The URL can be used to link to this page

pc_05 09 1996F LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD MAY 9, 1996 3:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Commission approved the minutes of the March 28, 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 Sissi Brandon Pam Adcock Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy Hugh Earnest Ramsay Ball Steve Giles Cindy Dawson, Tom Carpenter c LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING AGENDA MAY 9, 1996 3:30 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z-1791-C North of the terminus R-2, R-4 and of the Cantrell Road R-5 to R-2 and section of Candlewood Dr. MF-12 B. Z-6100 1001 East 6th Street I-2 to R-3 C. Z-6106 Woodland Heights Road R-2 to 0-3 D. Area III Extraterritorial Zoning E. Candlewood Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-548-I) II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z-3369-C 12501 Kanis Road C-3 to C-4 2. Z-3592-J SE corner of Centerview C-2 to 0-3 Drive and Shackleford West Blvd. 3. Z-6121 4717 West 65th Street C-3 to C-4 4. Z-6130 6112 Forbing Road R-2 to I-2 5. Z-6131 South of 908 Autumn Road R-2 to 0-3 III. OTHER MATTERS 6. Z-4478-B SW Bell Services Conditional Use Permit Morrison Road Site 7. Z-6042-A SW Bell Services Conditional Use Permit Colonel Glenn Road Site 8. Z-6129 SW Bell Services Conditional Use Permit Rocky Valley Dr. Site 9. John Barrow Neighborhood Plan 10. Land Use Plan Amendment - John Barrow Area Neighborhoods Q Did tl31ZVtld lY VBIH1 W -- 6 W a �J�oy O W � � O y 2 NVWtl30 O oV _ NIYW AV 0VOH0 HOUV 83H3tl0 wa tl 1SNO o o ONIX INEE- '(d0Nt0N a o - x o MOtl000M 3MIdf 3'3b1S H ob 3NId tlV030 NO1lIWVH 11008 dS Ch Ntltld tlltld � w APS83AIN0 41IS83AIN0 SONIHdS 83A30 s S11WI1 Alp (� 3HOM IMSSIS IN �'Y's - m 100H0 6 0 a M088VO NHOr 3 W tl0AN3S3tl Q � 3NN13H a o�„ SIOtlVS w w U O _ OtlOj31N0VHS 31 Y C� w b y m3 ¢ r in ¢ Q WVHHVd A3NOOtl NVWM09 LU ti S1IWI1 Alp w x 390I8 ANA O S oe Q d < oe Ci, 3 CPv51 tie `> V P o H fNPPy'V1 a o Z 2r NVAI110S 1tlVM31S Z 6Y" $11WI1 A11O O N a e° o uj a 3 � ii0fO0 31VQNH33 ,May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • A 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: 59.82t 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 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 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: A 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-2" Single Family, "R-4" Two -Family and "R-5" Urban residence to "R-2" and "MF-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 �A , May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: A 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the requested zoning and of an amendment to the River Mountain District Land Use Plan. The zoning request and Land Use Plan Amendment were placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: H 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 SURROUNDING 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. { May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: B 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. PA May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: B Z-6100 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. A recommendation of approval was offered. No Plan Amendment was proposed. The R-3 zoning request was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent- 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.• C 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 Ring 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 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • C Z-6106 (Cont.-)- 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. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this property comprised of three tracts totaling 8.05± acres from "R-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 Ring 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. 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. 2 ,May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: C 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. STAFF UPDATE• On April 11, 1996, the Planning Commission voted to amend the River Mountain District Land Use Plan to show Suburban Office for this 8.05± acres as well as the remaining residential properties north of Woodland Heights Road and along Summit Road. The Plan Amendment was forwarded to the Board of Directors and placed on their May 7, 1996 agenda. An update on the Board's action will be provided by staff. Staff supported the Plan Amendment and, based on the amendment, recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Tom Cole and David Jones were present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the Board of Directors had approved the Land Use Plan Amendment on May 7, 1996 which changed this area to Suburban Office. Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, addressed the Commission. He informed the Commission that staff was not recommending approval of 0-3, as requested. He discussed the recent rezoning of property at Fairview and Woodland Heights Road to 0-3 which included conditions on building height and area coverage limits. Mr. Lawson stated that it was reasonable for this applicant to place similar restrictions on this 0-3 request. He stated that staff did not have in mind specific restrictions. Mr. Lawson stated that such considerations were consistent with the Suburban Office Land Use Plan designation. 3 , May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: _C Z-6106 (Cont. Commissioner Daniel spoke against the 0-3 zoning request. He stated that he would prefer to see either an 0-1 or P.O.D. request. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting that the item be deferred. David Jones reminded the Commission that the original deferral was requested by the Planning Staff and agreed to by the applicant to allow the Land Use Plan issue to be resolved. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant had worked with persons at Christ the King Catholic Church and had asked the Church to prepare a list of restrictions to be considered for attachment to the zoning application. He stated that the proposed list was faxed to the applicant at 3:28 p.m. on May 8, 1996 and that the applicant had not had time to respond. Commissioner Lichty asked how the proposed restrictions could affect the 0-3 zoning request. Mr. Jones responded that the list included such provisions as bulk and area as well as use limitations. He then discussed the nuances of 0-2 vs. 0-3 zoning. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant was willing to discuss the issues with the Church. Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Jones if he would provide a copy of the restrictions to the Commission, if the requested deferral was granted. Mr. Jones responded that he would. Commissioner Putnam asked if the Commission could defer the item in light of the number of objectors present. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles stated that it was his opinion that the applicant had presented proper justification to support a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item. Mr. Lawson stated that the Commission should let those persons present address the issue of the deferral. Commissioner Hawn stated that he had received 500 communications in opposition to the rezoning and he was disappointed that the Commission did not receive a copy of the list of restrictions proposed by the church. Richard Stephens addressed the Commission as a representative of Christ the King Church. He stated that he did not provide a copy of the list to the Commissioners because he did not know if it was appropriate. He asked the Commission to act on the 0-3 rezoning request and not to grant the deferral. Commissioner Putnam voiced his support for the deferral request. 4 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: C Z-6106 (Cont.) Chairman Woods stated that he would like to see the applicant and the community work out their differences. Mr. Stephens reiterated his opposition to the deferral. A vote was taken on the motion to defer. The vote was 9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. The item was deferred to the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. 5 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: D 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. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (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. 2 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (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 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) OTHER MATTERS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Staff presented the item and discussed the history of Area III. Staff then reviewed the requests for zoning classifications other than R-2, using the land use plans for the area and locating each request on the map. (The Planning Commission members had been provided a list of the property owners, the acreage and the requested zoning. The commissioners were also provided with a map showing each request and the land use plan for the area.) Staff indicated that they could only support those zonings that conform to the adopted Land Use Plan. Staff did suggest a possible plan amendment for the area between the existing city limits and Zeuber Road, and recommended a change from Agricultural to Industrial. Staff responded to several questions and made some additional comments. Ben Kelley, a resident of College Station, spoke and said he was opposed to extending the zoning to the College Station community. Mr. Kelley said that it was his understanding that the request for zoning protection was going to be withdrawn. He said there were problems in the community and the residents did not want zoning. Mr. Kelley said that College Station has been mistreated and he was representing a number of the residents. Mr. Kelley asked the Planning. Commission to make the right decision and to vote against the proposed zoning. There was some discussion about various issues. Ben Kelley spoke again and discussed the existing businesses in College Station. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, addressed the Commission and suggested possible options for the Planning Commission to consider when voting on the question of extending zoning jurisdiction to Area III. Mr. Lawson said one possibility would be for the Commission to vote against extending the zoning. Christopher King, 4520 E. 38th, said he was opposed to the zoning and also understood that the request would be withdrawn. Mr. King told the Commission that nobody in College Station wants zoning control. There was some discussion and Commissioner Hawn responded to several of Mr. Kings comments. Mr. King stated again that he was opposed to the zoning. Edward Flowers, 3821 Jones, indicated that he had nothing to add. Mary Ratcliffe said she had a large farm in Sweet Home and identified her ownership on the map. Ms. Ratcliffe said that the area was part of the Fourche Dam and Levee District. She went on 4 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) OTHER MATTERS to say that her family has been good stewards of the land and she was still confused about the zoning. Ms. Ratcliffe then asked several questions about annexation, the drainage district and possible restrictions on spraying, etc. Jim Lawson responded to Ms. Ratcliffe's questions and said that property owners usually initiate the process to annex land to the city and the zoning would not have any effect on the drainage district. Mr. Lawson also said that the proposed zoning would not place any restrictions on normal farming operations. Mary Ratcliffe made some additional comments and asked about taxes. Ms. Ratcliffe said that she was still opposed to extending the zoning. There was a lengthy discussion about what to do with the request and Chairman Woods stated that the property owners were not interested in having Area III zoned. Jim Lawson addressed several issues and discussed annexation. Mr. Lawson said that some control was needed in the area and commented on nonconforming