pc_03 28 19960
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 28, 1996
3:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Commission approved the minutes of the February 13, 1996
Planning Commission meeting by a unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Mizan Rahman
Ron Woods
Larry Lichty
Ramsay Ball
Pam Adcock
Doyle Daniel
Suzanne McCarthy
Sissi Brandon
Open Position
Steve Giles
e
I. DEFERRED ITEM
A. Z-6090
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING AGENDA
MARCH 28, 1996
3:30 P.M.
Outer Loop at Wellington
Village Road
B. Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District
II. REZONING ITEMS
1. Z-1791-C
2. Z-3371-E
3.
Z-5967-A
4.
Z-6100
5.
Z-3875-B
6. Z-6105
7. Z-6106
III. OTHER MATTERS
North of the terminus
of the Cantrell Road
Section of Candlewood Dr.
SW corner of I-430
and Colonel Glenn Road
5819 Young Road
1001 East 6th Street
SW corner of Kanis Road
and Jr. Deputy Road
Just west of 8718
Mabelvale Pike
Woodland Heights Road
R-2 and C-1 to
MF-18, 0-2, 0-3
and C-1
R-2, R-4 and R-5
to R-2 and MF-12
R-2 and C-2 to
C-4
R-2
to C-1
I-2
to R-3
O-3
and OS
to
O-3
R-2
to R-7A
and
site plan
review
R-2 to O-3
8. Z-6101 Sonic Conditional Use Permit
9. Z-6104 Chenonceau Park Conditional Use Permit
10. Proposed Bylaw Amendment
11. Area III Extraterritorial Zoning
12. River Market District Design Overlay District
z
r
a 3Nld
tl3lzvtld
W1l1veIH1 ¢
W �;
V
�
O Y
Q _
NtlWtl3O
00
o
LLJ pU
_ NIVW HOf�
AVMOYOUG H08V b/
8 1S3NO o 83H3tl0 0
ONIN lW —
�i @0NS0N
o
—
¢ 3AId
a MOtl000M �33y1S
hOb V
3NId U1.
8V030 N0111MYN 1100S >sgMbtlS
yu
NBYd dlv3 Cri w
w U
(/) AllS83AIW) AlIS83AIN0 SON18d5 tl3A30
(� S3HOfW r
d > �
�- IddSSIS IW 100143
� z
Y a
�- MOtltltlB NHOf 31,
2 8I0A83538 i O 3NN13H
U ¢ m
00
lip o, SIOtivS
Otl033lNOYHS o z a
L— 08 dal YH
Q p WYHtlYd A3NOO8
NVKMOO a
LU
h S11NIl A110 w x 3OOI8 AWA
co < df S
0�S
o
u d'
fQPQ��Pv
NVAIl1H5
18VIAhs
�
z
dYy
S11WIl A110
O
N
W
3 <
ydpf°° 31VONUA
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO A Z-4807-D
Owner:
Deltic Farm and Timber
Company, Inc.
Applicant: Jack McCray
Location: NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 36,
T-2-N, R-14-W; proposed
intersection of Outer Loop
Road and Wellington Village
Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 and C-1 to
MF-18, 0-3 and C-3
Purpose: Future development
Size: 26.03± acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped pasture land
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
South
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
East
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
West
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Please provide area map to show planned alignment of minor
arterial such that the alignment can be verified with
approved alignment on Perimeter Drive located north of One
Source. Dedication of right-of-way including right -turn
lanes is required prior to Board of Directors action.
Locations of all commercial driveways will require approval.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Chenal District Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate
item on this agenda; see deferred Item licit.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 26.03
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family and "C-1" Neighborhood
Commercial to "MF-181, Multifamily, 110-31, General Office and
C"-3" General Commercial. The 26.03 acres is currently
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-4807-D (Con
divided into 4.5± acres zoned C-1 and 21.53± acres zoned R-
2. The requested reclassification would result in 11.74±
acres zoned MF-18, 5.55± acres zoned 0-3 and 8.74± acres
zoned C-3. The property is currently undeveloped. It is
located in a rapidly developing area which includes Chenal
Valley, the Villages of Wellington and St. Charles.
The existing zoning pattern was established through the
1989, 172± acre Shackleford farm zoning. The 4.5± acres now
zoned C-1 was to be located at the intersection of Outer
Loop Road and Perimeter Drive (now Wellington Village Road).
That intersection has now been relocated approximately 500
feet to the west and the alignment of Outer Loop Road has
been shifted slightly northward.
Although staff is basically supportive of most of the
changes proposed, one aspect of the proposal stands out as
being inconsistent with the Chenal District Plan for this
area. The applicant proposes to shift the commercial zoning
from its present location to the proposed new intersection
of Outer Loop Road and Wellington Village Road. In and of
itself this shift makes perfectly good sense, however the
applicant is proposing to increase both the area and the
intensity of the commercial tract from 4.5± acres zoned C-1
to 8.74 acres zoned C-3. The District Plan has established
a Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection. The
proposed 8.74± acres of C-3 zoning goes beyond the intent of
Neighborhood Commercial.
Staff believes it is more appropriate to allow no more than
5 acres of the tract to be zoned Commercial. The remainder
of the 8.74± acres proposed for commercial could be zoned
Office to provide a transition from the commercial zoning at
the intersection to adjacent single family properties.
Staff would recommend that the commercial zoning proposed
for the intersection be limited to "C-1" Neighborhood
Commercial which is more consistent with the District Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 11.74± acres to be
zoned MF-18 and the 5.55± acres to be zoned 0-3. Staff does
not recommend approval of the requested 8.74± acres to be zoned
C-3. Rather, staff recommends approval of 5 acres of C-1
zoning at the intersection with the balance of the 8.74± acres
to be zoned 0-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
The applicant, Jack McCray, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant had requested on February 12, 1996 that the item
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-4807-D (Cont.)
be deferred to the next rezoning hearing. Staff agreed to
the deferral.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws since the request for
deferral had not been made 5 days prior to the public
hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the March 28, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote
was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
STAFF UPDATE
Since the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting, the
application has been amended and refiled. The zoning
requested for the 26.03± acres in the original application
has been amended to conform to staff's recommendation. In
addition, 34.98± acres adjacent to the west has been added
to the application. This additional 34.98± acres is
proposed to be rezoned from "R-2" Single Family residential
to 110-2" Office and Institutional District. Based on the
addition of this 34.98± acres to the application, a new
legal add was placed in the newspaper and new notices were
mailed to adjacent property owners.
The application, as amended and refiled, now proposes the
following rezoning actions:
1. R-2 to C-1; a total of 6.0± acres in two parcels at the
intersection of Outer Loop and Wellington Village
Roads. The two parcels are 3.71± and 2.29± acres in
size.
2. R-2 and C-1 to 0-3; a total of 8.08± acres in two
parcels, one fronting on Outer Loop Road and one
fronting on Wellington Village Road. The two parcels
are 2.53± acres and 5.55± acres in size.
3. R-2 and C-1 to MF-18; a single, 13.40± acre parcel
fronting on Wellington Village Road.
4. R-2 to 0-2; a single 34.98± acre parcel fronting on
Outer Loop Road
The amended application for the original 26.03± acres does
conform to Staff's recommendation by reducing the requested
C-1 zoning to 6± acres, divided into two smaller tracts of
3.71± and 2.29± acres. The balance of what had previously
been proposed for C-1 zoning has now been amended to 0-3.
The additional 34.98± acres now proposed to be zoned 0-2 is
located between the original 26.03± acre site and an area of
3
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • A Z-4807-D (Cont.)
0-2 and C-2 zoning to the west. 0-2 zoning is appropriate
for this 34.98± acre tract.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC WORKS COMMENT
Provide topographic information with a grading and erosion
control plan for a grading permit prior to land alteration.
Contact ADPC&E for approval prior to construction.
Please show the alignment of Chenal Valley Drive and provide
for dedication of this collector and the arterials shown.
Right -turn lane right-of-way will be required at each of
these intersections. The 4 parcels fronting on Wellington
Village are allowed 1 driveway by Ordinance. The drives
need to be properly separated from the intersection and each
other according to Ordinance. Access to the two C-1 parcels
onto the Outer Loop will need to be reviewed and each will
be allowed one drive by Ordinance. Stormwater Detention
analysis will be required for all parcels.
UPDATED STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amended and refiled
application as follows:
1. R-2 to C-1; two parcels totaling 6.0± acres
2. R-2 and C-1 to 0-3; two parcels totaling 8.08± acres
3. R-2 and C-1 to MF-18; one parcel totaling 13.40± acres
4. R-2 to 0-2; one parcel totaling 34.98± acres
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The applicant, Jack McCray, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item, as amended,
and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
4
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: B
NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment -
Chenal District
LOCATION: North of Rock Creek
REQUEST: Modification of the Land Use
Pattern
SOURCE: Landowner
STAFF REPORT:
The City Planning Staff was asked to review the Land Use Plan in
an area north and south of Chenal in the Kirk Road area. The
property owner was asking for further intensification of land
uses. South of Chenal to Mixed Office and Commercial (removal of
last Multifamily) and Office to the north with Single Family
changed to Multifamily at the West Loop.
Staff agreed to look at the Plan and meet with representatives of
the owner. Staff could not limit the review to one ownership and
requested that representation of Chenal also meet with Staff to
discuss possible land use plan changes. After review of the area
and having met with the two major owners affected, Staff does
believe some intensification is justified as well as some
reconfiguration.
There is basic agreement on a plan amendment, however, in order
to get agreement on the overall package some additional time is
needed. Staff will brief the Commission on most of the changes,
but final action cannot occur until early 1996.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that the property owners and
Staff were close to agreement but had not reached an accord yet.
However, Staff still wanted to review the changings and the area
under consideration. Mr. Malone reviewed the physical area where
the amendments will be considered and generally what type of
changes are being considered. By unanimous vote the item was
deferred to January 16, 1996.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.)
