discussed the right-of-way
dedication issue.He stated that the right-of-way dedication for
Asher Avenue would kill the project.
Bill Ruck provided additional explanation of the project and the
difficulty in developing this site and meeting the typical
ordinance requirements.He noted that the site lighting would be
directed away from adjacent residential property.He also noted
that the existing driveway at the northeast corner of the
property would be closed.
There was discussion relating to the requested waiver of right-
of-way dedication for Asher Avenue.Mr.Ruck also stated that
the right-of-way dedication would eliminate parking and kill the
project.
Mr.Rush explained how the access to the property would work.He
noted that there were three (3)access points with cross-access
easements.He gave additional explanation of the project and
reasons for the right-of-way dedication waiver request.
Robert James addressed the Commission.He asked why the church
on the west side of Lewis Street was not included in the Asher
Avenue corridor meetings.He noted that he is not opposed to the
proposed project.He noted concerns with people possibly working
on vehicles in the auto parts store parking lot.
7
D~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4452-B
Commissioner Lowry asked the applicant about Mr.James'oncern.
Bob Fresson stated that there would be no repair work done on the
property.He noted that the employees might help a customer
change a battery,but no repair work.He also stated that
Advance Auto Parts will not select the site for development if
the right-of-way is not waived.
There was a general discussion relating to a deferral of right-
of-way dedication.
Mr.Fresson stated that a deferral would not help the situation.
He noted that a deferral would allow the possibility of losing
the parking along Asher Avenue in the future.
A possible franchise for the parking along Asher Avenue wasbrieflydiscussed.
Mr.Fresson stated that permanent use of the parking was needed.
There was additional discussion relating to the right-of-way
dedication issue.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and
Development,stated that if the right-of-way dedication is not
made,the application should be denied.
Commissioner Faust concurred with Mr.Lawson and expressed
concern with waiving the right-of-way.
Commissioner Rahman also expressed concern with waiving the
right-of-way and the reasons for the waiver request.
Mr.Rush further discussed the waiver of right-of-way issue.He
noted that he wished to retain as many of the parking spaces aspossibleonLot2.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about possible obstruction of traffic
with the proposed landscaping along Asher Avenue.This issue andthetrafficinthisimmediateareawasdiscussed.
Commissioner Downing asked about the terms of the proposed leaseoftheproperty.Mr.Fresson noted that it was a 10 year lease
with five year options (25 years total).
In response to a questions from the Commission,Bob Turner,ofPublicWorks,stated that the City has no immediate plans to make
improvements to Asher Avenue.
8
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4452-B
Commissioner Downing asked if the City could commit to a 25 year
franchise.Mr.Turner stated that the City could not commit to a
25 year franchise.
There was additional discussion regarding the franchise procedure
and attaching a time period to a franchise.
There was a motion to defer the application to the December 2,
1999 agenda in order to give staff time to work with the
applicant regarding the Asher Avenue right-of-way issue.The
motion was seconded and discussed.The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes,3 nays,1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,and there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The staff informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed
to dedicate the required right-of-way for Asher Avenue and will
obtain a franchise for the proposed improvements within this
right-of-way dedication area.Staff informed the Commission that
a waiver of street improvements would be supported by Public
Works and that the applicant had agreed to repair any damaged
curb,gutter or sidewalk along Asher Avenue.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes and 0 nays.
9
T4~E7
g-HV5~-5
To:Hugh Earnest,Chairman
Planning Commissioners
From:Asher Corridor Steering Committee
Shawn Spencer,Planning Dept.
Date:November 1,1999
Re:Rush Engine Revised PCD
Earlier this year the Mayor appointed Philip Tappan,COO of Quality Foods,as chairman
of a committee to study the Asher corridor and to create a redevelopment plan for the
area.This committee is composed of property owners along Asher,business owners,and
representatives from the Sheriff's Department,State Fairgrounds,Forestry Commission
and local neighborhood associations.
Mr.Rush is a member of this committee and he has notified the committee of his plans to
redevelop his property.The Steering Committee was thrilled that a new business was
willing to locate on the Asher Corridor.The Asher Corridor Steering Committee feels
that Mr.Rush's redevelopment plan could be a catalyst for additional new business
development in this general area.
The Steering Committee requests that the Planning Commission approve the Revised
PCD.
RECEIVED
NOV 2 1999
BY
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Chenal Planning District
Location:15500 Chenal Parkway
R~eeet:Office to Commercial
Source:Dave Parker,Saturn West,LLC
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from
Office to Commercial.The Commercial category includes a
broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products,
personal and professional services,and general businessactivities.Commercial activities very in type and scale,
depending on the trade area they serve.
This application to amend the Land Use Plan has been filed
concurrently with a PCD for an automobile dealership.
Typically,a major Land Use Plan amendment,which this one
would be classified as,would be filed on the Planning and
Rezoning agenda and would not be heard at the same time as
the rezoning.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office and is
approximately 4.3 +acres in size.A mini-storage warehousesitsinaPlannedOfficeDevelopmentnorthwestofthe
applicant's property.A vacant tract of land is located in
a C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zone north of the applicant's
property.A radio station sits in an 0-1 Quiet Office zone
northeast of the property in question.The vacant property,east of the applicant'property is in a MF-18 Multi-Family
zone.Southeast of the applicant's property are single
family dwelling units located in R-2 Single Family zoning.
Directly south of the property in question is a vacant
Planned Commercial Development.Southwest of the propertyisavacantC-3 General Commercial zone.Highland Valley
United Methodist Church is located in an 0-2 Office and
Institutional zone with a Conditional Use Permit on the
neighboring property to the west.
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 20,1999,a change was made from Office to
Commercial with a Planned Zoning District required east of
Kirk Road on Chenal Parkway.
On December 15,1998,a change was made from Single Family
to Public Institutional at 715 Wellington Village Road
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the applicant's
property.
On December 15,1998,a change was made from Single Family
to Public Institutional at ¹1 Covenant Drive 2100 feet to
the east of the area under review on the south side of
Chenal Parkway.
On May 6,1997 changes were made form Single Family,Public
Institutional,Multi-Family,Neighborhood Commercial,and
Park/Open Space to Single Family,Low Density Residential,
Public Institutional,Office,Neighborhood Commercial,and
Commercial at various locations west of (and including)the
applicants property.
The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future
Land Use Plan.The Future Land Use plan shows Neighborhood
Commercial and Office north of the property in question.
South of the property,Park/Open Space and Commercial are
shown on the Future Land Use Plan.Commercial and Park/Open
Space are shown east of the site in question.Directly to
the west of the applicant's property,Public Institutionalisshown.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan.A Class I Bikeway is proposed along
Chenal Parkway from Bowman Road to State Highway 10.Kanis
Road is shown as a minor arterial.Wellington Village DriveisshownontheMasterStreetPlan,as a proposed minor
arterial and will connect Kanis Road to Rahling Road.
PARKS:
The median of the Chenal Parkway along Rock Creek is shown
as open space on the Master Parks Plan.
2
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Office and
Commercial Development goal listed three objectives relevanttothiscase.The first objective is promotion of
commercial development to meet the needs of neighborhoodresidents.The second objective is maintaining as much as
possible the existing topography,trees,and green space.
The third objective is enhancing the primarily residential
character of the community.
ANALYSIS:
Much of the property along Chenal Parkway between the
Parkway Place subdivision and the proposed intersection of
Rahling Road and Kanis Road is shown on the land use plan as
Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial.The same area isalsozonedavarietyofC-3,C2,02,03 and PCD'.
The most recent change in the area was a change from OfficetoCommercialwithaPlannedZoningDevelopmentrequiredfor
a automobile dealership west of the Highland Valley United
Methodist Church.
This site was the subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment on
June 28,1988.This was in conjunction with a rezoning
request that was originally scheduled for the December 1,1987 Planning Commission meeting.There were several
deferrals initiated both by Staff and by the applicant sothattrafficstudiescouldbemadeconcerningthethenarterial,which is now known,as Wellington Village Drive.
Wellington Village Drive is currently shown as a MinorArterialandbuilttothosestandards.At that time,
Commercial was shown on both sides of Wellington Village
Drive (to the east and the west)with frontage along Chenal
Parkway.The applicant at that time was Jim Hathaway.It
was his opinion that there needed to be more commercial to
the east of the intersection to adequately house a
commercial development.A rather lengthy discussion ensued
concerning zoning of the site.As a result of that
meeting,the zoning was changed to C-2 for 15.4 acres and O-
3 for 3.88 acres.In addition,the Land Use Plan was
changed to reflect those changes.Those changes are still
3
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
the configuration that we have today.During those Planning
Commission meetings,Mr.Hathaway stated on three occasions
that the owners would not recpxest for a zoning change on the
area zoned 0-3.
Wellington Village Drive is the major entry into a large
area of single family homes located to the north and east.
An area of Office could provide a better transition from the
commercial areas along Chenal Parkway through Office and
Suburban Office to the Single Family areas to the north.
Although it is recognized that this site is at the
intersection of two arterials,Staff feels that the Land Use
classification of Office is suitable.There are areas of
Commercial on the Land Use Plan that have not been
developed.For example,the 15 acres of C-2 to the
immediate east is vacant.The area to the west of the
Highland Park Methodist Church is largely undeveloped with
the exception of the recent PZD of September 21,1999 for an
Acura auto dealership.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Gibraltar/Pt.West/Timber Ridge N.A.,Parkway
Place Property Owners Association,Spring Valley Manor
Property Owners Association,Aberdeen Court Property Owners
Association,Bayonne Place Property Owners Association,
Carriage Creek Property Owners Association,Cedar Hill
Terrace Property Owners Association,Eagle Pointe Property
Owners Association,Glen Eagles Property Owners Association,
Hillsborough Property Owners Association,Hunters Cove
Property Owners Association,Hunters Green Property Owners
Association,Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association,Marlowe
Manor Property Owners Association,and St.Charles Property
Owners Association.
Staff has received no comments from area residents.
4
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time
and will result in an over-abundance of land available for
commercial land uses at the expense of land available foroffice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Commissioner Bob Lowery stated that he would recuse on item
6 and item 6.1.
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Chairman Earnest noted that this was the first time a major
Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning had been filed
simultaneously.Commissioner Earnest requested that staff
explain this simultaneous filing.
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,stated that he explained the
process to the applicant and recommended to the applicant
that the major Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning change
should not be filed at the same time.The applicant told
Mr.Lawson that they wanted to file simultaneous
applications in order to save time and money by streaming
lining the process.Mr.Lawson recommended to the applicantthatthemajorLandUsePlanAmendmentandZoningchange
should be filed according to standard procedure.
Mr.Wes Lowder,President of the Mehlburger Fizm,spoke on
behalf of the applicant.Mr.Lowder explained the nature of
the car dealership proposed by the applicant.A comparisonoftripgenerationwasmadebetweentheproposeddealership
and most retail and office establishments.Next,Mr.Lowder
described some of the architectural and landscape designfeaturesproposed.Finally,an argument was made that the
proposed business was a new addition to the City of Little
Rock.
Chairman Earnest delayed questions from the Commissioners in
order to proceed to the comment cards submitted by the
5
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
audience.
Mr.Hathaway spoke in opposition to the application as the
managing partner for the Chenal Commercial Partnership.Mr.
Hathaway stated that he was not opposed to the proposed car
dealershi~,land use change,or zoning change.However,Mr.
Hathaway stated his opposition to the process of hearing a
Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning applications at the same
meeting.Mr.Hathaway was also concerned about the Land Use
and Zoning of property owned by the Chenal Commercial
Partnership located north of the applicant.An argument was
presented that a Land Use Plan Amendment should examine the
land use for a larger area than just one piece of property.
Mr.Herrn Northcutt spoke in support of the amendment onbehalfoftheHighlandValleyUnitedMethodistChurch.Mr.
Northcutt stated that the church supported the Land Use Plan
amendment.
Chairman Earnest stated that all the comment cards submitted
by the audience had been addressed.
Mr.Rick Parker,the applicant,described the proposed
dealership and how it would blend in with the environment ofthesurroundingneighborhood.Mr.Parker also mentioned
some of the economic contributions the dealership would maketothecity.
Commissioner Herb Hawn asked the applicant if there was a
compelling reason the Land Use Plan should be changed for
the specific piece of property described in the application.
Mr.Lowder stated that the decision to submit simultaneous
applications for a Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning change
was based on the timing involved in an option to purchase
the property in question.
Commissioner Hawn stated that he was considering how a Land
Use Plan amendment would effect the whole area and not thespecificsoftheproposedcardealership.
Commissioner Richard Downing stated that neighbors want to
know what applicants propose for a piece of property in
order to make a decision on whether or not to support an
application.Commissioner Downing stated that he often
6
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
received criticism for plan changes and asked why the
Commission was examining such a small area for a land use
change.Commissioner Downing stated that he would vote
against the amendment.
Commissioner Bill Rector stated that he wanted to look at
Land Use,Zoning,and the specified use on an application
because he stated that some applications would not be
approved unless based on the specified use.
Commissioner Judith Faust stated that Mr.Lowder described a
project that was lower in intensity than most commercial
projects and added that the performance of a use should be
considered in making decisions concerning Land Use and
Zoning.Mr.Lawson stated the PZD's examined performance
and is similar to what Commissioner Faust described.Mr.
Lawson also mentioned that Land Use is changing and that one
commercial use was not the same as another commercial use.
Commissioner Faust asked why the Commission was hearing a
Land Use Plan amendment was being heard on the same agenda
as a Zone change.Mr.Lawson stated that the applicant was
told that they should not file for a Land Use Plan amendment
and Zoning change on the same agenda.The applicant felt
that they had good reasons to file for both changes at the
same time.Mr.Lawson stated that this was the first time
an applicant insisted on filing for both changes at the same
time.Mr.Lawson felt that he did not have the authority to
prevent the applicant from file for both changes at the same
time .
Vice Chair,Pam Adcock called on Jimmy Moses to speak before
the Commission.Mr.Jimmy Moses spoke on behalf of the
owner of the property in question.Mr.Moses stated that
the owner would not have proceeded with the application if
they were told not to proceed with the application.Mr.
Moses stated that the changing nature of Chenal Parkway to a
commercial corridor since 1988 served as a compelling reason
to support the Land use Plan amendment.
Chairman Earnest stated that if the city was going to use
performance-based zoning,then performance based zoning
should be used.However,Commissioner Earnest stated that
the reason the City of Little Rock adopted the Land Use Plan
was to be able to predict Future Land Uses in the area.
Land Use changes were to be made after a comprehensive
7
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
review of an area.Commissioner Earnest stated that Smart
Growth was a process to help the City of Little Rock guide
changes in Land Use.
Commissioner Downing asked what reasons would be compellingforaLandUsePlanchange.Mr.Moses stated that the PZD
process gives the city control over commercial development
and stated that the term "commercial"was too broad.
Commissioner Mizan Rahman liked the idea of looking at Land
Use and Zoning at the same time but did not like the idea of
changing the Land Use for such a small area.Commissioner
Rahman recommended that staff should look at the Land Usefortheentirearea.
Mr.Lawson stated that he recommended that the applicant
apply for MOC.Mr.Lawson stated that if the Land Use was
changed to MOC,the applicant could then apply for a PUD.
Mr.Stephen Giles,of the city attorney's office,stated
that the ordinance did not allow Mr.Lawson to refuse an
applicant an audience with the Planning Commission.
A discussion followed between the Planning Commission andStaffwithStaffexplainingthattheapplicationwasa
change from 0 to C.
Mr.Lawson stated that a change to MOC would allow a wider
range of developments in the area and that different levels
of commercial development exist.
Commissioner Faust asked if staff knew that the area in
question would be the intersection of two arterials when the
original Land Use Plan was made.Mr.Lawson stated thatstaffknew.
Mr.Hathaway asked if a Land Use Plan amendment would needtobefiledbeforeaPCDcouldbesubmittedinanareashown
as MOC.Mr.Lawson stated that a Land Use Plan change would
not be needed in order to file for a PCD in an area shown as
MOC.Mr.Hathaway stated that his partnership would support
a change to MOC but added that he as an applicant never
challenged the process of submitting applications for
separate agendas for a Land Use Plan amendment or Zone
change.
8
November 11,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
Commissioner Hawn suggested that the Commission either defer
the amendment to allow staff to study a change to MOC,or
hold a vote on the application as filed.
Discussion took place between commissioners and staff about
the merits of deferring the applications.
Mr.Lowder stated that he wanted a vote on the application
as filed.Chairman Earnest asked Mr.Lowder why the
applicant did not allow enough time for the normal
application process involved in changing the Land Use and
Zoning.Mr.Lowder stated that it was his understanding
that a mechanism existed for simultaneous applications for
changes similar to this case.Mr.Lowder though that this
was a minor Land Use amendment.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the Land Use
amendment and Commissioner Downing seconded the motion.
Commissioner Rahman Mizan stated that he did not oppose the
car dealership,but that he had problems supporting a Land
Use Plan amendment for such a small area.
Commissioner Faust asked if staff considered an MOC.
Mr.Lawson stated that staff wanted to comply with the Rock
Creek Neighbor-hood Action Plan in its recommendations.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was
not approved with a vote of 3 ayes,5 noes,1 absent,1
recuse.
STAFF UPDATE:
Upon the request of the Planning Commission,Staff is
reviewing the application with a change to MOC.Mixed Office
Commercial provides for a mixture of office and commercial
uses to occur.Acceptable uses are office or mixed office
and commercial.A Planned Zoning District is required if
the use is mixed office and commercial.Upon this
instruction,Staff expanded the application to include the
area west of Wellington Village Road which would include the
two lots owned by Jim Hathaway.The expanded area is all
9
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
vacant wooded land and is zoned 0-3,General Office
District.
As stated before,Wellington Village Drive is the primary
entry into a large area of single family homes located to
She orth and east which includes Wellington Woods and St.
Charles.An area of Mixed Office Commercial could provide a
transition from the commercial areas along Chenal Parkway
through Neighborhood Commercial and Suburban Office to the
Single Family areas to the north.
Previously,the definition of Mixed Office Commercial
included wholly commercial development.However,concerns
arose that MOC was used as Commercial with a PZD required.
Since then,the definition has changed to include purelyofficedevelopmentsorcommercialdevelopmentswithsome
office areas with a PZD.This assures that there is an
office component in the MOC.
While staff still supports Office at this location,under
certain conditions commercial could be supported in Mixed
Office Commercial.Not all commercial developments have the
same impacts on a site,i.e.,some are lower traffic
generators than others.Each application should be
evaluated under it's own merits in regards to the impacts it
would have on the surrounding area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change to MOC is appropriate at this
time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
Commissioner Bob Lowry was in recuse on this item.
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.Mr.Minyard reviewed the definition of Mixed
Office Commercial (MOC)and explained that MOC does not
support 100%commercial development.
Mr.Wes Lowder spoke on behalf of the applicant and
mentioned that he was there to answer questions.
10
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-02
Mr.Alan Van Biervliet spoke in opposition to the
application on behalf of the homeowners in the area.Mr.
Van Biervliet mentioned that the Village of Wellington was a
new neighborhood and the residents were not notified of the
applicant'recpxest.Due to the age of the neighborhood,a
——neighborhood-association has not yet,developed-.Mr.Van
Biervliet stated that residents of the neighborhood signed a
petition stating their concerns about the presence of a car
dealership in their area.The neighborhood was concerned
about increased traffic and test driving of new automobiles.
Mr.Lowder summed up the opinions of those in support of the
application.He also added that the new intersection at
this location is projected to have one of the highesttrafficcountsinthecityinthefuture.Mr.Lowder stated
that the proposed car dealership would not generate a large
amount of traffic.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and
was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,1 noes,0 absent,and
1 recuse.
11
D~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
NAME:Chenal Commercial Park (Lot 3R)—Short-Form PD-C and
Revised Preliminary Plat
———-iOCATlON:Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Wellington
Village Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Saturn West LLC.The Mehlburger Firm
1700 N.Shackleford Road 201 S.Izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72212 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:4.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3 ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Auto dealership
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
preliminary plat for the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision
by adding approximately 1.74 acres to Lot 3.The applicantalsoproposestorezonetheareaofLot3from0-3 to PD-Ctoallowthedevelopmentofanautodealership.A major
Land Use Plan amendment for this property has also beenfiled(Item 6.1 on this agenda).
The applicant is proposing two (2)buildings for the site.
A 15,000 square foot office/showroom/service building and2,500 square foot auto detail building are proposed.Theapplicanthasnotedthatthebuildingswillnotexceed28feetinheight.The proposed buildings along with areas for
customer,service and employee parking and vehicle display
and inventory are noted on the attached site plan.