STAFF UPDATE: (DECEMBER 1995)
The owners still have not provided Staff with information on
their property. Therefore, Staff would recommend a deferral for
12 weeks giving the owners the right to call the issue up soon if
necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 16, 1996)
Staff informed the Commission that a rezoning case had been filed
for the February 13 hearing. Due to a lack of input by one
property owner and the other's desire to proceed, Staff
recommends deferral to the February 13 hearing so as not to
adversely affect the property owner.
By unanimous vote the item was deferred to February 13, 1996.
STAFF UPDATE:
(JANUARY 18, 1996)
As stated previously, Staff began a review of the Kirk Road area
at the request of a property owner to amend the adopted Plan.
Several areas to the west and north were identified as locations
needing a revision due to zoning and/or development activity.
The adopted Plan calls for Neighborhood Commercial at the
Kanis/Chenal Parkway intersection west of Kirk Road. However,
the area zoned is larger than a typical "Neighborhood
Commercial", zoned "C-3" General Commercial and located at a
major intersection. These factors make it unlikely that
"neighborhood commercial" will develop here. A better
classification would be Commercial. The northwest corner of
Chenal Parkway with the proposed West Loop likewise is shown for
Neighborhood Commercial. Again the area is too large; it is
zoned "C-3" General Commercial and located at a major
intersection. The actual development is more likely to be
Commercial without a neighborhood origination. A Commercial
classification more accurately reflects expected development.
Along the east side of the proposed West Loop, between Chenal
Parkway and Kanis Roads, a large Public Institutional use area is
identified. The site was to be a senior/junior high magnet
school site. The school districts have not been using the City's
plans to locate sites but rather have done their own site
selection. While the location is a good one for that type of
school, the Plan should not show the use. The area should
instead be shown for Single Family use.
Two areas of Office use are proposed. Both are expansions of the
large office area between Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway. In both
PA
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • B (Cont.)
cases the areas are already zoned for Office use and in one case
development has begun.
A Public Use area is added at Shinall Mountain, east of Chenal
Parkway. This is the site of a new church. While a larger
Public Use area is removed to the southeast, down the ridge.
This site had been proposed for an Education Park in 1986. This
use never materialized. The area is zoned for Single Family and
the owner has expressed the desire to develop it for single
family use. Thus a more realistic use would be single family.
The City Service Center Site has been just north of Chenal
Parkway on the east side of the West Loop. However the site has
been relocated to the north - from Pebble Beach north on the west
side of the West Loop. This relocation will change an area of
Multifamily to Public Use north of Pebble Beach, and Public Use
to Office north of Chenal Parkway.
To the northwest of the area proposed as an Educational Park
(changed to Single Family), is an area of Single Family proposed
to be Low Density Multifamily. This is the location of a
collector - collector intersection and there have been discussion
of a park site nearby. Approximately half of the area is already
zoned MF-6.
At the proposed intersection of the West Loop and Wellington
Village, a Neighborhood Commercial area, is shown and some
Office. The Plan had proposed Single Family and Public
Institutional use. However, the City had previously approved a
Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection of these two
roads through a zoning action. This commercial area is moved to
the southwest, since the intersection has been moved. To the
west, a Public Use area is changed for Office use and a small
amount of Multifamily is proposed for to the area south of the
Office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
Item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to March 28,
1996. By unanimous vote of (7 ayes, 0 noes) the item was
deferred.
r
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • B (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. By
unanimous vote (8 for, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacant) the item
was approved.
4
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-1791-C
Owner: Charbeck Trust
Applicant: Wingfield Martin
Location: North of the terminus of the
Cantrell Road section of
Candlewood Drive
Request: Rezone various tracts from
R-2, R-4 and R-5 to R-2 and
MF-12
Purpose: Future development of an
apartment complex
Size: 59.82± acres
Existing Use: Vacant, wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
woodland
& single family homes; zoned R-2
South
- Vacant
woodland,
single family homes and
commercial shopping
center; zoned R-2 and C-3
East -
Vacant
woodland
& single family homes; zoned R-2
West -
Vacant
woodland;
zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
A grading permit and topographic information will be
required prior to any land alteration or tree clearing on
this property. There are two collectors that traverse this
area on the Master Street Plan, dedicate right-of-way for
these collectors and confirm that construction can conform
to MSP alignment standards. With construction, additional
Public works issues will be addressed that will include
construction of boundary streets and stormwater detention
analysis.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the River Mountain Planning District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family and some Low
Density Multifamily in the area of the request. The
existing zoning includes Single Family, Duplex and
Multifamily classifications. The request would rezone some
areas to single family and others to multifamily. The
specific request is not in conformance with the plan, but
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-1791-C (Cont.)
does meet the spirit of the plan. This is a rearrangement
of the single family and multifamily use areas. The new
arrangement should not be any less appropriate than the
existing. A plan amendment to allow this change is
appropriate.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone various
tracts in the Candlewood area from "R-211 Single Family,
"R-411 Two -Family and "R-5" Urban residence to "R-211 and
'IMF-12" Multifamily. This, the latest in a long line of
proposals over the years, could result in a new multifamily
development on the proposed MF-12 zoned property.
The proposed rezoning action involves several parcels
scattered along the ridge lines in this undeveloped, heavily
wooded area bounded by Walton Heights, the Little Maumelle
River, Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road. The majority
of the land in the area is zoned R-2, however there are
several existing tracts which are zoned R-4 and R-5. This
proposal would rezone the existing R-4 and R-5 tracts now
located closest to Walton Heights to R-2 and would rezone
some 39.32± acres along the southern ridge line from R-2 and
R-5 to MF-12 for the potential multifamily development.
The application proposes the following rezoning actions:
1. R-4 to R-2; a total of 13.4± acres in two tracts now
located to the southwest of the Walton
Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood.
2. R-5 to R-2; a 7.1± acre tract also located to the
southwest of the Walton Heights/Candlewood
Neighborhood.
3. R-2 and R-5 to MF-12; a total of 39.32± acres now in
two tracts to be combined for future development as a
multifamily complex. This property is located along
the southern ridge line closest to the terminus of the
Cantrell Road section of Candlewood Drive.
Staff believes the proposed rezoning is a reasonable request
and is supportive of the action. The existing 20.5± acres
of duplex and multifamily zoning closest to the single
family Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood would be zoned
R-2. The 39.32± acres of MF-12 zoning would be concentrated
along the southern ridge line at the Cantrell Road end of
Candlewood Drive. A portion of the proposed MF-12 property
is now zoned R-5 which allows development up to 36 units per
acre. MF-12 is a medium density multifamily district which
is more appropriate for the site. A multiple building
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-1791-C (Cont.)
development on the resulting MF-12 property would require
site plan review by the Planning Commission.
The River Mountain District Land Use Plan currently
recommends Single Family and some Low Density Multifamily in
the area of the request. A plan amendment to accommodate
the new arrangement of Single Family and Multifamily would
be appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as filed and
of an amendment to the River Mountain District Land Use Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant had requested that the item be deferred. Staff
noted that the request for deferral was received only one
day prior to the public hearing and that a waiver of the
bylaws was necessary. In response to a question from
Commissioner Lichty, Mr. Martin stated that the deferral was
needed to allow the prospective developer more time to
complete a financial analysis of the project.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws. The motion was
approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and one open
position. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda
and approved for deferral to the May 9, 1996 Commission
meeting. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and one open
position.
3
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 2 Z-3371-E
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
St. Vincent Infirmary Medical
Center
Rett Tucker
SW corner of I-430 and Colonel
Glenn Road
Rezone from R-2 and C-2 to C-4
Future development of an auto
mall
38.06± acres
Vacant, undeveloped property
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - State Farm Insurance Office and Baptist System
Support Center/Nursing School; zoned C-2
South - Vacant woodland; zoned R-2 and C-2
East - I-430 Right -of -Way
West - Vacant woodland; zoned R-2 and C-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
A pond is located on this 38 acre tract that must be
reviewed by the USACE prior to fill or land clearing.
Grading and NPDES permits are required. A portion of
Colonel Glenn Road is 29 feet wide without sidewalks, Master
Street Plan designates Colonel Glenn as a Principal
Arterial. 55 feet of right-of-way is required from
centerline and pavement width shall be widened at time of
construction to 33 feet from centerline. Additional turn
lane for entry drive may be required due to the size of this
tract. Additional dedication for this turnlane may also be
required. The AHTD shall approve any planned construction
and will need to approve the location of entrance drive.
With construction other Public Works Issues will be
discussed including stormwater detention.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the 65th Street West District. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Community Shopping for the area.
The request is not in conformance with the plan. After
review of the area, staff agrees it is appropriate to re-
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 z-3371-E (Cont.
examine the Plan in this area. However any review must
include a much larger area than just the site in question.
I-430 has been designated a scenic corridor by the City and
special attention should be given to signage and the
relationship to the interstate.
The connection of David O'Dodd with Bowman Road at Colonel
Glenn Road is now complete. Also the former mall site is
now owned by Baptist Hospital and used as a school and
support facility. These changes (together with an "Auto
Mall" proposal) bring the current proposal for the land use
plan into question. With the changes discussed and existing
topography, community shopping is unlikely to the north of
Colonel Glenn east of Bowman. Suburban Office or some form
of residential would be desirable. However the area is
zoned C"-211, thus a Mixed Office Commercial classification
would seem reasonable. This classification encourages
alternative design and mixing of use.
A small area of community shopping should continue to be
shown at the intersection of Bowman and Colonel Glenn Roads.
Most of the area is vacant but zoned 11C-211. The
intersection of a principal and minor arterial near an
interstate freeway is appropriate for such a development.
Commercial would be shown south of Colonel Glenn Road east
of Bowman to the interstate.