D~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded.The property slopes
upward slightly from Chenal Parkway and Wellington Village
Road.There is a church immediately west of the site,with
undeveloped 0-3 and C-2 zoned property to the north andeast,across Wellington Village Road.The One Source
Homecenter is located across Chenal Parkway to the south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no comment from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The St.Charles and Parkway Place
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Dedicate additional 10 feet of right-of-way for right
turn lane on Wellington Village Road.
2.Provide in-lieu contribution for street improvements and
intersection construction as previously agreed.3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.Construct right turn lane on Wellington
Village Road.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
9.Driveway shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Relocate driveway on Wellington Village to meet
Ordinance requirements.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment received.
2
D~~er 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $600 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.A 39"raw water main crosses
in this area.Plans for development and changes in grade
in the area where this main is located must be approved
by-the Water Works.
Fire Department:Private fire hydrants may be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA,approved for
transit purposes as submitted.
F .ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Chenal District.The Land Use Plan
currently shows Office for this location.There is pending
Land Use Plan Amendment on the property to be heard on this
agenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The Rock Creek
Neighborhood Action Plan recommends promotion of commercial
and office development that enhances the primarilyresidentialcharacterofthecommunity.
Landsca e Issues:
A minimum 3 foot wide landscape strip between the public
parking areas and building is required.
If this property were zoned "C-4"for "outdoor display"no
display of vehicles would be allowed within the front 20feetoftheproperty.
This property being wooded,the City Beautiful Commission
recommends preserving as many of the existing trees asfeasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of
6 inch caliper and larger.
3
De ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and preliminary
plat to staff on October 27,1999.The revised plan
addresses some of the concerns as raised by staff and the
Subdhvision Committee.An increased buffer has been shown
along the west property line,where the service and
inventory parking are adjacent to the R-2 zoned church site.
The applicant has also noted that existing trees will be
saved along the north and east property lines where grading
permits.The revised plan also shows building landscaping
as required.
The revised plan also relocated the driveway from Wellington
Village Road further to the north as required by Public
Works.The turn lane on Wellington Village Road has also
been provided.Public Works has indicated that the street
improvements to Chenal Parkway need to be shown.
As for the proposed site design,staff is not agreeable to
the building having the service entry doors facing thestreetfrontage(Chenal Parkway),as shown on a south
elevation sketch submitted by the applicant.Staff is also
not comfortable with there being vehicle display within thefirst20feetofthepropertyalongbothstreetfrontages.
Aside from the site design concerns,staff feels that the
proposed zoning change in inappropriate.Based on the fact
that a major Land Use Plan amendment has been filed for the
property,which will not be supported,staff cannot support
the proposed PD-C rezoning for an auto dealership.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the requested PD-C zoning.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Frank Riggins was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the PD-C and revised preliminary
plat,noting several items which needed to be shown on a revised
plat drawing.
4
De~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
The buffer along the west property line was discussed.Mr.
Riggins noted that a portion of the church parking lot to the
west was on this property.
Staff noted that any proposed ground-mounted signage needed to be
shown oe the plan.Staff also noted that the service entry
should be on the west or north side of the building and not thestreetside.In response to a question from staff,Mr.Rigginsstatedthatareaswhereexistingtreeswouldbesavedwouldbe
noted as a revised plan.Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,
noted that some building landscaping was required.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed,including
the right turn lane requirement for Wellington Village Road.Tad
Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that a traffic signal
contribution would be required for the Wellington Village Road-
Chenal Parkway intersection.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Wes Lowder,Frank Riggins and Rick Parker were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed project with a recommendation of denial.The Land Use
Plan Amendment (Item 6.1)and the proposed PD-C rezoning were
discussed simultaneously.
Chairman Earnest asked about,the Land Use Plan Amendment and the
PD-C being on the same agenda.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning
and Development,stated that typically a major land use plan
amendment and a rezoning are on separate agendas,but in this
case the applicant filed both applications on the same agenda.
Wes Lowder addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He discussed the proposed project and stated that
the developer wished to save as many of the trees on the site as
possible.He noted that the hours of operation would be from8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.
Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission.He stated that he did not
oppose the proposed development,however,he was opposed to the
Land Use Plan Amendment and the PD-C being on the same agenda.
He discussed this issue.
5
De.~er 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
Herrn Northcutt,of the Highland Valley Methodist Church,
addressed the Commission and noted that the church supports the
application.
Rick Parker addressed the Commission in support of the
-applicatien,and offered additional description of the project.
Commissioner Hawn asked the applicant why the Land Use Plan
should be changed.
Mr.Lowder explained that the two applications were filed
simultaneously due to timing and financial reasons and explained.
There was additional discussion regarding the policy of hearing a
major Land Use Plan Amendment and a rezoning on separate agendas.
Commissioner Hawn,Downing,Rector,Faust and Jim Lawson
(Planning Director)offered comments during this discussion.
Mr.Lawson stated that the staff recommended that the applicantfiletheapplicationsonseparateagendas.
Jimmy Moses addressed the Commission and supported the two
applications being on the same agenda.He noted that the nature
of the Chenal Parkway area has changed over the last several
years as reasoning for the Land Use Plan change.
Commissioner Earnest and Downing offered comments regarding the
Land Use Plan Amendment process.
Commissioner Rahman recommended that staff look at an expanded
area for the Land Use Plan change.
Mr.Lawson stated that staff does not favor changing the Land Use
Plan for this property only.An expanded Land Use Plan Amendment
was discussed.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Lawson stated that it
was known at the time of the original land use plan change that
there would be two (2)arterial streets at this intersection.
Mr.Hathaway discussed changing the Land Use Plan for Lots 1-3 to
MOC as a compromise.
Commissioner Hawn stated that he was uncomfortable with changing
the Land Use Plan proposal at this meeting.There was additional
discussion regarding this issue.
6
D~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
Mr.Lowder stated that the applicant wished to have a vote on the
applications.
There was a motion to defer the PD-C rezoning to the December 2,
1999 agenda.The Commission also asked staff to consider
changing the Land Use Plan to MOC for all three lots on the west
side of Wellington Village Road.The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes,0 nays,1 recused (Lowry),1 absent,1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2 ~19 9 9 )
Wes Lowder and Rick Parker were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposed PD-C
rezoning and site plan with a recommendation of denial,based on
the fact that staff felt that the PD-C for an auto dealership did
not meet the purpose and intent of the MOC land use plan
designation.
West Lowder addressed the Commission in support of the rezoning.
He gave reasons why this proposed rezoning would be appropriate.
He noted that there would be no large cuts or fills with this
proposed development.He noted that the vehicular display within
the first 20 feet of the property on the street sides would be
eliminated.He noted that the service entry doors would be
relocated to a building side other than the Chenal Parkway side.
Commissioner Rector asked if the proposed hours of operation,
service door locations and other conditions could be made part of
the application and would they be enforceable.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that they
could be made part of the application and that they would be
enforceable.
Commissioner Nunnley asked the applicant if a deferral would be
acceptable to allow time for the applicant to meet with the
neighborhood.
Mr.Lowder responded that a deferral would not be acceptable.
Allen Van Biersly addressed the Commission with concerns about
the project.He noted that his main concern was related to
7
D~amber 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
traffic and test drives through the Wellington Village
neighborhood.He stated that he would be willing to work with
the applicant to address the neighborhood concerns.
Mr.Lawson stated that prohibiting test drives through the
neighborhood could be a condition of approval.There was a brief
discussion relating to the enforcement of this condition.
Rick Parker addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He discussed the proposed operation (Saturn
dealership).He stated that the proposed dealership had no auto
body shop.He also briefly discussed building design,comparing
this proposed building to the design of the Parker Auto Body Shop
building located near Rainwood Drive.He also noted that the
adjacent church supported this application.
Mr.Parker noted that this auto dealership would have
approximately 25 employees and that the business would generate
approximately 70-100 vehicles per day.He stated that he would
commit to not test driving vehicles through the Wellington
Village neighborhood.
Mr.Lawson explained the MOC land use plan designation definition
and intent as reasons for the staff's recommendation of denial.
The possible impact of this proposed use was briefly discussed.
Commissioner Rahman briefly discussed the MOC land use plan
designation with respect to this proposed rezoning.He noted
that the proposed auto dealership would have an office component.
A motion was made to approve the PD-C rezoning subject to the
conditions offered by the applicant to include:
1.No vehicular display within the first 20 feet of the
property on the street sides.
2.The service entry doors to be located on a side of the
building other than the Chenal Parkway side.
3.No test drives through the Wellington Village neighborhood.
4.No body shop
5.Proposed hours of operation:8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,
Monday —Saturday (No Sunday hours).
There was a general discussion regarding the conditions of the
motion and the MOC land use plan designation.
8
D~.ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4470-B
Mr.Lawson stated that the PD-C as proposed with the conditions
could be for this particular auto dealership.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,noted that the zoning run with the
land,and that the title would not be restricted.He stated that
————-%he —property-coul+-be sold to another business which could
operate under the same conditions placed on this applicant.
There was additional discussion relating to the City's Land Use
Plan and procedures.
Commissioner Downing noted that lots 1 and 2 of this subdivision,
which the Commission recommended to change to MOC,should be used
for office.There was brief additional discussion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previous motion.The
motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay and 1 recused (Lowry).
9
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:LU99-08-09
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City
Planning District
Location:2311 S.Spring St.
R~e est:Single Family to Mixed Use
Source:Brenda Beard
PROPOSAL /REQUE ST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City PlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilytoMixedUse.The Mixed Use
category provides for a mixture of residential,office and
commercial uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District is
recpxired if the use is entirely office or commercial or if
the use is a mixture of the three.The applicant wishes to
operate a beauty shop and maintain a residence on the
property.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-4 Two Family District andisapproximately.17 +acres in size.A vacant lot is
located north of the applicant's property zoned R-4.A
mixture of houses and vacant lots lie east of the
applicant's property is in an R-4 zone.South of the
applicant's property are houses located in R-4 zoning.To
the west of the applicant's property is the 23 and SpringStreetSubstationzonedR-5 Urban Residence District.A C-
3 General Commercial district is located southwest of the
applicant's property at 24 and Spring Street and is thesiteoftheBigAppleEventCenter.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 20,1999,a change was made from Multi-Family to
Low Density Residential between 13 and 15 Streets and
State and Broadway Streets eight blocks north of the
applicant's property on Broadway Street.
On April 20,1999,a change was made from Single Family to
Commercial between 17 and 19 Streets,east of Scott.
Street and northeast of the applicants property.
On April 20,1999 a change was made from Low Density
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-09
Residential to Mixed Use between 15 and 16 Streets and
Main and Cumberland Streets eight blocks north and three
blocks east of the applicant's property.
On August 18,1998 a change was made from Single Family to
Mixed Use on the west side of Commerce in the 1900 block and
on the east and west,sides of Commerce Street in the 2000
block located northeast of the applicant's property.
On May 21,1996,a change was made from Single Family to
Mixed Use in an area west of Bragg Street from 23'o 24 "
Streets located nine blocks east of the applicant's
property.
On February 20,1996,a change was made from Single Family
to Public Institutional in an area between Marshall and
Battery from 13 to 14 Street located northwest of the
applicant's property.
The applicant's property is shown on the Land Use Plan as
Single Family.The property immediately to the north,east,
and south of the applicant's property is shown as Single
Family.The property directly to the west is shown as
Public Institutional and the block to the southwest is shown
as Commercial.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Spring Street is shown on the Master Street Plan as a local
street and is built to that standard.
PARKS:
Pettaway Park is located seven blocks to the east of the
applicant's property on 22"Street and is shown as a
Neighborhood Park.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant'property is inside the area covered by the
neighborhood action plan titled "Downtown Neighborhoods:
Plan for the Future."The neighborhood action plan listed
two relevant goals'he first goal consists of
rehabilitation of decayed residential and commercial
structures,and elimination of overgrown vacant lots.The
second consists of job promotion and training for unemployed
and poor residents.The neighborhood action plan also
listed the action statement of encouraging mixed-use
activity in small commercial structures in residential
2
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-09
blocks.However,the same action statement added that
restrictions designed to limit traffic and noise in
residential areas should not be lifted.
ANALYSIS:
This site is in an older residential neighborhood in the
central portion of the city.Along Broadway and Main
Streets,both arterials,lay areas of Mixed Use,Commercial
and Office areas as shown on the Land Use Plan.In this
three block section between the two arterials is where this
application lies.The Capitol Zoning District boundary
extends southward to 23 Street,one half-block north of
this application.This area was hit by the 1999 tornado and
has numerous projects still under construction to repair
damage from the storm.The remainder to the south is a very
fragile area that is single family houses with several
vacant lots.
Spring Street was not designed to accommodate the traffic
demands of a commercial structure.
This application would create an island of Mixed Use in an
area of Single Family.There are existing areas of
Commercial and Mixed Use that are available for development
into non-residential uses.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Community Outreach Neighborhood Organization,
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,Central High
Neighborhood Association,East of Broadway Neighborhood
Association,Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,South End
Neighborhood Association,South End Neighborhood Developers,
South Little Rock Community Development Association,and the
Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received no comments from area residents
concerning the land use plan amendment.
3
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-09
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate due to traffic
concerns and intrusion into the existing neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral.
The notices for the zoning action were mailed seven dayslate.In an effort to keep the Land Use Plan and zoning
action together,both items were deferred to the December 2,
1999 meeting.The consent agenda was approved with a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Commissioner Herb Hawn asked if this area was included in
the proposal for Urban Use (UU)zoning.
Mr.Walter Malone,of Staff,stated that the applicant'
property did not lie in an area covered by the proposed
Urban Use zoning.The applicant'property lies in an area
south of the Capital Zoning District.
Commissioner Rohn Muse asked Mr.Minyard the difference
between a residential street and a collector street.Mr.
Minyard stated that residential streets are designed as the
lowest capacity streets and that residential streets feed
into collector streets.A discussion to place between the
commission,planning Staff and Bob Turner,Public Works,in
which the differences between residential,collector,and
commercial streets were described.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked if there was a letter from
the Downtown Neighborhoods Association in support of the
application.Mr.Minyard stated that the letter of support
was located in item H.
Chair Hugh Earnest mentioned the issue of approving
applications to improve areas of the city but stated that
4
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-09
for now the discussion should focus on the merits of the
current application concerning issues of land use.
Mr.J.C.Beard,the applicant,mentioned the deferral of
this item due to the failure of the applicant to notify the
neighboring property owners.The applicant stated that
since the deferral the neighboring property owners were
contacted regarding this issue.
Chair Earnest reminded the commission,staff,and audience
that the issue before the Commission was land use and not
zoning.
Commissioner Mizan Rahman wanted to now why staff opposed a
change to Mixed Use at this location.Mr.Malone explained
that the Downtown Neighborhoods planned called for the
increase of residential uses in the area.A change to Mixed
Use for an area,which is already residential with
residential structures indicates a desire to change the use
from residential to non-residential would not guarantee
development residential uses in the area.
Commissioner Obray Nunnley mentioned that the Downtown
Neighborhoods Association supported the proposed change
based on the belief that this area will not be revitalized
as a residential area.
Commissioner Berry stated his support for the land use plan
change.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was
approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
5
D~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:Z-6765
NAME:Beard —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:2311 Spring Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
J.C.and Brinda Beard Marlar Engineering Co.,Inc.
P.O.Box 165055 5318 J.F.K.Blvd.
Little Rock,AR 72206 No.Little Rock,AR 72116
AREA:0.172 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-4 ALLOWED USES:Single Family and Two Family
Residential
PROPOSED USE:Beauty Salon and Single Family
Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 2311 SpringStreetfromR-4 to PCD to allow for conversion of the 1,185squarefootsinglefamilyresidencestoabeautysalon.Anexisting378squarefootaccessorydwellingonthesitewillcontinuetobeusedasasinglefamilyresidence.TheapplicanthasalsofiledaminorLandUsePlanamendment forthisproperty(Item 14.1 on this agenda).
The proposed beauty salon will have two (2)operators.The
proposed hours of operation are as follows:
8:00 a.m.—8:00 p.m.,Tuesday —Friday6:00 a.m.—1:00 p.m.,Saturday
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing one-story frame (1,185 square feet)single family residence on the property as well as a 378
L 'ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6765
square foot,one-story frame accessory dwelling.The larger
dwelling is located within the west one-half of the property
with the accessory dwelling in the rear yard.There is also
a metal carport canopy near the northeast corner of the
property.
There are existing single-family residences to the north,
south and east,with an APEL substation to the west across
Spring Street.There is a large commercial building to the
southwest and other commercial uses one block further west
along Broadway.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)letter
supporting the proposed rezoning.The Downtown,
Meadowbrook,East of Broadway and South Little Rock
Community Development Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Spring Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.Dedication of right-of-way is required to 10 feet from
centerline of alley.
3.Show parking and construct sidewalk with proposed
development.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by CATA Route ¹11;approved as
submitted for transit purposes.
2
L 'ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6765
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Central City Planning District.The
-Land.-Use Plan currently shows Single Family for this
location.There is pending Land Use Plan Amendment on this
agenda for this property.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The Downtown
Neighborhoods Plan for the Future encourages mixed uses in
small commercial structures but also recommends maintaining
restrictions to protect homeowners from increased traffic
and noise.
Landsca e Issues:
A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern,
northern and western perimeters of the property.This
screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on October 28,1999.The revised plan
shows a proposed parking plan for the property,as noted on
the attached site plan.The applicant proposes to use the
existing carport canopy as one space,with two spaces (one
behind the other)along the north side of the structure on
the existing concrete drive.A fourth space is proposed in
the grass covered area along the south side of the existing
concrete drive.The applicant has noted that there is also
on-street parking in the area that could also be utilized.
The parking plan as proposed would not conform to typical
ordinance standards,with respect to space size,maneuvering
area,pavement,etc.The ordinance would typically required
six (6)spaces for the proposed uses,five (5)for the
beauty salon and one (1)for the accessory dwelling.
Aside from the parking issue,staff cannot support the
proposed use of the property.Based on the fact that the
proposed use is not consistent with the current Land Use
Plan nor the recently adopted Downtown Neighborhood Plan,
staff feels that the proposed commercial use will not be
compatible with the surrounding single family uses.
3
D&~~er 2,1999
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6765
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed PCD rezoning.
—SUBDIVIS EON COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff gave a brief description of
the proposed PCD.Staff noted that additional information was
needed from the applicant regarding the proposed commercial
operation.Staff also noted that a parking plan was needed for
the property.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD to
the full Commission for resolution.Staff noted that the
applicant would be contacted and the additional information would
be obtained.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant was seven (7)
days late in sending the required notification to surrounding
property owners.The Commission determined that the item needed
to be deferred.
J.C.and Brinda Beard were present,representing the
application.There was a brief discussion relating to the
required notification and the deferral of this item.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 2,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
J.C.and Brinda Beard were present,representing the
application.A procedural motion was made to waive the staff
presentation on this application.The motion was seconded and
passed.
Commissioner Nunnley asked staff about the parking issues
associated with this site plan.
4
DOVf NTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
BOx '1 64485,LITTLE ROCK,AR 722 't 6
(PRESIDENT KATHY WELLS,'I 998-99 PHONE 501-374-7269,FAX 50't-3746946
FDUNDED 1984 &REA:ARKANsAs RIYER,KING DR.,RoosEvELT RD.,INTERsTATE 30)
74~H
2-&7~5
October 1,1999
Dana Carney
Little Rock Planning Department
723 W.Markham St.
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Mr.Carney,
The Downtown Neighborhood Association supports the rezoning proposed for 2311 S.Spring St,so that
this residence may become a beauty shop operated by Brenda Beard.The house sits across the street
from the back of a shopping center and an electric substation,and that makes it less successful as a home,
we are convinced.
We do,however,support the views of the immediate neighbors on that block,and if they oppose the
application,then we join them.Absent such objection,our Association does encourage re-use of this
long-vacant structure -and the vacant lot next door.