The high ground south of the interchange (and the commercial
area) is appropriate for Suburban Office or some higher
density of residential. Staff proposes to show suburban
office. To the north of Fair High School the Office area
should be expanded to the east. Currently the Office use is
along the old alignment (Lawson Road) not the new (David
O'Dodd). These changes should produce an area with a good
mix of uses.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 38.06±
acre tract from "C-2" Shopping Center District and "R-2"
Single Family to "C-4" Open Display District. Approximately
35 acres of the site is now zoned C-2 and the remaining 3±
acres is zoned R-2. The property is part of a very large
undeveloped, wooded area at the southwest corner of Colonel
Glenn Road and I-430. Indications are, once the property is
rezoned, four Central Arkansas automobile dealerships will
turn the site into an auto showplace where the dealers would
combine operations in one location to promote sales.
Questions such as platting and site plan review will have to
be dealt with by the Commission at a later date.
zoning in the area ranges from R-2 to 0-3 and C-2. All
abutting property is vacant and zoned either R-2 or C-2.
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 Z-3371-E (Cont.)
The C-2 zoned property across Colonel Glenn Road is occupied
by an insurance office and a subsidiary of the Baptist
Medical System. The site abuts the I-430 right-of-way on
its eastern perimeter.
The 65th Street West District Land Use Plan currently
recommends Community Shopping for the properties at the
northwest and southwest corners of Colonel Glenn Road and
I-430. The one commercial shopping development which was
built in the area was not successful and the building was
converted to use by the Baptist System. Staff has conducted
a review of the District Plan and recommends amending the
Plan for this area, including the site in question.
The proposed Auto Mall is located on a tract of land
situated between the intersection of two arterials, Colonel
Glenn - Bowman/David O'Dodd, and the intersection of an
arterial and an interstate highway, Colonel Glenn - I-430.
The property has nearly 1,000 feet of frontage on Colonel
Glenn Road and nearly 1,500 feet of frontage on I-430.
Staff believes this location is appropriate for the proposed
C-4 zoning and supports the rezoning request.
The property does abut I-430, a designated scenic corridor.
The applicant should be sensitive to this relationship when
it comes time for platting and site plan review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning and the
corresponding amendment to the 65th Street West District Land
Use Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The applicant, Rett Tucker, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the rezoning request and
proposed plan amendment with a recommendation of approval.
Kathleen Oleson, of the League of Women voters, questioned
whether the notation about the scenic corridor had an effect
on the rezoning request. Jim Lawson, Director of the
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded that
staff felt it was appropriate to inform the applicant but
that any review would occur when a specific development was
proposed for the site. Ms. Oleson stated that she wanted it
placed in the record that the applicant had been advised
that the property is located on a scenic corridor.
The rezoning request and plan amendment were placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 1 open position.
3
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 3 Z-5967-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Charles Ekworomadu
Charles Ekworomadu
5819 Young Road
Rezone from R-2 to C-1
4 unit, multifamily
.42± acres
4 unit, multifamily structure
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family residence and vacant lot; zoned R-2
South - I-30 Right -of -Way
East - Single Family residence; zoned R-2
West - Single Family residence; zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Without plans for construction there do not appear to be any
Public Works Issues.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the 65th Street East District. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial use. The
request is in conformance with the Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this site
from "R-2" Single Family to "C-111 Neighborhood Commercial.
The property is occupied by a one story, brick and frame
structure containing four dwelling units. Prior to
annexation, the structure housed a day-care center. At some
point, over a year ago, the structure was remodeled into a 4
unit apartment building. A remodeling permit was obtained
but no zoning review was performed. The nonconforming
status established by the day-care center did not extend to
allowing conversion of the structure into a multifamily
dwelling. After it was confirmed that the structure was
being remodeled, for multifamily occupancy, the owner was
instructed to file for appropriate rezoning. On April 18,
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5967-A (Con
1995, the Planning Commission approved "R-5" Urban Residence
zoning for the property. The Board of Directors denied the
"R-5" zoning on May 16, 1996. The applicant subsequently
filed suit against the City.
The applicant now seeks to zone the property C-1. The C-1
zoning district allows multifamily dwellings (as per the R-5
District) as a permitted use. The applicant intends to
continue to use the structure as a four unit multifamily
dwelling.
Zoning in the area is R-2, R-5, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2 and PCD,
with the zoning patterns on both sides of the interstate
being very similar. North of I-30 and east of Geyer
Springs, there is a large area of residential zoning, R-2
and R-5. The site under consideration abuts R-2 zoning on
all sides. Land use is made up of single family,
multifamily, office, commercial and some industrial. The
existing commercial uses are primarily found along Geyer
Springs and range from small retail shops to auto sales.
Along Young Road the uses include single family, office and
auto sales (at the intersection with Geyer Springs). There
are still several nonconforming uses and a number of vacant
lots in the area.
The 65th Street East District Land Use Plan recommends
Neighborhood Commercial for the properties south of Young
Road and north of I-30. The applicant's request for C-1
zoning is in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan.
C-1 zoning would allow for the use of the property as the
existing multifamily as well as future conversion to other
allowable C-1 Neighborhood Commercial uses.
Staff believes the request to be appropriate and supports
the requested C-1 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-1 zoning. No land
use plan amendment is necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The applicant, Charles Ekworomadu, 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 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-6100
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Aaron Taylor
Edward Choate; Jim Walter
Homes, Inc.
1001 East 6th Street
Rezone from I-2 to R-3
Construct new, single family
residence
.10± acres
Vacant lot
sSURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Industrial use and parking lot; zoned I-2
South - Vacant lot; zoned I-2
East - Vacant lot; zoned I-2
West - Vacant building; zoned I-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Dedicate corner radial area? Any planned driveways shall be
25 feet from the intersection and conform to Section 30-43
of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Recommend that
access be from Byrd Street.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the I-30 District. The adopted Land Use Plan
recommends Industrial use. The area is zoned I-2
Industrial; however, most of the area is either vacant or
single family. Both residential and industrial structures
have been demolished in the last few years. There has been
no new development activity in the area. The blocks are
platted as single family lots. A re-examination of the area
is needed, however, it cannot be completed in the time
necessary to address the case before the Commission. Staff
feels that the requested R-3 residential classification is
reasonable, but cannot recommend a plan amendment at this
time.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 4 Z-6100 (Cont.)
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
Based on the facts developed to date, the impact on the City
of the proposed residential use, if approved, does not
justify the imposition of the suggested right-of-way
dedication.
TAFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this small,
vacant lot from "I-2" Light Industrial to "R-3" Single
Family residential. The applicant proposes to construct a
new, single family residence on the site.
The property is located in the block bounded by Byrd,
Mclean, East 6th and East 7th Streets. This block contains
several residential structures and forms an island of
residential use within a large area of I-2 and I-3 zoned
properties. Besides the few residential properties, other
uses in the area range from vacant industrial properties to
warehousing and manufacturing facilities. Several of the
industrial buildings in the area are vacant or in a state of
disrepair.
Although the I-30 District Land Use Plan currently
recommends Industrial for the site, staff is supportive of
this residential rezoning request. Staff believes
circumstances have changed such in the area that a re-
evaluation of the area is needed. It may be that staff will
approach the Commission with a plan amendment at a later
date which is more reflective of the actual use and
development in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-3 zoning. No plan
amendment is proposed at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had failed to mail the required notices and that the item
needed to be deferred.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the May 9, 1996 meeting. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 1 open position.
E
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 5 Z-3875-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
City of Little Rock
Jessie Trigleth, Building
Services Manager
SW corner of Kanis Road and
Jr. Deputy Road
Rezone from 0-3 and OS to 0-3
Construction of a new City of
Little Rock Police Department
Substation
5.14± acres
Vacant tract, partially wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Baptist Medical Center Campus; zoned 0-2 and 0-3
Vacant woodland; zoned 0-3
South - Vacant woodland, zoned 0-3 and OS
East - Single Family residences; zoned R-2
West - Vacant woodland; zoned 0-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
A grading permit may be required prior to construction. The
survey does not reflect dedication of right-of-way to Master
Street Plan, however dedication was made during the
construction of Jr. Deputy Road Bond Issue. A copy is
available. Stormwater Detention analysis will be required
with construction. Location of driveways will require
approval.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the I-430 District. The adopted Land Use
Plan recommends Suburban Office. The request is in
conformance with the Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 5.14±
acre tract from 110-3" General Office and "OS" Open Space to
110-3" General Office. A corner of the site was previously
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-3875-B (Con
occupied by a nonconforming neighborhood grocery store and
two single family residences. All three have recently been
removed from the site. The majority of the property is
vacant and wooded. The City of Little Rock proposes to
construct a new Police Department Substation on the
property. The substation will consist of a single building
and two parking lots.
This 5.14± acre tract is part of a larger 40± acre tract
which was rezoned to 0-3 by Baptist Medical Center in 1993.
Baptist proposed to develop the site as offices. The
balance of this 40± acre tract is still undeveloped and is,
for the most part, heavily wooded. At the time the 40±
acres were zoned 0-3, a 50 foot wide OS buffer was zoned
along the east and south perimeters. The Ordinance
establishing the 0-3 zoning also included provisions
requiring site plan review and eliminating access to Jr.
Deputy Road. The Police Department has stated that it is
imperative that they have access to the site from Jr. Deputy
Road. Thus it is necessary to rezone this site, eliminating
the OS strip along Jr. Deputy Road and the provision
restricting access from the site to Jr. Deputy Road This
rezoning proposal will affect only this 5.14± acre tract and
will not affect the balance of the 40± acres. The OS strip
and conditions will remain in place for the remaining
property.