Yours Truly,
Kathy Wells,President
copy to Brenda Beard,applicant
RECEIVED
OCT 04 1999
BY:
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:I FILE NO.:Z-6767
NAME:The Toddy Shop —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:14001 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
A.J.Gornatti McGetrick and McGetrick
14001 Cantrell Road 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72212 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:Approx.0.38 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2/Nonconforming ALLOWED USES:General Commercial
C-3
PROPOSED USE:Addition to existing
liquor store building
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The property at 14001 Cantrell Road is zoned R-2 with a
nonconforming C-3 status.The existing building on the site is a
two-story,2,485 square foot brick building that has a retail
liquor store on the lower level (1,242.5 square feet)and office
and storage space for the liquor store business on the upper
level (1,242.5 square feet).There are seven paved parking
spaces for customers on the north side of the building with a
gravel parking area in the rear for employees.The building has
a drive-thru window on the west side with a paved access drive.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
PD-C in order to expand the nonconforming commercial
building.The applicant proposes to construct a 12.8 foot
by 29 foot addition (single story)on the east side of thebuilding.The expansion will accommodate additional cooler
D~.ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6767
space required by the business.The exterior walls will be
constructed of four inch thick galvanized steel panels which
will be painted white.
the applicant has noted that the existing hours of operation
are from 10:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.,Monday-Thursday and 10:00
a.m.to 11:00 p.m.,Friday and Saturday.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing two-story commercial building on thesitewithpavedparkinginthefront,a paved drive-thru
area and a gravel parking area in the rear.There is
undeveloped 0-3 and C-3 zoned property to the north across
Cantrell Road,with the Kroger store commercial developmenttothenorthwest.There is a carwash immediately west ofthissite,with a miniwarehouse and commercial developmentfurtherwest.There is a landscape business located across
Black Road to the east,with single family residences
further east along the south side of Cantrell Road.ThereisonesinglefamilyresidenceimmediatelysouthofthissiteinadditiontoundevelopedR-2 zoned property.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no comment from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The Parkway Community Improvement,SecludedHillsandWestburyNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cantrell Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial;dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline will be required.
2.Black Road is a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way
to 30 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Cantrell and Black Roads.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
2
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6767
8.Revise driveway location to allow access from Black Road
only.
9.Show driveway location on site plan.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Location of sewer service for this property
unknown.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility fordetails.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:Fire hydrant may be required.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA;approved.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request,is in the River Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan currently shows Commercial for this
location.The existing use of a liquor store is consistent
with the current land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The River
Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan did not list goals or
objectives pertaining to this action.
Landsca e Issues:
A small landscape upgrade toward compliance with the
Landscape Ordinance equal to the 15%building expansion
proposed is required.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff with additional
information as requested.The applicant has noted that the
required right-of-way for both streets will be dedicated,
including the 20 foot corner radial dedication.The
applicant also notes that a 15 percent in-lieu contribution
will be made for the required street improvements.
3
D~.ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6767
The applicant proposes to utilize the two (2)existing
driveways (one from Cantrell Road and one from Black Road)
for access.The two drives have existed and served the
property for several years.Based on the small scale of the
proposed building expansion,Public Works supports using the
existing driveways and making the 15 percent in-lieu
contribution for future street improvements.
There should be no outstanding issues associated with this
application.The proposed building addition should have no
adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-C zoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Staff supports utilizing the existing driveways foraccess.3.Staff supports a 15 percent in-lieu contribution forfuturestreetimprovements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the PD-C.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.A waiver
or 15 percent in-lieu contribution for the required street
improvements was discussed.The requirement for a revised
driveway location to allow access from Black Road only was also
discussed.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-C to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted alettertostaffonNovember2,1999 requesting that the item be
deferred to the December 2,1999 agenda.The applicant failed to
send the required notification.Staff supported the deferral
request.
4
D~~ember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6767
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 2,1999
agenda.A notice to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,and there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
December 2,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:G-23-298
Name:Alley between West 7 and
8 Streets in Block 72,
Original City of Little Rock
right-of-way Abandonment.
Location:Approximately 280 feet of
Alley north of West 8 "
Street.
Owner/A licant:Dickson Flake Agent
Receues t:To abandon the 20 feet wide
by 280 feet long alley
right-of-way in Block 72
Original City of Little
Rock.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for this alle
Alley is currently constructed as a public alley with
narrow pavement providing access to adjacent property.
2.Master Street Plan
Master Street Plan reflects no need for this section
of the alley.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
Master Street Plan calls for additional 5 feet of
right-of-way on Main.There is sufficient right-of-way
for Louisiana,West 7 "and 8 Streets.There is also
need for 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way at
all corners.Staff will support waiver of additional
right-of-way on Main Street.
4.Develo ment Potential
The George W.Donaghey Foundation plans to incorporate
alley in expansion project.
1
December 2,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:G-23-298
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is made up of a mixture of commercial
and office uses.
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and tenants were notified
of the public hearing.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Entergy —has no objection to the abandonment but
requested easement to access existing lines.
AM(LA —has no objection to the abandonment.
Southwestern Bell —has no objection to the abandonment
but requested easement to access existing line.
Water Works —has no objection.
Wastewater Utility —has no objection but retain as an
easement.
Fire Department —has no objection.
Neighborhood and Planning —has no objection to
abandonment.
8.Reversionar Ri hts
No Reversionary rights —Original City of Little Rock.
Deed will be executed by Mayor and City Clerk.
9.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Abandoning this alley will have no adverse effects on
the public welfare and safety.
2
December 2,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:G-23-298
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of alley abandonment,north of 8StreetinBlock72OriginalCityofLittleRocksubjectto:
20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way on all cornerspriortoBoardofDirectorshearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(October 21,1999)
The application was discussed briefly.Committee forwarded
the item to the full Commission for final approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(November 11,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that Fire Department
requesting additional time to meet with applicant.Applicant
agreed to defer this item until December 2,1999 Planning
Commission Meeting.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
December 2,1999 agenda.A motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes
and 0 nays.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(December 2,1999)
The Public Works Staff reported there were no continuing
issues on this project.All of the matters raised by Fire
Department have been resolved.
After a brief discussion,the Commission determined it
appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for
approval.A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by
a vote of 11 ayes,Onayes.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-5057-A
Owner:Olivia Porter
Applicant:Rolanda Porter
Location:4721 Confederate Blvd.
Request:Rezone from C-3 to R-2
Purpose:To continue to use the existing
residence and to add a
multisectional manufactured
home as an accessory dwelling
Size:1.34+acres
Existing Use:Single Family;one site built
home and one recently added
multisectional manufactured
home (accessory dwelling)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
South —Single Family and Nonconforming barbershop;
zoned R-2
East —Single Family;zoned R-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
No Comment.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA bus route is located at,Springer Blvd.and Gilliam
Park Road,two blocks west of this site.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and the Granite Mountain
Neighborhood Association were notified of the rezoning
request.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-A
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the College Station/Sweet Home
Planning District.The adopted Plan currently recommends
Minin~(M)for the majority of the site and Park/Open Space
(PK/OS)for that portion of the site nearest the street.
Insomuch as the property is reverting to single family,
which it has always been used for and which is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area,staff feels that no change
to the Plan is warranted.A thorough review of the area's
land use plan through a neighborhood action plan is
anticipated in the not-too-distant future.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.34+
acre tract from "C-3"General Commercial to "R-2"Single
Family.The property is occupied by an older one story,
frame,single family residence and a new,multisectional
manufactured home which has recently been placed on the
property.A conditional use permit application has been
filed in conjunction with this rezoning request to allow
the manufactured home to serve as an accessory dwelling
(Z-5057-A,item no.1.1 on this agenda).
On October 18,1988,the property was rezoned from R-2 to
C-3 on behalf of a previous owner to allow for construction
of a used furniture store on the rear portion of the site.
That development never occurred and the property has
continued to be used only as a single family residence.
The property is located near the city limits in the extreme
southeast part of the City.The predominant land use in the
area is single family homes on R-2 zoned lots.The
properties adjacent to the east,west and across Confederate
Blvd.to the south are occupied by single family homes.A
nonconforming barber shop is located on R-2 zoned property
to the southwest.Two small nonresidential uses are located
on I-2 and C-3 zoned properties southeast of the site.A
large area of mining property is located farther to the
east.Staff believes the requested R-2 zoning is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area and is appropriate for the
continued residential use of this property.
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-A
The College Station/Sweet Home District Land Use Plan does
not currently recognize this residential use.The Plan
proposes mining for a large area north and east and
Park/Open Space along Confederate and as a buffer to the
residential neighborhood farther to the west.Since the
property is being rezoned to its former residential
designation to accommodate its existing and continued
residential use,staff believes no plan change is needed at
this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-2 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had failed to complete the proper notification and the item
needed to be deferred.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the January 6,2000 meeting.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes
and 0 absent.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1.1 FILE NO.:2-5057-B
NAME:Porter Accessory Dwelling —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:4721 Confederate Boulevard
OWNER/APPLICANT:Olivia Porter/Gerald Porter
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
place a two-section manufactured home as
an accessory dwelling on this property
currently zoned C-3 at 4721 Confederate
Boulevard.There is an accompanying item
on this agenda to rezone the property
from C-3 to R-2.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the north side of Confederate
Boulevard,approximately 0.2 mile east of the Granite
Mountain Community Center.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEGHBORHOOD:
This site is located in an area which is primarily
residential,but this property is zoned C-3,General
Commercial.There is an accompanying item on this
agenda to rezone the property to R-2,Single Family
Residential.It is surrounded by R-2 zoning.There is a
small area of I-2 and C-3 zoning a short distance to
the east and across Confederate Blvd.There is also a
small area of R-4 zoning,Two Family Residential,
directly to the south,but set off of Confederate about
150 feet.There is a single family house on both sides
of,as well as on,this site.A barber/beauty center
exists to the southwest.A few other single family
houses exist along the south side of Confederate
including directly across the street to the south.
Staff believes the proposed use should be compatible
with the neighborhood.
The Granite Mountain Neighborhood Association was
notified of the Public Hearing.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This property contains a gravel circle drive serving
the existing house.The proposal includes constructing
a ~ravel drive from the west side of the existing
drive,along the west side of the existing house,to
serve the proposed accessory dwelling in the rear.This
would adequately serve as access and parking.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
The driveways must meet residential ordinance standards
and one be added to serve the accessory dwelling.
Current access to the street can be left as it is,but
no additional access directly to Confederate should be
added.The driveway for the accessory dwelling should
branch off of the existing driveway as shown on the
proposed site plan.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Approved as submitted.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected by
the project.
Southwestern Bell-:Approved as submitted.
AEKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit toinstallanew1,904 square foot two-section
manufactured home as an accessory dwelling behind an
existing 1,974 square foot single family house.The
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
property is currently zoned C-3 which would not allow
Single Family residential use,but there is an
accompanying item on this agenda requesting rezoning to
R-2,Single Family Residential.The owner of this
property also owns the lot immediately to the west
which contains her residence.
The accessory dwelling is already in place,but does
not meet the City's standards for anchoring and setup.