The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends Suburban Office
for this site. The proposal is in conformance with the
Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning. No plan
amendment is necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
Jessie Trigleth was present representing the item. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-6105
Owner: Harold Wesson
Applicant: Harold Wesson
Location: Directly west of 8718
Mabelvale Pike
Request: Rezone from R-2 to R-7A and
site plan review
Purpose: Place a new, 16 X 80
manufactured home on the site
Size: 2.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant property
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant land; zoned R-2
South - Arkansas Highway Department Facilities and Parker
Solvent Chemical Company; zoned R-2
East - Single Family residence; zoned R-2 and trucking
company; zoned I-2
West - Vacant land, Arkansas Highway Department and
one single family residence; zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
A SFHA Development Permit is required with provisions for
locating a Manufactured Home in the floodplain addressed.
The minimum FFE is 275 NGVD.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request is in
conformance with Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2.0 acre
tract from "R-2" Single Family to "R-7A" manufactured home
district and site plan review to allow the placement of a
new, 16 foot by 80 foot manufactured home on the property.
The two acre tract is vacant with the exception of two small
storage buildings.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-6105 (Cont.)
The property is one of only three residential properties
located on a stretch of Mabelvale Pike dominated by the
Arkansas Highway Department and its facilities. The Highway
Department occupies properties to the west and across
Mabelvale Pike to the South. An I-2 zoned trucking company
is located to the east. The property to the north is vacant
and zoned R-2 and I-2. Parker Solvents, a chemical company
is also located across Mabelvale Pike.
"R-7A" is a Single Family residential zoning district
providing for ownership of structure and lot and permitting
the placement of one manufactured or on -site constructed
home per lot or parcel.
The requested "R-7A" zoning is reasonable in staff's opinion
and should have no impact on adjacent properties. The Geyer
Springs West District Land Use Plan recommends Single Family
for the site. The request conforms to the plan.
"R-7A" is a site plan review district. A site plan has been
submitted along with the rezoning application. Staff has
reviewed the site plan and finds that it is in compliance
with Ordinance Standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends approval of the requested R-7A zoning.
No plan amendment is necessary.
2. Staff recommends approval of the site plan to allow
placement of a new, 16 foot by 80 foot manufactured home
on the site subject to the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the siting criteria established in
Sec. 36-262(d)2
1. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or
fourteen (14) degrees or greater.
2. Removal of all transport features.
3. Permanent foundation.
4. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible
with the neighborhood.
5. Underpinning with permanent materials.
6. Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
K
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 6 Z-6105 (Cont.)
7. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standards.
B. The home is to be approved by the department of
housing and urban development under title VI of
Public Law 93-383, USC 5401 et seq. All mobile homes
must have the date plate attached to the unit
specifying, "This mobile home is designed to comply
with federal mobile home construction and safety
standards enforced at the time of manufacture."
C. Compliance with Public Works Comments
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 22, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item.
There was no discussion and the Committee forwarded the item
to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MARCH 28, 1996)
The applicant, Harold Wesson, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the rezoning request and
the proposed site plan with a recommendation of approval.
The rezoning request and site plan were placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 1 open position. The site plan was approved
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the
staff recommendation.
3
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 7 Z-6106
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
David Henry
Patrick McGetrick
West side of Woodland Heights
Road approximately 220 feet
south of Summit Road
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Future office development
8.05± acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family homes; zoned R-2
South - Christ the King Church and School; zoned R-2 and
Easter Seal Offices; zoned 0-3
East - New St. Vincent Hospital project under
construction; zoned 0-3
West - Church and single family homes; zoned R-2 and
new multibuilding office development; zoned 0-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Woodland, Fairview and Summit require dedications of right-
of-way to 30 feet from centerline for this commercial re-
zoning according to City Ordinance. The corner of Woodland
Heights Road needs a radius of 450 feet per the Master
Street Plan unless a controlled intersection can be
constructed. This street should be improved in concert with
the Saint Vincent Site to provide for commercial access to
Highway 10. The existing street is a substandard 18 foot
chipseal road with poor sight distance. The streets are
required to be 36 foot commercial streets with sidewalks on
both frontages. The site will require a grading permit
prior to clearing. Stormwater detention analysis will be
required at time of construction. Location of drives will
need review.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the River Mountain District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family use. The
request is in conflict with the Plan. The last Plan
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 7 Z-6106 (Con
amendments in this area were controversial and staff
believes any further amendment must be carefully reviewed.
Therefore, Staff recommends a deferral so that the plan can
be reviewed and discussed with the surrounding neighborhood
groups and large property owners.
TAFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this property
comprised of three tracts totaling 8.05± acres from 11R-2"
Single Family to 110-3" General Office. One single family
home is located on each of the three tracts. Most of the
property is undeveloped with the exception of the area
directly adjacent to each of the homes. No specific
development has been proposed for the property once it is
zoned O-3.
The property is part of a small single family residential
pocket sandwiched between the Office and Institutional
development along Woodland Heights and Rodney Parham Roads
and the pending commercial development along Cantrell Road.
The Easter Seals Complex and Christ the King Church and
campus are located to the south. A new facility for St.
Vincent's Medical Center is being constructed to the east.
A proposed commercial shopping center has been approved for
the property north of the site. A multibuilding office
complex and a church are located adjacent to the west.
Staff recognizes that, long-term, the residential properties
in this pocket will in all likelihood convert to non-
residential. However, there are still some 15-16 single
family residences along Woodland Heights and Summit Roads.
The River Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends Single
Family use for these properties.
Rezoning this 8.05± acres to 0-3 would at this time be in
conflict with the Plan and would dramatically affect the
remaining residential properties.
Staff believes it is appropriate to defer this request so
that the area zoning and land use plan can be further
reviewed and discussed with the surrounding neighborhood
groups and property owners.
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this item be deferred to allow for
further review of the area zoning and land use plan and
discussion with the surrounding neighborhood groups and
property owners.
0�
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 7 Z-6106 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
Tom Cole and Patrick McGetrick were present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff
presented the item and informed the Commission that the
applicant had agreed to staff's recommendation to defer the
item. The agreement was not reached until March 26, 1996;
two days prior to the public hearing.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws since the deferral
request was not received at least 5 days prior to the public
hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. The item was placed
on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 9, 1996
commission meeting. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent
and 1 open position.
3
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6101
NAME:
LOCATION:
Sonic - Conditional Use Permit
9420 Rodney Parham Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: RLB Property/Sonic Restaurants
by Jeff Mallett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a drive-in
restaurant on this C-3 zoned
property. The applicant is
also requesting a variance
from the building line
provisions of Section 31-12 to
permit construction of a
canopy which crosses a platted
building line.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the north side of Rodney Parham
Road, between Towne Oaks Drive and Treasure Hill Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is completely surrounded by property which is
zoned C-3, General Commercial. The Treasure Hill
Residential Subdivision is located further south and
west of this site.
There are several nonconforming C-4 uses in close
proximity to this site. These include Mr. Tidy Car
Wash (immediately west of this site), Green Tree
Nursery at 9305 Rodney Parham Road, and B&S Rental at
9301 Treasure Hill Road.
Given the diversity of commercial uses in this area,
the proposed use should have little impact on the
surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The number of parking spaces proposed exceeds the
minimum ordinance requirement.
Two, one-way, access points from Rodney Parham Road are
proposed.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: z-6101
4. Screening and Buffers:
The site must comply with the City's Landscape and
Buffer Ordinances. The site plan submitted exceeds the
buffer and interior landscaping requirements. No
additional landscaping is required.
5. City Engineer Comments:
Please Note: The Jackpot #105 located at Treasure
Hill and Rodney Parham is in remediation for BTEX
contamination in soil and stormwater runoff. Advise
contractor to minimize soil disturbance or removal.
Report odors or contamination to the City Public Works
Department or ADPC&E.
Existing drives violate the LR Code Section 31-210,
however, since they were permitted with prior
construction permit, Public Works will permit continued
use due to the minor change in plan from existing
approved Rally's site plan.
6. Utility Comments:
AP&L - A 15 foot utility easement is requested around
the entire perimeter of the site.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a Sonic drive-in
restaurant on this C-3 zoned property, located at 9420
Rodney Parham Road. This site formerly contained a
Rally's restaurant with double drive-thru windows. The
Rally's building has been removed from the site, but
the landscaping with curb and gutter, concrete parking
areas and drives, and the site lighting remain on the
site.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,016 square
foot building on this site, utilizing essentially the
same site plan as the former Rally's restaurant. There
will be a single drive-thru window on the west side of
the building. The area along the east side of the
building (formerly Rally's second drive-thru lane) will
contain a small area for outdoor dining and a large
landscaped area. A canopy will project from the east
and west sides of the building covering the outdoor
dining area, a row of parking spaces, and the drive-
thru window location. There will also be a canopy
constructed along the eastern property line, covering a
second row of parking spaces.
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6101
The applicant is requesting a variance under the
building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit
construction of a canopy which crosses the 40 foot
platted building line. This would be a very minor
encroachment involving only the west corner of the
canopy which would be attached to the front of the
proposed building. The 40 foot platted building line
is 15 feet greater than the 25 foot required minimum
front yard as established by ordinance for the C-3
General Commercial zoning district. Staff feels that
this minor encroachment would not be out of character
with similar structures in the general area and should
have no impact on adjacent properties.
If the building line variance is approved, the
applicant will have to do a one lot replat to reflect
the change approved by the Commission. The applicant
should review the filing procedure with the circuit
clerk to determine if the replat requires a revised
Bill of Assurance.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Utility Comments
4. Staff recommends approval of the building line
variance subject to a replat of the lot reflecting
the change in the building line as approved by the
Commission.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996)
Jeff Mallett and Mike Pierce were present, representing the
application. Mr. Mallett gave a brief description of the
proposal.
There was a brief discussion regarding the type of use
proposed and why this type of use requires a conditional use
permit in the C-3 zoning district.
There were no further comments on this matter.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
3
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 8 (Cont ) FILE NO.: Z-6101
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval as noted in the agenda "staff recommendation".