Those discrepancies will have to be corrected.The
setback on the west side is only 1.8 feet compared to
the ordinance requirement of 3 feet.That side of thesiteabutsthelotwheretheownerofbothlotslives.
A variance for reduced setback would be required.The
proposal meets all other setback requirements.
The proposed site is 1.35 acres,and is 500 feet deep
and 118 feet wide.Therefore,there is plenty of room
for two dwellings.The owner of this property wants to
have her children and their families live in both the
house and the accessory dwelling.The 1,904 square feet
size of the accessory dwelling exceeds the ordinance
maximum of 700 square feet,so that size would also
require a variance.
The area surrounding the proposed site consists of a
variety of lot sizes and a mixture of zoning and uses.
Several of the lots are vacant,but most of the
occupied lots contain single family homes or duplexes,
with some commercial uses on the south side of
Confederate Boulevard across the street and to theeast.Staff believes this is a reasonable addition to
this property and would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with Public Works Comments.
b.The manufactured home must be set up and anchored
in compliance with City standards including the
following:
1)A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
2)Removal of all transport elements.
3)Permanent foundation.
4)Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
5)Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
6)Underpinning with permanent materials.
7)All homes shall be multisectional.
8)Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
Staff also recommends approval of the reduced setback
variance of 1.8 feet on the west side,and a variance
allowing the larger square footage of 1,904 square
feet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Gerald Porter was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff briefly reviewed with the applicant the general
requirements for setting up a manufactured home by City
standards and stated that more specifics would be provided
after someone from the City's building codes department made
an on site inspection.Staff also commented about the west
setback and overall size variances that would be required
with this proposal.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had failed to complete the required notices for the
accompanying rezoning application (item 1,2-5057-A)and the
items should be deferred to the January 6,2000 meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the January 6,2000 meeting.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes
and 0 absent.
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek
Planning District
Location:9222 Stagecoach Rd.
RecCuest:Mixed Use &Single Family tn Multi-Family
Source:Rollin Caristianos;Rector,Philips,Morse,Inc.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District
from Mixed Use 6 Single-Family to Multi-Family.Multi-
Family accommodates residential development of ten to
thirty-six dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to
develop an apartment complex with a maximum density of
eighteen units per acxe.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned Planned Development
Commercial,is approximately 19.1+acres in size,and is
currently used as a golf driving range.The property on all
sides of the applicant's property is zoned R-2 Single
Family.To the north are single family residences and at the
intexsection of Baseline Road and Stagecoach Road are two
convenience stores and a small strip center zoned C-3.
Directly across Stagecoach Road are houses and to the south
of them are two churches and vacant property zoned MF-18
multi-family,0-2 Office and Institutional and the churches
have MF-18 with a CUP and R-2 single Family with a CUP.To
the south on the west side of Stagecoach Road is largely
undeveloped land and the new Westfield Subdivision.Another
new subdivision lies to the immediate west of the property.
Westfield has homes on approximately 80%of the lots while
the other has about 20%.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On August 17,1999,a change was made from Multi-Family to
Mixed Use and Single Family along Stagecoach Rd.,extending
up to Baseline Rd.,including the current applicant's
property.
On October 6,1998,A change was made from Community
Shopping to Commercial at the northeast corner of the I-
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
30/I-430 interchange about a mile east of the applicant's
property.
On August 5,1997,a change was made from Multi-Family to
Single Family south of Baseline Rd.east of Wimbledon Loop
west of the applicant's property.
OnM+ly 1,1997,a change was made from Community Shopping
to Commercial at 12024 I-30 north to Otter Creek Rd.about a
mile southeast of the applicant's property.
On April 2,1996,a change was made from Multi-Family to
Single Family at Otter Creek Pkwy near Black Walnut Circle a
half-mile southwest of the applicant's property.
The applicant's property is shown as Mixed Use and Single
Family.The neighboring property to the north and south is
also shown as Mixed Use and Single Family.Public
Institutional and Office are shown to the east of the
applicant's property across Stagecoach Road.All of the
property to the west is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Stagecoach Rd.is shown as a minor arterial on the Master
Street Plan.The State Highway Department is currently
widening this section of Stagecoach Road,Highway 5,into a
five-lane road.A Class II Bikeway is designated along
Stagecoach Rd.from Brodie Creek to County Line Rd.
PARKS:
The new Otter Creek Park is under development further to the
southwest on Stagecoach Road.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
Currently a city recognized neighborhood action plan for
this area does not exist.The Otter Creek /Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan is in the process of being
formulated.
ANALYSIS:
This area is a developing suburban area.Otter Creek
subdivision is currently expanding to the northwest along
with the new Westfield subdivision located to the south of
this application and Wedgwood Subdivision located to the
west.New businesses are locating in the area of the
2
December 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
Baseline and Stagecoach intersection and the Otter Creek
Parkway and Stagecoach intersection.
Two areas near the applicant's property are currently shown
on the Land Use Plan as Single Family and Mixed Use but
———-contain M-12 Multifamily zones.Two MF-12 zoned tracts of
land lie to the south of the applicant along the west side
of Stagecoach Road.A MF-18 zoned tract lies on the east
side of Stagecoach Road.Half of the area has a Conditional
Use Permit for the Calvary Apostolic Church while the
remaining half lies vacant.
The Mixed Use category supports a mixture of residential,
office and commercial uses.A Planned Zoning District is
required if the use not residential.Mixed Use can support
wholly commercial or office developments when a PZD is used.
A pure commercial area would be a much more intense
development than any residential development.As stated
before,the Mixed Use category does support residential
uses,which includes multi-family.If the entirety of the
application had fallen within the Mixed Use area,no plan
amendment would have been necessary.The reason that a land
use plan amendment was filed was because more of the 19+
acres fell within the Single Family area than the Mixed Use
area.It is considered an intensity change since both
multi-family and single family area residential.
The vast majority of the area shown on the map west of the
application,east of Otter Creek Subdivision,and south of
Baseline has been preliminary platted for single family
housing.Streets are shown (but without houses)on two of
the subdivisions to the west and south (Wedgwood and
Westfield,respectively).This multifamily would be limited
from expansion to the west by these newly constructed
subdivisions.
A buffer could be appropriate to screen the multi-family
from the single family to the rear because of differing
scales of the buildings between the single family houses
that are being built and the typical size of multi-family
structures.This buffer would not be needed to screen the
multifamily from the mixed use area to the north and south.
Staff checked occupancy rates at the three existing
apartment complexes in the area.The two that responded to
the inquiry stated that they had occupancy rates of 99 and
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
100%occupied.The high rate of occupancy is evidence that
there is demand for additional multi-family units in the
area.
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 the
Crystal Valley Property Owners Association.
Staff has received ten comments from area residents.Six are
opposed to the change and two were neutral.Crystal Valley
and Otter Creek Neighborhood Associations,which border this
site,are opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate and would recommend
a 50'K/OS strip to buffer the Single Family along three
sides of the development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff presented the item.He
noted that the applicant has agreed to a 50'K/OS strip
along the south,west and north sides of the property whereitabutsSingleFamily.
Chairman Hugh Earnest asked Mr.Minyard about the previous
change to Mixed Use.He asked what amount of acreage lies
in the MX area and what lies in the Single Family area.Mr.
Minyard stated that it was about 8 acres in the Mixed Use
and 11 acres in the Single Family,approximately.Chairman
Earnest commented upon the Wedgwood Subdivision to the
immediate west.
Commissioner Bob Lowery commented on the occupancy rate of
the apartments and asked how many units were in each
complex.Mr.Minyard stated that he had that information in
his file but did not have it at that moment.Commissioner
Lowery continued to ask what the distances were between the
proposed and existing apartments.Mr.Minyard estimated it
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
was about 1200'o Eagle Hill,a half to three-quarters of a
mile to Otter Creek Villas,and a mile to a mile and a half
to Westwood.Staff picked those three complexes because of
there proximately to the site.Commissioner Lowery asked if
there were other complexes in the area.Mr.Minyard replied
that the other complexes were on the east side of 430.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director,gave
history of the site.When the zoning was changed for the
driving range,Staff did not support commercial,but agreed
to the driving range as a holding zoning as a temporary use.
Staff's opinion now is that multi-family is a desirable
zoning because commercial stripped along Stagecoach is not
desirable.Staff saw this as a step down from the
Commercial.He continued to speak about the traffic along
Stagecoach as a shortcut from 430 to the county line.
Commissioner Lowery asked what acreage was zoned multi-
family at the present.Mr.Minyard stated those areas.
Chairman Earnest pointed out that the front section of the
property would support multi-family under Mixed Use.
Mr.Lawson commented on the traffic problems along
Stagecoach Road in relation to the freeways.
Chairman Earnest stated the limit of 20 minutes per side.
Rollin Christianos,of Rector Phillips Morse,spoke in favor
of the application.He further stated that the developer
would be willing to set a maximum of 264 units on the site
with two phases.He continued that there were limitations
to the other properties.He spoke of constraints of
developing the site for commercial.
Maury Mitchell,of Rector Phillips Morse,spoke in favor of
the application.He indicated that the developer of the
apartment units is Park Development in Jackson,Mississippi
and described the complex.
Gerald Staley,the applicant,spoke in favor of the
application.He spoke of the history of the site and the
fact that it was previously multi-family on the plan.He
asked to be given multi-family zoning that corresponds to
the old plan.He continued to speak of traffic problems in
the area.He also spoke of buffers on the property
including easements of utilities.
5
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
Cathy Coston,chairman of the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan,spoke in opposition to the change.
She stated that they are not opposed to growth in the area
and spoke of traffic problems.She spoke of the number of
units added in the area over the last two years and the
density of the area.She continued to speak of the existing
42 acres of non-developed multi-family zoned areas in the
neighborhood .
Mike Parsley spoke in opposition the change.
David Henning,who lives across Stagecoach Road from the
site,spoke in opposition to the change.He addressed
traffic concerns and accidents.He continued to speak of
drainage issues of runoff and the ecosystem of the Fourche
Creek.He indicated he now regrets the previous Land Use
Plan change of his property to Office.
George Ingram,of 9106 Stagecoach,spoke in opposition to
the change.He spoke of drainage,traffic,and crime
problems.
Norm Floyd spoke in opposition to the change and of
deteriorating conditions of multifamily.He spoke of
occupancy rates and the economics of multi-family.
Oley Rooker,President of Crystal Valley Property Owners
Association,spoke in opposition to the plan.He spoke of
improvement to the area and of traffic concerns and existing
zoned property for multi-family.He stated that density was
the problem in neighborhoods.