There were no further issues for resolution. There were no
objectors present.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
4
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO 9 FILE NO.• Z-6104
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
PROPOSAL•
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
Chenonceau Park - Conditional
Use Permit
Chenonceau Blvd.
Deltic Farm and Timber Co.,
Inc./Joe D. White, Jr.
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a neighborhood
park on this R-2 zoned, 2.23
acre site.
This site is located on the west side of Chenonceau
Blvd., approximately 800 feet north of Chenal Parkway.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is abutted by vacant, multifamily zoned
property to the north and east. Adjacent property to
the west (Aberdeen) is zoned R-2 and contains a number
of single-family residences. The property across
Chenonceau Blvd. to the south (Bayonne) is also zoned
R-2 and contains single family residences. This
proposal should have little impact on the surrounding
properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The number of proposed parking spaces exceeds the
minimum ordinance requirement.
A single access point from Chenonceau Blvd. is
proposed.
4. screening and Buffers:
The site must comply with the City's Landscape and
Buffer Ordinances. The parking area must be screened
from adjacent residential property. This may be
accomplished with 30 inch high evergreen shrubs (at
planting) or low growing evergreen trees in areas not
adequately screened with existing natural vegetation.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6104
5. City Engineer Comments:
A grading permit is required prior to construction.
Furnish Stormwater Detention information for site prior
to construction. Connect sidewalk on Chenonceau to
sidewalk into building. Due to potential drop off of
children, would not a circular drive arrangement with a
one-way drive be better for this park? Please discuss
with Traffic Engineering.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Fire Department: The driveway within the proposed
parking area should be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility - sewer main extension
required with easements to provide sewer service to
this project.
7. Staff Analysis:
Deltic Farm and Timber Company, Inc. is requesting a
conditional use permit to allow for the construction of
a neighborhood park on this R-2 zoned, 2.23 acre site
located on Chenonceau Blvd.
The park will consist of a swimming pool, "kiddie"
pool, basketball court, a 25 X 55 foot clubhouse and
parking lot. Use of this facility will be provided for
Chenal Valley Property Owners Association members.
This facility will be located between two of Chenal
Valley's rapidly growing neighborhoods(Aberdeen and
Bayonne), just off Chenonceau Blvd., and will also be
in close proximity to the recently approved preliminary
plat of "Duquesne".
This site is currently vacant and heavily wooded. In
developing this site, the applicant proposes to leave
as many of the mature trees as possible undisturbed.
The applicant also proposes that any lighting of the
site will be low-level and directed away from adjacent
residential property. Based on the type of use
proposed and the applicant's proposed treatment of the
site, staff feels that this proposal is appropriate for
the area and should have no adverse impact on the
surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject
to the following conditions:
2
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.• Z-6104
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
4. The lighting of this site is to be low-level and
directed away from adjacent residential property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning
Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal, including
the location of this site and the type of use proposed.
There was no further discussion on this matter.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval as noted in the agenda "staff recommendation".
There were no further i9sues for resolution. There were no
objectors present.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
3
' March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.• 10
SUBJECT•
STAFF REPORT•
Planning Commission Bylaw
Amendment
This matter is submitted for commission discussion and action
following the suggestion of Department Director Jim Lawson at the
commission meeting on January 30th this year.
The language offered simply deletes two paragraphs in "D."
special rules of procedure." Those being the first two
paragraphs of Subsection 4.c. on page 10. These set forth
automatic deferral on certain votes and set a two deferral limit,
prior to submitting to the Board of Directors.
The Staff recommends that these two paragraphs be deleted and the
balance of D.4.(c) be retained.
4. Majority Vote
(a) A simple majority of those members present at a meeting
shall be sufficient to approve any administrative or
procedural action.
(b) An approval or a denial of an issue shall constitute
final action. A majority vote of the full Commission
shall be required in order to take final action on any
issue requiring Planning Commission approval at a
public hearing.
(c) In those instances where no action is required by the
Board of Directors and the action before the Commission
fails to receive the required six (6) votes, the
request shall be declared to be denied.
For actions requiring the City Board of Directors
approval, such matters shall be forwarded to the Board
of Directors with a recommendation of denial. The
minute record of the hearing and the Board of
Directors' communication shall reflect the motions and
voting on the matter so as to fully convey to the Board
the Planning Commission record for such matters.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996)
The Chairman asked Staff to make a presentation of this item.
Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, came forward and offered
general commentary on what the amendment proposed and offered
some background on why the item is before the Commission.
A general discussion then followed with numerous comments from
the Planning Commission as to the construction and effect of the
proposed Bylaw Amendment. The general consensus was that this
would be a more flexible and appropriate bylaw structure given
the kinds of circumstances that develop before the Commission.
After a lengthy discussion, it was determined that the item was
appropriate to proceed to adoption; however, a question of a
commissioner brought forth an instruction from Cynthia Dawson, of
the City Attorney's Office. Her comment dealt with the structure
for public hearing and adoption process. She stated that the
current bylaws require that this item be presented at this
meeting in written form and another hearing be set for the
specific adoption of the Bylaw Amendment.
A motion to accomplish that action was made and passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
The Chairman, Mr. Woods, asked that staff make the presentation
on the Bylaw Amendment Proposal. Richard Wood, of the Staff,
offered a brief statement as to the status of the Bylaw Amendment
stating that he felt that a vote on the issue was in order at
this time in as much as staff understood there were no concerns.
A brief discussion of several points of the Bylaw Amendment
followed. The course of that discussion ranged from exactly what
was being extracted from the current ordinance, the effect of
that removal and how it effected automatic deferrals. The
understanding after this discussion was that there was no
automatic deferral of applications once this amendment occurs.
The bylaw providing issues that cannot be determined by majority
vote, negative or positive, would require forwarding to the City
Board with a recommendation of denial.
It was explained by both Wood and Jim Lawson, of the Staff, and
Steve Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, that failure to
obtain an affirmative vote on an action was in fact a vote to
deny the action. This is supported by Robert's Rule of Order.
The Chairman then recognized Mrs. Kathleen Oleson, a representative
of the League of Women Voters. She posed a question as to the
voting majority. The question was answered by Staff and Commission
by stating; that, a majority vote of the full commission as it is
E
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 10 (Con
constituted is the requirement in order to take the final action.
This applies regardless of the number of members present at a given
meeting. The majority is not of those present; however, an
administrative procedure may be accomplished by a simple majority
of those present. This simple majority dealing with only those
items that do not require a board of directors approval and
ordinance or some variance or approval specifically set forth in
the ordinance.
Staff again clarified the primary reason for this amendment, that
being to address concerns of the Board of Directors and of staff
that items were being forwarded to the City Board after several
deferrals automatically extended by the Commission. This is done
with no recommendation to the Board as to the appropriate action.
This amendment will not forward cases to the Board of Directors
without a recommendation of approval, denial or modification.
After several brief comments, the Chairman, Mr. Woods, asked for
a motion. The motion was made to approve the Bylaws as prepared
and submitted. A vote on the motion was unanimous producing
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
3
3.
4.
interest exists, that member should obtain an
opinion from the Office of the City Attorney before
either participating in the discussion or voting on
the rezoning application or subdivision matter in
question.
Motion and Voting
Any matter of business requiring action by the
Commission may be presented by oral motion, and the
members present may vote there on by simple voice
vote. In case of split vote, the Chair may ask for
a show of hands. The minutes shall indicate voting
to be "denied" or "passed" and the name of any
abstainer. Voting on election of officers in which
there is a contest shall be by secret, written
ballot.
Majority Vote
(a) A simple majority of those members present at a
meeting shall be sufficient to approve any
administrative or procedural action.
(b) An approval or a denial of an issue shall
constitute final action. A majority vote of
the full Commission shall be required in order
to take final action on any issue requiring
Plann.ing Commission approval at a public
hearing.
(c) In those instances where a majority vote of the
full Commission cannot be obtained to take
final action, the matter before the Commission
shall be automatically deferred until the next
scheduled meeting.
One (1) automatic deferral shall be allowed an
any matter before the Commission which requires
subsequent action by the Board of Directors.
If the Commission fails to resolve the matter
at the rehearing and enough votes for final
action cannot be obtained, the following shall
apply.
In those instances where no action is required
by the Board of Directors and the action before
the Commission fails to receive the required
six (6) votes at the second meeting, the
request shall be declared to be denied.
For actions requiring the City Board•of
Directors approval, such matters shall be
forwarded to the Board of Directors with a
recommendation of denial. The minute record of
the hearing and the Board of Directors'
communication shall reflect the motions and
voting on the matter so as to fully convey to
the Board the Planning Commission record for
such matters.
5. Conduct of Hearing
Public hearing shall be conducted informally, and
the Chairman shall make all rulings and
determinations regarding the admissibility of the
evidence, the scope of the inquiry, the order in
which evidence, objections and arguments shall be
heard, and other like matters, except that any
member shall be privileged to make inquiries
personally and to call for a vote on any ruling of
the Chairman with which he does not agree, whereupon
the vote shall determine the effective ruling. It
shall be the purpose of the Chairman to expedite all
hearings, confining them to the presentation of only
essential matters in the interest of saving time,
but entertaining the presentation of sufficient
matter to do substantial justice to all concerned.
E. General Policies
1. Formal Action
No request for advice, or moot question may be acted
upon formally by the Commission.
2. Closing of Docket
No application for a change in zoning, subdivision
plat approval, etc. shall be submitted to the
Commission, or prepared by the Secretary for
submission, unless the same has been filed in the
required fashion and no later than the docket date
established by the adopted calendar. The staff
shall investigate and consider each application,
advertise the hearing, and present its findings, on
an area wide basis rather than an individual site
basis.
3. Open Meetings
All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the
public as required by law (other than Executive
session - Article IV. D.).
11
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 11 OTHER MATTERS
NAME: Area III Extraterritorial Zoning
SOURCE: College Station Progressive League
and College Station Community
Development Corporation
REQUEST: To extend Zoning Jurisdiction to
the College Station community and
an area generally south of Frazier
Pike, east of Gilliam Park, west of
the Arkansas River and north of
Harper and Thibault Roads.
STAFF REPORT
In 1988 and 1989, the Planning Commission and Board of Directors
passed resolutions expressing an intent to zone areas outside the
Little Rock corporate boundary. The resolutions identified three
priority areas, Areas I, II and III, for zoning. Area I, north
of Kanis/Denny Roads, was zoned in February 1990. Area II,
between the county line and Kanis/Denny, was reclassified in
February 1992. (Act 56 of 1987 allows cities to zone up to three
miles beyond the city limits.)
Because of strong negative reactions by property owners in the
planning area south and southeast of Little Rock, Area III was
reduced from all of the planning area to College Station and the
area south to Sweet Home and east to the Arkansas River. In
1992, the City of Little Rock decided to suspend the process to
zone Area III and allow the enforcement staff to absorb Areas I
and II. Residents of the College Station community are now
requesting the city to exercise zoning jurisdiction in Area III.
A public meeting was held in February of this year to discuss the
proposed extraterritorial zoning with Area III property owners
and other interested parties. There was some opposition raised
to the proposal of extending the city's zoning control.
College Station is a developed area, having residential,
commercial and service uses. (It should be noted that a portion
of College Station, the area east of Jones Street, is within the
city limits of Little Rock.) The area between College Station
and Sweet Home has a scattering of residences, but also includes
industrial, mining and agricultural uses. The majority of the
land south of the Port is low (floodplain/floodway) and the
primary use is farming; there are also residences and industrial
uses. Due to the proximity to the airport and Port, the city
identified this area for extraterritorial zoning.
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) OTHER MATTERS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Area III be zoned R-2 Single Family.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
Staff reviewed the item and presented some background on the
extraterritorial zoning issue. Staff then discussed the history
of the Area III request and the process for zoning an area
outside the city limits. Two maps were used to identify Areas I,
II and III.
Norris Greer, representing the College Station CDC and the
Progressive League, spoke and reviewed the proposed Apple Blossom
Subdivision. Mr. Greer said the residents were looking for a way
to develop College Station and zoning control was needed for the
area outside the city limits. He said the request was not for
annexation, but to get a handle on future development. Mr. Greer
concluded by saying the request to extend zoning was only for
College Station.
Wilma Walker, College Station Progressive League, spoke in
support of zoning control for College Station only, and not for
all of Area III. Ms. Walker discussed the letter requesting the
zoning and the accompanying petitions. She said more petitions
have been circulated in the community. Ms. Walker continued by
discussing the issue of a body shop wanting to locate in the
neighborhood. Ms. Walker said that the community wants to have
control over future development and there has been a real problem
with absentee property owners.
Rollie Remmel discussed a previous zoning action in the area and
said he was opposed to extending zoning control.
Christopher King, 4520 East 38th, discussed the petitions and
described them as being bogus. Mr. King said the entire
community was opposed to the zoning and only two residents have
expressed support for the zoning control.
Commissioner Doyle Daniel made some comments about nonconforming
uses.
Edward Flowers, 3821 Jones, said he has lived in College Station
for 55 years and his house was now within the Little Rock city
limits. Mr. Flowers said he was against the proposed zoning.
Ben Kelley, a College Station resident, said he was opposed to
extending the City's zoning control into the area.
Wingfield Martin distributed a letter to the Planning Commission.
Fa
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) OTHER MATTERS
Jane Baugas, a property owner, described her ownership of 200
acres and said the land has always been used for agricultural
purposes. Ms. Baugas felt that the proposed R-2 was
inappropriate for her land.
Betty Isgrig objected to the proposed zoning and read a
statement. Ms. Isgrig said that no property owner wants the
zoning and it did not offer alot of protection. Ms. Isgrig asked
that her land be removed from Area III.
At this point, staff made some comments about a number of issues.
Mary Ratcliffe, a resident of Sweet Home and owner of 700 acres,
spoked and described the area. Ms. Ratcliffe said that she was
opposed to zoning control in the area.
B. K. Bethge, Boatmen's Trust, discussed the land use plan for
the area and said he was opposed to the R-2 zoning for Area III.
Jack Tyler, a land owner on Thibault Road, said that R-2 was
inappropriate because his land has been used for farming.
Kim Hogan, a resident on Frazier Pike, described the area and
discussed the Fourche Creek community. Ms. Hogan asked that only
College Station be zoned and she was opposed to the proposed
zoning control for Area III.
Commissioner Larry Lichty made some comments and asked about
other extraterritorial zonings.
Barbara Hartsell, owner of 15 acres on Thibault, said the staff
misled the community and she was opposed to the Area III zoning.
Commissioner Herb Hawn spoke and defended the staff.
Wally Allen said it would be a mistake to zone the area R-2 and
other classifications should be considered. Mr. Allen said that
industrial development was appropriate for the area.
There was a long discussion about a number of issues. Staff
suggested that the item could be deferred to allow the staff to
review other zonings for the area.
A motion was made to defer the issue to the May 9, 1996 meeting
and for staff to accept requests for other reclassifications.
The motion passed by vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
1 abstention (Daniel) and 1 open position.
(April 15, 1996 was given as the deadline for submitting zoning
requests and property descriptions and/or surveys for other
classifications.)
3
RESOLUT I ON___. 92
TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK TO ZONE THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING AREA IN PHASES
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock has authority to zone
property within 3 miles of the City Limits under revised
Arkansas Statute 19-2829, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock wishes to have orderly and
compatible growth within areas adjacent to the City which
could become part of Little Rock, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock has several requests by
private property owners to rezone their property within the
Planning area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION;
SECTION 1: That the City of Little Rock intends to
exercise the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance within the
boundaries of the Little Rock Planning Area to meet the
necessity of orderly and compatible growth and the
desires of abutting land owners by using the priority
schedule shown on Exhibit A (attached).
SECTION 2: The priority system shown on Exhibit A was
derived from the following criteria:
(a) Expression of property owners of a desire to be
zoned and later annexed;
(b) The amount of development activity occurring or
anticipated to occur in the near future;
(c) The City's staffing ability to handle new
territory.
PASSED:
Chairman
Secretary
its.
RESOLUTION _8,1i0
TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK TO ZONE THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING AREA IN PHASES
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock has authority to zone
property within 3 miles of the City Limits under revised
Arkansas Statute 19-2829, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock wishes to have orderly and
compatible growth within areas adjacent to the City which
could become part of Little Rock, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock has several requests by
private property owners to rezone their property within the
planning area; and
WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission, after
conductinc a Public Hearing, recommends the approval -Of this
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF
DIRECTORS;
SECTION 1: That the City of Little Rock intends to exercise
the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance within the boundaries of
the Little Rock Planning Area to meet the necessity of
orderly and compatible growth and the desires of abutting
land owners by using the priority schedule shown on
Exhibit A (attached).
SECTION 2: The priority system shown on Exhibit A was
derived from the followinc criteriz:
(a) Expression of property owners of a desire :o be zoned
and Iater annexed;
(t) The amount of development activity occurrinc or
anticipated to occur in the near future;
(c) The City's staffing ability to handle new territory.
ADOPTED; June 20, 1989
A � : EST : Jane Czech APPROV=D: F lo,\-c G . Vi 11ines..,..._III
City Clerk N,ayor
Saline Count
Lin
nornh
1 - highest activity/priority
3 - lowest activity/priority
EXT_ ATERRITORIAL`I Y
Sk
Saline County Line —0 N
exhtbti: A
INTENT TO ZONE
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO.12
NAME: River Market Design Overlay District
REQUEST: To amend the current River Market Design
Overlay District
TAFF REPORT:
The purpose of establishing the River Market District was to
create a festive, pedestrian orientated district with a quality
mixture of commercial, office and residential uses. Once
established the district will become a viable location for
business, cultural and entertainment activities. Buildings,
signs, street furnishings, trees should all be designed to be
pedestrian friendly both during the day and at night. Careful
planning is needed to insure proper placement of these items and
to avoid these items from becoming a mass of visual clutter.
Visual Clutter is not a major problem in the River Market
District at present, but it is good planning to anticipate and
prepare for future problems, especially after considering the
potential benefits of new economic development. Guidelines and
strategies must be in place to protect the district from the
impacts of poor or unplanned projects. Incompatible development
has the potential to destroy the very thing which will attract
people to the district in the first place. Programs and policies
should be enacted to maintain and enhance the visual quality of
the River Market District, as well as to protect it from future
development which might not be sensitive to the district.
Physical design elements of the district should be
controlled/reviewed to ensure appropriate design and compatible
development.
Since May 1995, the property owners within the River Market
District have had monthly meetings. Also attending these monthly
meetings were representatives from: City Manager's office,
Little Rock Board of Directors, Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, Department of Parks and Recreation, Public Works,
Comcast Cable, Little Rock Wastewater, APL, Southwestern Bell,
Arkla, Little Rock Water, Highway Department, Central Arkansas
Library System, Farmers Market, Museum Center and the Downtown
Partnership. The goal of these meetings was to carefully
coordinate the various activities which affect all involved
parties.
At the December 1995 meeting, Neighborhood and Planning staff
presented the first draft of the Design Overlay District (DOD).
Property owners were asked to review the DOD over the next couple
weeks and Staff would meet with each property owner. Staff
decided to meet with property owners block by block, since they
had common interests and concerns. Block meetings (usually two
or three property owners) were held and comments and concerns
were reflected in the next draft presented to the property owners
at the February 1996 meeting.
1
March 28, 1996
ITEM NO,12
At the February 1996 meeting, Staff presented the updated draft
of the DOD. Copies were handed out to property owners in
attendance and were also hand delivered to all property owners.