Necole Kerie spoke in opposition to the change.She spoke
of working on the neighborhood plan and the desires of the
people and asked the commissioners to respect their wishes.
Julie Hall Barrow spoke in opposition.She is a new
resident to Little Rock and spoke of memories of living in
apartments.She is a homeowner and does not want to live
next to apartments because of prior experience of what goes
on there.
Commissioner Judith Faust asked of Staff if there are rules
of thumb or formulas to the proper mix of multi and single
family in a particular area.Mr.Lawson stated that Staff
6
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
has not done research on that.Commissioner Craig Berry
stated that the dynamics of residential living are changing
and that establishing ratios may not be beneficial.
Mr.Lawson stated that in other areas of the city,large
numbers of apartments function together well.He continued
that apartments were built outside the city limits in the
past and some of those have gone downhill.Management is
the key to keep away decline of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Mizan Rahman spoke about what happens to the
property if it is not changed to multi-family.Mr.Lawson
spoke of the number of units in an area and how those affect
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Herb Hawn spoke about the rental inspection
program.He desired to speak about the issue of Land Use,
not zoning.He stated that utility easements and wide
buffers bound this area.
Commissioner Rahman stated that things are dynamic and askedifthishadanegativeimpactonthearea.
Commissioner Pam Adcock asked Ms.Coston about other zoned
property for multi-family in the area.Mr.Malone explained
where the parcels of multi-family are located.Ms.Coston
addressed the issue of Land Use and stated that the steering
committee looked at the Land Use Plan and stated that the
group had reached consensus about eliminating the
possibility of further multi-family.
Commissioner Berry asked Staff what the maximum density
allowed in the area shown as Multi Family.Mr.Malone stated
that the Mixed Use area would not require a Land Use Plan
change for multi-family.Commissioner Berry continued that
the proposed use is less dense than what could be developed
on that site.He continued to speak about sprawl in the
city.Commissioner Adcock stated that she did not agree
with one of his comments on this issue and continued to
speak about the past involvement of the neighborhood.
Commissioners Berry and Adcock continued in a conversation
about developments in their own neighborhoods and the
expectation of neighborhoods concerning multi-family.
Commissioner Adcock made a motion to approve the Land Use
Plan and was seconded.Chairman Earnest reminded the
7
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-04
commissioners that the motion was concerning changing the
Land Use Plan.Commissioner Rahman asked that the applicant
be recognized.Mr.Mitchell indicated that there are other
multi-family zoned properties in the area are owned by the
Otter Creek Land Company'or have floodplain and price
problems.He stated he would buy another site if possible,
but they would not sell.He continued to speak about
drainage and the unfair comparison of this area to other
areas of the city.
Mr.Lawson wanted to clarify that the motion included the
amended 50'K/OS strip.It was noted that the PK/OS strip
was part of the motion.
Chairman Earnest mentioned that this area was changed
recently to mixed use after discussion and thought by the
planning commission.
The motion was denied with 4 ayes,5 noes and 2 absent.A
discussion ensued between the commissioners about the bylaws
and if the motion failed or passed.Mr.Steve Giles,of the
City Attorney's Office,stated that he did not have his
bylaws but that he thought it took six votes either way to
pass or fail.He continued that the item would be forwarded
to the Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial.
Mr.Malone asked for the names of the four commissioners who
voted for the item for the record.Those with aye votes areBillRector,Craig Berry,Herb Hawn and Judith Faust.
STAFF UPDATE
Upon further review of the bylaws between Planning Staff and
Mr.Giles,it was discovered that since the item did not
"receive a positive vote from the majority of members
present"and failed to "receive the required six votes for
approval or denial",it shall be declared to be denied.The
applicant was notified he would have to appeal to the City
Board of Directors if he wished them to hear it.
8
a'ecember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2.1 FILE NO.:Z-6178-A
Owner:Gerald Staley
Applicant:Rollin Caristianos
Location:9222 Stagecoach Road
Request:Rezone from PD-C to MF-18
Purpose:Develop as Multifamily
Size:19.5+acres
Existing Use:Golf driving range
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped and Single Family;zoned R-2
South —Undeveloped;zoned R-2 and MF-12
East —Single Family;zoned R-2
West —New Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Stagecoach is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from
new centerline is required.
With Buildin Permit
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.3.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.A sketch grading and drainage plan,a special flood
hazard permit,and a special grading permit for flood
hazard areas are required.Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE)and NPDES permit
are also required.
6.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street
lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock
Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-A
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and the Otter Creek and Crystal
Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan was recently amended changing the
designation of this site from Multifamily to Mixed Use for
the frontage along Stagecoach Road and single family for the
remainder of the site.A Land Use Plan Amendment,changing
the site back to multifamily is item no.2 on this agenda,
LU99-16-04.A neighborhood action plan has not been
approved for this area.The Otter Creek/Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan is now being developed and is
anticipated to reach the Planning Commission in the early
spring of 2000.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 19.5+
acre tract from PD-C Planned Development —Commercial to
MF-18 Multifamily.The site is now occupied by a golf
driving range.Once the property is rezoned,it will be
developed as multifamily.No specific development plan has
been submitted.This rezoning request is associated with
Land Use Plan Amendment LU99-16-04,item no.2 on this
agenda.
Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.On December
17,1996,the property was rezoned from R-2 to PD-C for the
golf driving range.At that time,the Land Use Plan
recommended Multifamily for the site.The Planning
Commission viewed the driving range as more of a "holding
use"for the property and voted not to change the land use
plan.
2
0ecember 2,1999
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-A
On July 22,1999,the Commission was approached by the owner
of a 15.19+acre tract located south of the driving range
with a Land Use Plan Amendment and rezoning request
primarily to accommodate a speculative location of a postoffice.In response to that application,staff expanded the
review area to include 47.13+acres located west of
Stagecoach Road,south of Baseline Road;including thissite.The Commission voted to approve Mixed Use (MX)for a
depth of approximately 500 feet along Stagecoach Road and
Single Family (SF)for the remainder of the 47.13+acres to
the west.The Board of Directors approved the change on
August 17,1999.The result was the elimination of all
multifamily on the plan in this area.
Uses and Zoning in the area are somewhat varied,although
the predominant use is single family.A new single family
subdivision is developing to the west of the site.Older
single family homes and an area of undeveloped property are
adjacent to the north.An undeveloped,wooded area of R-2
and MF-12 properties extends to the south.The properties
across Stagecoach Road to the east include undeveloped C-3
tracts,R-2 zoned single family homes,undeveloped 0-1
tracts and two churches on tracts zoned MF-18 and R-2.Thefirstphasesoftwonewmultifamilydevelopmentshave
recently been constructed in the general area.A larger,
1000+unit,development is located north of Baseline Road,
west of Stagecoach and a 312 unit development is located
south of the Otter Creek neighborhood,further west on
Stagecoach Road.
The MX Land Use designation,which covers the front 500 feet
of this tract,allows multifamily.Staff believes that
placing a 50 foot wide Open Space (OS)buffer around the
rear portion of the tract (that part now shown as single
family)will provide adequate separation between any
multifamily development and adjacent single family.With
this proposed OS buffer and the knowledge that any multiple
building,multifamily development would require,at a
minimum,site plan review by the Planning Commission staff
believes the proposed MF-18 zoning could be compatible with
uses and zoning in the area.
No neighborhood action plan has been approved for the area.
The Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan is
now in development and should be presented to the Commission
in spring of 2000.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6769
Owner:Stan Hastings
Applicant:Integra Group
Location:3500 Longcoy
Request:Rezone from R-3 to C-3
Purpose:Include within larger area to
be developed as a retail auto
parts store.
Size:.46+acres
Existing Use:Vacant lots
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family;zoned R-3 and Vacant lots;
zoned C-3
South —Vacant lots;zoned C-3
East —Single Family;zoned R-3
West —Vacant lots;zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Barrow Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2.West 36 Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.Dedicate right-of-way to 35 feet from
centerline.
3.Longcoy Street and 35 Street are listed on the Master
Street Plan as commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-
way to 30 feet from centerline.(Pertinent to this
rezoning)
4.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at all corners.(pertinent to this rezoning)
With Buildin Permit
5.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6769
7.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
8.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
9.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
10.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA bus route is located on West 36 Street,one block
south of this site.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association were notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for the site
with a Park/Open Space "corridor"along the Longcoy Street
perimeter.The Plan is consistent with the John Barrow
Neighborhood Action Plan which was approved on June 18,
1996.The PK/OS corridor along Longcoy is intended to
establish a prohibition against taking access from the
commercial site onto Longcoy,thus providing an additional
barrier between the commercial development and the
residences located across Longcoy Street.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone these threelotsfrom"R-3"Single Family to "C-3"General Commercial.
The lots are currently undeveloped,with a scattering of
shrubs and a few trees.Once rezoned,the lots will be
incorporated into the proposed development of a new retail
development which is to encompass the entire block bounded
by West 35 ,West 36 ,Longcoy and John Barrow Streets.
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6769
The property is located within the commercial node
established around the intersection of John Barrow Road and
West 36 Street.Much of the C-3 zoned property located
around the intersection is either undeveloped or else is
occupied by single family homes.A liquor store is located
on the C-3 tract at the southeast corner of John Barrow and
West 36 .Additional,small scale commercial uses extend
up John Barrow Road from West 35 Street to West 32"
Street.Other than this small area of commercial zoning
along 36 and Barrow,the larger area is comprised almost
completely of single family homes on R-3 zoned lots.The
R-3 zoned lots across Longcoy and West 35 Streets contain
single family homes.
The Boyle Park District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial
for this site,with a Park/Open Space "corridor"to extend
along Longcoy Street.The C-3 zoning request conforms to
the Plan designation of commercial.The request also
conforms to the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan.The
PK/OS corridor was instituted in 1996,in conjunction with
the neighborhood action plan.The purpose behind the
corridor is to prohibit access from the commercial block
bounded by West 35 ,West 36 ,Longcoy and John Barrow onto
Longcoy Street,which is a residential street providing
access to homes in the John Barrow Neighborhood.Staff
believes it is appropriate to zone a 10 foot.wide OS strip
along the eastern perimeter of the subject property.The OSstripwouldprohibitaccessontoLongcoy.The block is 269feetdeep,from John Barrow to Longcoy.Development of thesitewouldrequireabufferontheLongcoyperimeterof5%
of the average depth of the tract,or 13.5 feet.The 10
foot OS strip will be incorporated into the required buffer
that,must be provided when the site is developed.Zoning
the strip OS will provide additional protection for the
residential properties across Longcoy by prohibiting
driveways.