Staff asked property owners to contact Neighborhoods and Planning
with any comments by March 1st, 1996. Minor adjustments were
made to the DOD based on property owners' comments.
On March 5, 1996, the Little Rock Board of Directors voted to
approve Ordinance Number 17,136 (pages 3-4) which established the
Design Overlay District for the River Market District. The
amendment to this Ordinance (pages 5-16) will include the Design
Guidelines which have support from the property owners of the
River Market District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MARCH 28, 1996)
Staff recommended the item to be placed on the consent agenda for
deferral to the April llth, 1996, Planning Commission meeting.
There was no one present in opposition of the deferral. The
Planning Commission approved the consent agenda unanimously.
2
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
ORDINANCE NO. 17,136
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE RIVER
MARKET DISTRICT PURSUANT TO DESIGN OVERLAY AUTHORITY,
CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS; FOR THE CREATION OF STANDARDS FOR SIGNS ON
PUBLIC BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT; DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the River Market District represents a significant historical
and physical feature which the city wishes to maintain; and,
WHEREAS, the River Market District is the core of a significant
commercial, cultural and entertainment area that the city wishes to remain
viable; and
WHEREAS, the existing City ordinances are not compatible with the
particular concerns for the River Market District; and
WHEREAS, recent and possible future development and redevelopment may
change the character and significance of the River Market District without
special considerations; and
WHEREAS, construction of public buildings are occurring in the
district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY
OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Little Rock, an overlay for the River Market District is hereby
established as follows:
A. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of establishing the River Market District is to
create a festive, pedestrian orientated district with a quality
mixture of commercial, office and residential uses. Once
established the district will become a viable location for
business, cultural and entertainment activities. Buildings,
signs, street furnishings, trees should all be designed to be
pedestrian friendly both during the day and at night. Careful
planning is needed to insure proper placement of these items and
to avoid these items from becoming a mass of visual clutter.
B. District Boundaries
The district is to be all parcels in Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,
Block 6, Block 7 and Block 8 of Pope's Addition; and Block 35 and
Block 36 of Original City.
K?
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
C. Application of District Regulations
The regulations of this ordinance shall be in addition to and
shall overlay all other zoning districts and other ordinances
requirements regulating the development of land so that any
parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lie
within one or more of the other underlying zoning districts.
Therefore, all property within this overlay district will have
requirements of both the underlying and overlay zoning districts
in addition to other ordinance requirements regulating the
development of land. In case of conflicting standards between
this ordinance and other City of Little Rock ordinances, the
overlay requirements shall control.
These regulations apply to all development, redevelopment or
expansion of existing development.
D. Overlay Design Guidelines
1. Signs on Public Buildings
Signs on public buildings shall conform to the standards
outlined in this Design Overlay District with the exception
of those signs which have: significant architectural
elements; serve as an entrance to the Riverfront Park and
are otherwise consistent with the Design Overlay District
standards. These exceptions have to be approved by the City
Board of Directors.
SECTION 2. Declaring an emergency. The Board of Directors hereby
finds and declares that as a result of current and planned development in
the River Market District, that in order to protect and preserve the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of this City, on emergency is hereby
declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage and approval.
PASSED: March 5, 1996
ATTEST:
Robbie Hancock
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas M. Carpenter
Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney
APPROVED:
Jim Daily
Mayor
ri
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
D. Overlay Design Guidelines
2. Signs and banners located on or facing Markham
Street, Commerce Street., Rock Street, Sherman Street,
Cumberland Street and Second Street
a. Location
• Signs shall not hide any architectural
detail or any features of the building.
• Signs shall not visually clutter nor
interfere with views of the building.
• Signs shall be confined to the flat surface
of the building and not project further
than 0'-5" from the building facade.
• Signs shall not be painted directly to the
face of the building.
• The maximum sign height on a building shall
be below the second floor window sill;
or in a single story building, below the
overhang (except those permitted in
D.1.)
• Awning valences are appropriate locations
for signage.
• Signs shall not number more than three per
business.
• Signs should be adequately spaced from
other signs.
• Free standing signage shall be prohibited.
b. Appearance
• Signs should be compatible with the
architecture of the building on which it
is located.
• The design of signs should capitalize on
the special character of the River
Market District.
• Each sign shall be one quarter of a square
foot of sign area for each linear foot
of primary street building frontage, not
exceeding 25 square feet per sign.
• Window signs shall not cover more that
twenty five percent of each glass panel.
• Awning signs shall not exceed six square
feet per awning.
• Colors used on signs should be compatible
with others used in the River Market
District.
• Materials used in the signs should be
sensitive to signs and architecture on
adjacent sites.
• Neon shall be permitted.
5
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
• In accordance with the federal Landham Act,
businesses with registered trademarks
are allowed to display that mark in
signage.
• Advertising copy on signage shall be
prohibited.
c. Lettering
• Letters should not exceed 1'-6" in height.
• Letters should not exceed three-quarters of
the height of the sign.
• No more than sixty percent of a signs total
area should be occupied by lettering.
d. Lighting of signs
• Light fixtures for signs shall not be
readily visible from the street or
sidewalk.
• Internally lit signs shall be prohibited.
e. Banners
• Banners shall be restricted to hanging from
street lights.
3. Signs and Banners located on facades facing the
Arkansas River
a. The buildings facing both the River and East
Markham present an unique opportunity to
create their own character on the facades
that face the River. These facades will
share views with the Riverfront Amphitheater
and the River. These facades should
compliment the festive atmosphere that has
been established by the Riverfront
Amphitheater and the River Market.
b. Location
• Signs should not hide any architectural
detail or any features of the building.
• Signs shall not visually clutter nor
interfere with views of the River.
• Signs shall be confined to the flat surface
of the building and not project further
than 0'-5" from the building facade.
• Signs shall not be painted directly to the
face of the building.
• The maximum sign height on a building shall
be below the overhang of the roof.
• Awning valences are appropriate locations
for signage.
• Signs shall not cover more than ten percent
of the facade facing the River.
1.1
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
• Free standing signage shall be prohibited.
c. Appearance
• The design of signs should capitalize on
the special character of the River
Market District.
• Window signs shall not cover more than
twenty five percent of each glass panel.
• Neon shall be permitted.
• In accordance with the federal Landham Act,
businesses with registered trademarks
are allowed to display that mark in
signage.
• Advertising copy on signage shall be
prohibited.
d. Lighting of signs
• Internally lit signs shall be prohibited.
e. Banners
• Banners shall be restricted to hanging from
street lights.
4. Sidewalks
a. Width
• Sidewalks shall consist of a 7'-6" concrete
walk and a 4'-0" red brick paving
planting strip.
• Sidewalks shall have an 12'-0" overall
width from building face to curb face.
b. Materials
• The walks, curbs, gutters, and treegate
frames shall be concrete.
• The planting strip shall consist of red
brick pavers.
c. Handicapped ramps
• Two (2) handicapped ramps shall be provided
per corner or the entire corner may be
turned down.
• Ramps shall have 1:10 side slopes.
• Ramps shall have a 1:12 maximum slope.
• Ramps shall be 5'-0" in width with
striations perpendicular to pedestrian
traffic movement.
• Slopes shall be congruent between ramps.
• There shall be a minimum 51-0" landing at
the top of all ramps.
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
d. Curb and gutters
• Curbs shall be typically 6" in height.
• Gutters shall be typically 18" in width.
e. Tree planting strip
• The tree planting strip shall be a 4'-0"
wide brick paving strip on 2" sand base
and 18" topsoil backfill.
• The 6" concrete tree grate frame shall be
integrated with the top of the curb.
f. Utilities
• All utilities shall be located under the
street.
g. Use
• Sidewalks shall provide adequate clearance
for ease of pedestrian traffic and
movement.
5. Building form
a. Materials
• Historic materials or distinctive
architectural features shall not be
removed or hidden.
• The type of materials and their color,
texture, scale and detailing should be
compatible with those of buildings on
adjacent sites.
• Surface cleaning on historic structures
should be done with the gentlest
possible method.
b. Roof types
• Building roofs should relate to the overall
size, shape, slope, color and texture of
roofs of adjacent buildings on adjacent
sites.
c. Openings
• Historical upper facade windows shall
retain original dimensions and details.
• Historical storefront configuration shall
not be altered.
• New construction shall have a pattern of
windows and doors which recall similar
patterns on facades of buildings on
adjacent sites.
• Primary entrances shall be parallel with
the street.
E:3
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
d. Style and form
• New construction shall not exceed three
stories in height or a total height of
45'-0".
• Buildings shall maintain the distinction
between upper and lower levels.
• Buildings shall reinforce the established
horizontal lines of facades of buildings
on adjacent sites.
• Historical context of buildings shall be
restored to original designs.
• The sides and rear of buildings shall be
maintained properly, as these areas can
be viewed from the street, interstate
and the river.
e. Mass
New construction wider than the typical
building width shall be visually massed
to appear similar to buildings on
adjacent sites.
The primary facade of a building shall be
oriented parallel with the street.
f. Projections
• Objects shall not project from the building
facade over the public right of way.
(exceptions: awnings and balconies)
• Awnings shall not project more than 3'-0"
from the building facade and have a
minimum clearance of 9'-0" above the
sidewalk.
• Balconies over the public right of way
shall have a minimum clearance of 9'-0"
above the sidewalk. One inch of
projection is permitted for each
additional inch of clearance above
8'-0", provided that no such projection
shall exceed a distance of 3'-0".
g. Graphics
• Historic wall murals painted on the
exterior masonry wall shall be preserved
and maintained.
h. Setbacks
• Buildings shall
buildings on
retain similar setbacks as
adjacent sites.
0
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
6. Awnings
a. Appearance
• Colors should be compatible with others
used in the River Market District.
• Awnings shall relate to the shape of the
opening.
• Awnings shall have a minimum clearance
of 9'-0" from the sidewalk.
• Awnings shall not project more than 3'-0"
from the building facade.
• Awnings shall be manufactured from canvas,
vinyl coated canvas, acrylic fabrics or
other architectural materials compatible
to the building and to the River Market
District.
b. Location
• Awnings shall cover only the store front
display windows or transom above the
main entrance. Upper facade details
shall not be obscured.
• Direct back lit awnings are prohibited.
c. Use
Retractable canvas awnings are allowed but
may not extend more than 4'-0" and
maintain a clear height of 9'-0".
7. Landscaping
a. Plant Materials
• Markham Street from I-30 to Cumberland
Street shall be Acer x Freemanii
`Jeffersred'; Autumn Blaze Maple trees.
• Commerce Street from Markham to Second
Street shall be Acer x Freemanii
`Jeffersred'; Autumn Blaze Maple trees.
• Streets with north\south orientation
including and between I-30 and
Cumberland Street and north of Second
Street shall be Taxodium distichum; Bald
Cypress trees.
• Second Street from I-30 and Cumberland
Street shall be Fraxinus pennslvanica
`Marshall's Seedless'; Marshall's
Seedless Green Ash trees.
• Plazas and open spaces shall be Ostrya
virginiana; American Hopornbeam trees
and Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis
`Moraine'; Moraine Thornless Honeylocust
trees.
10
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
b. Size
• Street trees shall be 3"-3 1/2" caliper
trees.
• Plazas and open spaces shall be 1 1/2'-2"
caliper trees.
c. Location and spacing
• Trees shall be 30'-0" on center and 2'-0"
off back of curb.
• Trees shall allow for adequate site
distance at intersections.
d. Irrigation systems
• Irrigation systems shall provide four (4)
irrigation bubbler heads per tree well.
• All systems shall have backflow preventors.
• Automatic controllers shall be pole
mounted.
• Valve box covers shall have snaplocks and
be located within the brick planter
strip.
e. Tree grates
• Tree grates shall be 41x4' cast iron with
slot openings no more than 1/4".
• Tree grates shall be set into concrete and
angle iron curb collar; 6" exposed at
surface, minimum 12" depth.
f. Subdrainage
• A gravel drain shall consist of a 4"
perforated pipe wrapped in washed,
crushed gravel and geotextile running
parallel with planting strip.
• A gravel drain shall be approximately 4'-0"
below finished pavement elevation and
connected to the storm drainage inlet.
• The bottom of the gravel drain shall be
sloped for positive flow towards the 4"
perforated pipe
g. Planting medium
• Topsoil backfill shall contain 10% organic
material and be free of objectionable
materials.
• The tree root ball shall be set in place on
compacted SB-2 sub -base pedestal and
covered with 2" washed river gravel.
11
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
8. Street lights and furnishings
a. Lights
• Pedestrian posts and luminaries shall be
Antique Lighting "Capitol" Series;
catalog # C12/17-Cl/BK-WAT-23/BK/FB-
M175/240-III.
• Roadway intersection posts and luminaries
shall be Antique Lighting "Capitol"
Series; catalog # C17/20-CIS/BK-WAT-
23/BK/FB-M250/120-III-PEC.
b. Spacing and location
• Pedestrian posts and luminaries shall be
located every third tree within a block.
• Roadway posts and luminaries shall be
located 15'-0" off right-of-way of
perpendicular streets; one (1) per
corner.
c. Furnishings
• Signage and street equipment shall be in
the same design family as light posts
and luminaries.
• Trash receptacles shall be manufactured by
Cantebury International; Pennsylvania
Avenue Model.
• Benches shall be located on the inside of
roadway intersections posts and
luminaries and style manufactured by
Dumor Model # 57 Bench; six (6) foot
long.
• Bus shelters and information kiosks shall
be uniform in architectural language and
character to streetscape equipment and
building form.
• Newspaper stands shall be of the same style
and size and be incorporated as an
integral part of the street furnishings.
9. Land use
a. Type
• A mixture of office, commercial and
residential land uses shall be permitted
throughout the River Market District.
These uses shall be both neighborhood
and pedestrian orientated and shall
discourage uses which require heavy
automobile use.
b. Location
• First level of buildings should provide
visual interest to pedestrians.
12
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
c. Compatibility
• Uses shall be compatible with the River
Market District's overall philosophy of
a pedestrian oriented cultural and
entertainment center for the City of
Little Rock.
10. Streets
a. Crosswalks
• Crosswalks shall be constructed of red
brick pavers bound by 1'-0" wide by
2'-0" tall concrete band on both sides.
• The running bond brick pattern of the
crosswalks shall run perpendicular to
vehicular traffic.
• Brick pavers shall be 8000 p.s.i. to
withstand vehicle loads.
11. Parking
a. Location
• Parking lots shall maintain typical
setbacks.
• Parking lots shall not surround a building.
• Buildings should not be removed to provide
surface parking.
b. Landscaping
• Parking lots abutting sidewalks shall have
a buffer area.
• Parking lots shall follow the minimum
landscaping requirements as set forth in
the Landscape Ordinance. Landscaping
beyond that which is required is
encouraged.
c. Lighting
• Parking lot lighting shall match the style
used on the streetscape.
d. Design
• Parking lots shall be sensitive to the
overall design of the River Market
District.
e. Mass transit
• Parking lots of more than 50 vehicles shall
provide the opportunity for parking
buses.
13
. March 28, 1996
Item No.12
12. Curb cuts
a. Location
• New curb cuts on Markham Street shall be
prohibited.
• Existing curb cuts on Markham Street should
be removed or minimized to reduce
conflicts with pedestrian traffic.
• Curb cuts on Commerce Street should be
removed or minimized to reduce conflicts
with pedestrian traffic.
• Curb cuts on Second Street, Sherman Street
and Rock Street should be removed or
minimized to reduce conflicts with
pedestrian traffic.
b. Number per block
• Curb cuts shall be minimized to allow for
easy and safe pedestrian movement
throughout the River Market District.
c. Size
• Curb cuts shall be limited to a maximum of
22'-0" in width.
13. Open Spaces/Plazas
a. Size
• Open spaces/plazas shall not be smaller
than 1200 square feet.
• Open spaces/plazas shall provide one
seating space for each fifty square feet
of open area.
• Open spaces/plazas shall be accessible
along one fourth of its perimeter.
• Open spaces/plazas shall be visible from
adjacent public areas.
• Open spaces/plazas shall have a sense of
enclosure so that the space provided
feels like an outdoor room.
b. Landscaping
• A minimum of twenty percent of open
space/plazas shall be set aside for
landscaping.
14. Alleys
a. Use
• Alleys shall serve as attractive
alternative routes for pedestrians, as
well as efficient service access for
vehicles.
14
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
Existing north\south alleys in the River
Market District shall be used for
pedestrian movement only. All vehicular
traffic is prohibited.
• East\west alleys shall be used for egress
and ingress to the rear of buildings and
parking lots.
• Alleys shall have adequate lighting for
pedestrians.
15. Fences/Walls
a. Design
• Chain link fences and razor/barbed wire are
prohibited.
• Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate
where compatible with the style of the
building.
16. Views
a. Corridors
• New construction shall be sensitive to all
view corridors including: the East
Markham Street corridor and the Commerce
Street corridor.
b. River
• Views of the River shall be protected from
any obstructions or visual clutter.
G. River Market District Design Review Committee
A Design Review Committee (DRC) will be established by the
Board of Directors to protect the visual integrity of the River
Market District. The Board of Directors will appoint a five
member committee consisting of;
1. One (1) land owner of property in the River Market
District.
2. A representative from the Quapaw Quarter Association to
be selected from a list of three recommended by the QQA
Board of Directors.
3. A design professional (architect, planner or landscape
architect).
4. A representative from the Downtown Partnership to be
selected from a list of three recommended by the
Downtown Partnership.
5. A representative from the City to be named by the City
Manager's Office.
The appointments to the DRC shall be so arranged that the
term of at least one (1) member will expire each year, and their
successors shall be appointed in a like manner for terms of three
(3) years. Members who are appointed to fill vacancies for
15
March 28, 1996
Item No.12
unexpired terms shall join the DRC at the next meeting following
their appointment and confirmation.
The Design Review Committee will meet with the developer or
designer of River Market District projects involving construction
of a new building, exterior work on an existing building and any
new signage. No building permit will be issued unless the DRC
has reviewed the proposal. The DRC will meet on call as projects
are filed with the planning staff. A written record of the
review and recommendation would be forwarded to the Planning
Commission on proposals not meeting the design guidelines
established by the design overlay district.
The DRC will function with a primary goal to provide
substance and governance to the overlay design guidelines. This
includes:
1. Providing businesses in the River Market District
guidance in adhering to the overlay design guidelines.
2. Reviewing all new signage applications within the River
Market District.
3. Conducting annual reviews of all businesses within the
River Market District to ensure plan regulations are
being followed.
4. Timely review of variance submissions made by property
owners within the River Market District.
5. Maintaining a comprehensive variance report of all
allowances made above and beyond the plan regulations.
6. Forwarding a review and recommendation of a proposal (not
meeting the established guidelines) to the Planning
Commission.
F. Exceptions
Property due to topography, site, irregular shapes or other
constraints such as adjacent structures or features which
significantly affect visibility and thus cannot be developed
without violating the standards of this ordinance shall be
reviewed through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of
the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable
development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the overlay standards.
16
G
cc
U
W
cc
W
0
0
z
o�
�N
OV
U I
z
z
z
J
G.
W
Q
IIIIIIIIIIII
NN�1G��000
ao�ooe��ev
�n��oaeoea
car����oao
�o0ee�e
u�eoc�
�un��am
NN�AI�I�
p��n■
wi
C�
H
z
w
co
rd
W
}
Q
z
r�
y
March 28, 1996
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.