Although it is not part of this rezoning application,staff
believes it is appropriate to establish the 10 foot OS strip
along the remainder of the block,extending south to West
36 Street.Such a strip would prohibit access from the
remainder of the block onto Longcoy Street,providing the
same level of protection for the remaining residents on the
east side of Longcoy.The OS strip is consistent with the
Land Use Plan and the Neighborhood Action Plan.The
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6769
appropriate legal ad can be posted in the newspaper prior to
the item going to the Board of Directors,if the Planning
Commission were to approve the additional OS zoning.
———-STAFF—RECOMHENDAT ION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning with
the eastern 10 feet of the subject property (Lots 4,5 and
6,Block 152,John Barrow Addition)to be zoned OS,Open
Space to prohibit access onto Longcoy Street.
Additionally,staff recommends that the Commission approve
zoning the eastern 10 feet of the remainder of the block
which fronts onto Longcoy Street (Lots 1,2 and 3,Block
152,John Barrow Addition)from C-3 to OS,Open Space to
prohibit access onto Longcoy Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that
the applicant had agreed to the requested 10'pen Space
strip along the eastern perimeter of the entire block.
Staff recommended approval of the C-3 zoning and the
10'penSpacestrip.
The C-3 rezoning request and the 10'pen Space zoning along
the eastern perimeter of the entire block were placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6770
Owner:Cherri Satterfield
Applicant:C.R.Satterfield,Jr.
Location:West side of Henderson Road,
approximately 1,000 feet south
of Raines Road
Recpxest:Rezone from R-2 to R-7A andSitePlanReview
Purpose:Placement of a single-wide
manufactured home
Size:5.00 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Pasture and Single Family;zoned R-2
South —Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Single Family and undeveloped tracts;zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped tracts;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline of
existing road.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site were
notified of the rezoning request.There is no neighborhood
association within the vicinity of this site.The propertyisoutsideofthecitylimitsandnodatabaseofaddressesismaintainedtonotifyresidentsinthearea.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6770
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
The adopted Plan recommends Single Family for the site.
R:BA m a single family zoning district which allows for
placement of one manufactured home or one on-site
constructed dwelling per lot or parcel.The request
conforms to the adopted Plan.No neighborhood action plan
has been done for this area,nor is one proposed in the near
future.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 5 acretractfrom"R-2"Single Family to "R-7A"Manufactured HomeDistrictandtoapproveasiteplanforplacementofone,
single-wide manufactured home on the tract.The site is
vacant and mostly cleared.At one time,there were two
mobile homes on the tract.Those were removed sometime ago
and there are utility hook-ups remaining on the tract.
The property is located outside of the city limits but
within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction.The
predominant land uses in this rural area are single family
homes on large tracts and large areas of undeveloped,wooded
property.There are several nonconforming mobile homes and
manufactured homes located in the general vicinity including
across Henderson Road to the northeast.Single family homes
are located adjacent to the south and across Henderson Road
to the east.A pasture is adjacent to the north and a
single family home is located beyond that.The property
adjacent to the west is wooded.Farther to the south,at
the end of Henderson Road,a Planned Development-Office was
recently approved to allow use of an existing single family
home as an office.
The Land Use Plan recommends single family for this site.
R-7A is a single family zoning district.Staff believes the
zoning request to be compatible with uses and zoning in
the'reaandtoconformtotheadoptedLandUsePlan.
R-7A zoning requires the submission of a site plan at the
time of the zoning request.The applicant has submitted a
plan showing the placement of one,single-wide,1997 model
manufactured home on the tract.The home measures 16'
72',1,152 square feet.The applicant also proposes to
construct a two-car covered carport and a storage building.
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6770
All proposed structures exceed required setbacks.Placement
of the home must conform to the siting standards established
by Section 36-262 (d)(2).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-7A zoning.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan for
placement of a 1997 model,single-wide,16'
72'anufacturedhomeonthetractsubjecttocompliance with
the following siting criteria established in Section 36-
262 (d)(2)of the Code:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen
(14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport features.
c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the
neighborhood.
e.Underpinning with permanent materials.
f.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
g.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors
present.Several letters of objection and support had been
received by staff and forwarded to the Commissioners.
Staff presented the rezoning request and site plan and
offered a recommendation of approval as noted in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.At this point in the meeting,there
were only 8 commissioners present.The Chairman offered the
applicant the opportunity to defer the issue.The applicant
agreed to the deferral.It was determined by the Commission
that those persons present in opposition who might not be
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6770
able to return at a later date would be allowed to enter a
statement for the record.
Kay Hicks,of 7407 Henderson Road,stated that she built her
home 21 years ago.She commented that the one mobile home
now existing on the street was an eyesore.Ms.Hicks stated
that site built homes last longer than manufactured homes.
She acknowledged that there were previously two mobile homes
on the lot but said that she did not want any action
approved that would allow the encroachment of more
manufactured homes into the neighborhood.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lowry,Chairman
Earnest stated that he was giving persons the opportunity to
speak at either this meeting or the later meeting to which
the item was being deferred.
The Commission suggested that the deferral might allow the
two parties to get together to discuss the issue.
Ray Hanley,of 7413 Henderson Road,agreed to get together
with the applicant,if he was willing to do so.Mr.Hanley
stated that the property was zoned to allow for site-built
single family homes.
David Powell,of 7322 Henderson Road,stated that he had
nothing against "trailers"but his experiences with mobile
homes had not been good.
Ed Hicks,of 7407 Henderson Road,stated that he would defer
speaking to a later date.
A motion was made to defer the item to the January 20,2000
meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
4
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6772
Owner:Rees Development,Inc.
Applicant:Patrick McGetrick
Location:11,719 Hinson Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Future office development
Size:.80+acres
Existing Use:Single Family home
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Multi-story office building;zoned 0-3
South —Apartment complex;zoned R-5 and
Office Development;zoned PD-0
East —Apartment complex;zoned R-5
West —Masonic lodge and office buildings;zoned 0-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Hinson is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from
present centerline is required.
With Buildin Permit
2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Stormwater ordinance apply to this project.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The nearest CATA bus route is located at,Rodney Parham and
Green Mountain Drive;4 block east of this site.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and the Pleasant Valley and
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6772
Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Rodney Parham Planning District.
The adopted Plan recommends Office for the site.No
neighborhood action plan has been approved for this area norisoneproposedinthenearfuture.
The 0-3 Office request conforms to the adopted plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .80 acretractfrom"R-2"Single Family to "0-3"General Office.Thesitecurrentlycontainsaone-story,brick and frame,single-family residence.No specific development has been
proposed at this time.
Staff believes the 0-3 request to be appropriate and
compatible with uses and zoning in the area.The 0-3 zonedpropertiesadjacenttothewestareoccupiedbyamasonic
lodge and an office building.Several small office
buildings are located on the PD-0 zoned property to the
southwest.A large,three-story office building is located
on the 0-3 zoned property across Hinson Road to the north.
A large multifamily development is located on the R-5 zoned
property adjacent to the east and south.Carport structuresarelocatedontheapartmentpropertyborderingthesubjectproperty.Other uses and zoning in the area are varied,
ranging from single family homes across Hinson Road toadditionalmultifamilydevelopmentsandavarietyof
commercial uses.
The Rodney Parham Planning District Land Use Plan recommendsOfficeforthesite.
The 0-3 request conforms to the adopted Plan and is
compatible with uses and zoning in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the 0-3 zoning request.
2
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6772
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6768
Name:Holmes Day Care Family Home
Special Use Permit
Location:19 Southmont Drive
Owner/A licant-:Gloria May Holmes
~Pro osal:A Special Use Permit is
requested to allow the occupantof19SouthmontDriveto
operate a day-care family home.
The property is zoned R-2.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The occupant of the single family home located on the R-2
zoned property at 19 Southmont Drive is requesting approval
of a Special Use Permit to allow her to operate a day-care
family home.
19 Southmont is located at the southern fringe of a large,
single family residential neighborhood.Properties
extending to the east,west and north are zoned R-2 and are
occupied by single family homes.A church is located on the
R-2 zoned property adjacent to the south.The applicant's
home is typical of those in the neighborhood,one-story
frame construction with a single-car carport and driveway.
The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 6:30
a.m.until 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.The maximum
number of children on the property at any given time will be
ten.Some children will receive full day care while others
will receive after school care.The ages of children in the
applicant'care will range from 2-5 years of age.The rear
yard is fenced and will be used by the children as a
playground.The applicant's property borders a church on
the rear.The church's playground is adjacent to the
applicant's rear yard.The property has a single-wide
driveway with room for two cars to provide drop-off/pick-up
area.
The principal use of the property will remain single family
residential.No signage beyond that allowed in single
family zones will be permitted.The applicant states all
necessary paperwork to be licensed by the State has been
completed and she has received and passed an inspection by
the Childcare Board.
december 2,1999
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6768
Section 36-54(e)(3)of the Code establishes the site and
location criteria for day care family homes as follow:
a.This use may be located only in a single-family home,
~upied-by-the-care giver.
b.Must be operated within licensing procedures
established by the State of Arkansas.
c.The use is limited to ten (10)children including the
care givers.
d.The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six
(6)children from households other than the care
givers.
e.This use must obtain a special use permit in all
districts where day care centers are not allowed by
right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner.
Permits cannot be transferred from owner to owner,location
to location or use to use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Use
Permit to allow a day-care family home at 19 Southmont Drive
subject to compliance with the site and location criteria
established in Section 36-54(e)(3)of the Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the site and location criteria
established in Section 36-54(e)(3).
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
2
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
~C
O
N
S
T
W6
U
~
ME
M
B
E
R
A5
c
K
F'E
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
e
w
&
A
A
A
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
p
u
V
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
y
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
~
~I
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
4
4
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
0
0
v
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
R
t'
~
v
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
~
l,
v
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
e
W
y'
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
e
4
~
TI
M
E
IN
AN
D
TI
M
E
OU
T
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
v.
'
I
o
g
/A
T
E
RN
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
4:
2
Cv
Ho
Ae
Rh
r
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
hf
Ci
7
7.
4
5
g)
)
/V
7
7U
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
8-
M
P.
M
.
AY
E
+
NA
Y
E
~
AB
S
E
N
T
+
AB
S
T
A
I
N
December 2,1999
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Date /Pf
ec etar Chairman