uses. There was a long discussion about a number of items. Sam Raines, property owner, spoke and described his family's ownership in the area. Mr. Raines said the area was changing to industrial and made some additional comments. Jane Baugus, property owner, said she would prefer industrial zoning, but indicated that she could live with AF zoning. Ms. Baugus asked some questions and discussed the history of the area. Ms. Baugus also told the Commission that utilities were extended to the edge of the property years ago. Elvin Williams, Jr. a resident of Sweet Home, addressed the Commission. Mr. Williams said that he owns a commercial building on Hwy. 365 and asked several questions about the notification to residents in Sweet Home. Daniel Hale, owner of 140 acres, said that he requested I-2 for his land and that the staff's recommendation of AF was a problem. Mr. Hale made some other comments and said he would work with the staff. Kathy Ratcliffe spoke and said that her family's issues were similar to Mr. Hale's and they were willing to work with the City. Thomas Moore, Little Rock Port Authority, said that envisions some expansion of the port to the south and residential zoning was inappropriate. 6i . May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) OTHER MATTERS Norris Greer, representing the College Station CDC and Progressive League, discussed the Apple Blossom project and said the zoning would provide added protection for the development. Mr. Greer also said that the initial request for zoning protection was only concerned with College Station. There were additional comments made by various individuals. A motion was made to recommend extending the City's zoning jurisdiction to Area III. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. A second motion was made to accept the staff's recommendation on zoning in accordance with the land use plan as presented and recommend that the staff bring back a recommendation as to the advisability of changing the land use plan to industrial from the present city limits south to Zeuber Road. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 6 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, 6E IT ORDAINED 3Y THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMM I SS ION; 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 , o.. RESOLUTION TOEXPRESSEXPRESS 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 planninc area; and WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission, after conductinc a Pubiic Hear inc, recommends the approval of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 17 ORDAINED 5Y THE L17ILE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SECTION 1: That the City of 1-ittle 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 End the desires of abutting !and owners by using the priority schedule shown on Exhibit A (attached). SECTION 2: The priority system shown on Exhibit A was derived from the 11'e110Hir_ c,i,dri�: {2) Expression Of property owners cf a desire to be zoned and later annexed; {�) The amount of development 2ctivity occurr inc or anticipated to occur it the near future; {c) The City's staffing 2bility to handle new territory. ADOPTED; June_ 20, 1989 AT'.EST: Jane Czech City Clerk APPROVED: 1c*\,c G. Villir.es_,__III mzyo r Saline Coun' Lin ncnr 1 - highest activity/priority 3 - lowest activity/priority t EXTRATE^RR7, ORIA' Saline County Line --- OwN exhibti A INTENT -TO ZONE Q 0 .�y od C/D �o Y W > /1 0_ `' / U¢ � o O w C) U-JQ< O CO w cc ��NO � w U O O 2 CE: rn �Q O M !nNIVIN —L AVMad088 �31S3H0 W Qi \ Qi O 1 \ Q4 \ Q4 W E� EQ� linVOIH1 W w cn � \ y W P4 W U) Y 0 CCy J uJ w �_ m U NA � 0.�, N U- HO8d May 9, 1996 f 9 ITEM NO • E FILE NO.: S-548-I DAME: CANDLEWOOD APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of the Candlewood Rd. extension, approximately 0.6 mile north of the 14000-Block of Cantrell Rd. and the Kroger Center. DEVELOPER• MCCASLIN DEVELOPMENT 5950 Berkshire Ln. Suite 800 LB 37 Dallas, TX 75225 (214) 696-8422 AREA- 39.32 ACRES ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT• CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: ENGINEER• Joe White WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS• 1 PROPOSED USES• River Mountain (1) STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: None FT. NEW STREET: 3,500 Multi -Family Residential Proposed is the development of a 39.32 acre tract to include construction of 260 multi -family dwelling units in 13, three- story buildings, containing 20 units each. Each multi -family building is to contain approximately 10,000 square feet per floor. Garage parking for 130 vehicles and open parking for an additional 390 vehicles, for a total of 520 parking spaces, is to be provided. The multi -family facility is to include a 5,000 square foot office and clubhouse building. Internal drives totaling 3400 feet and construction of Candlewood Rd. to the site from its "dead-end" beside the Kroger Center on Cantrell Rd. (a total length of an additional 3100 feet) are proposed. A future public street is to extend from the complex entrance, along the north boundary of the tract, another 1200 feet to the west boundary of the site. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan is requested. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is extremely rugged and wooded. The terrain is steep, with slopes of 22 to 40%! From the "dead-end" of Candlewood Rd., where the roadway up the slope is to begin, to the entrance drive to the apartments is a rise of 160 feet; from the entrance to the ridge, along which the apartment buildings are to be built is another 40 feet of rise. The existing zoning of the site is R-2; however, there is a pending applicant to be heard on May 9, 1996, for the rezoning of the site to MF-12. There is an R-4 zoned tract to the north of the site, and an R-5 tract which touches the site at the southeast corner of the property. Otherwise, all surrounding properties are zoned R-2 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The streets must conform to the Master Street Plan, with the location, width, intersections, curve radii, and grades conforming to City ordinances. The roadway to the complex should be 30 feet in width, minimum. The drive to the club house should be 27 feet in width. Drives to each wing of the complex should be 27 feet in width. A sidewalk should be included in the plans along these drives. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required prior to any land alteration. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Co. noted that a 20 foot easement will be required around the full perimeter of the site. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Dr. will be required to obtain water service to this project. On -Site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution fee will be chard for this project. Ison Interceptor fees will also be charged for this project. E May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that adequate water pressure will be required to be assured to the fire hydrants. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31.13 requires "large-scale developments involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings (on a site) ... shall be subject to the provisions of this section". Because of the multiple buildings being constructed, the Subdivision Regulations require Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed site plan. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the site plan review submittal indicate the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening, etc. This is a multi -family development and land use buffers are required. The topography and natural timber/shrubbery may provide this, but the issue must be addressed and specifically dealt with by the applicant and the Commission. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the location and dimension of all existing and proposed utility and street easements and all existing public improvements within the site be shown. The submitted site plan is very schematic, and it is not assumed that this requirement has been met. Also, a street (shown as a "Future Public Street") extends westward across the site. No provision for dealing with the street is made, and the dedication of such a street will "subdivide" the lot, leaving a non -conforming tract on the north side of the street. Sec. 36-130(2) requires a topographical cross-section map of the site. In this particular case, this cross-section is mandatory, and it has not been provided. Grades are 40% in some areas, and the relation of buildings to drives and parking areas is critical. Sec. 36-130(4) requires a registered land survey of the site, showing the exact property lines, and including a statement of present and proposed ownership. This has not been done. The submitted plan is not a survey and does not meet the requirements as such. The availability of public utilities has not been addressed. On -site fire hydrants have not been located and provided for. The areas of the site to be devoted to landscaping have not been identified. q May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I Sec. 36-502(b.d.2) specifies, for multi -family complexes, that 1% parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 2 spaces for each unit. The Master Street Plan currently shows Candlewood Rd. as a collector street, extending on over to Pennicle Valley Rd. The applicant, in this application, is not proposing to provide for this extension, nor to build the street to collector standards. If a change in the Master Street Plan is desired by the applicant and deemed desirable by the Planning and Public Works staffs, and concurrence is given by the Planning Commission and Hoard of Directors, a change should be made. Otherwise, conformance with the Master Street Plan is mandated. The Plans Review Specialist comments: The proposed building setbacks are sufficient to allow for the required buffer areas. There is sufficient area for landscaping. The development will be required to comply with both the Land Use Huffer and Landscaping Ordinances. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant reports that, with "super -elevation" of the roadway at the reverse curves going up the slope, the roadway can meet Master Street Plan requirements. ("Super - elevation" means warping, or sloping, the road bed at the curves, like is done on a race tract, so that it is not a flat road at the curved sections.) In any event, compliance with Master Street Plan standards is a requirement noted by Public works. The internal drives, too, must meet Public Works standards. Unless the applicant is prepared to comply with the Master Street Plan, an application to amend the Plan needs to be initiated by the applicant. The issue of subdividing the property with the provision of the right-of-way along the north edge of the property needs to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant complying with the Public Works requirements for street and drive standards. 4 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548-I SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm representing the applicant, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the proposed site plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reported on the Public works comments, and discussed in detail the issues of the standards to which Candlewood Rd. must be built, the requirement for extending Candlewood Rd. to the west, as shown on the Master Street Plan, and the requirements for the internal drives. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the issues raised with the developer. The Planning staff discussed the deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information, indicating, especially, that cross-section topographic information is mandatory. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant requested a deferral to the May 9th. Rezoning Agenda, to coincide with the rezoning request on the property which will be heard on that date. Staff recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) White-Daters and Associates, Inc. was present representing the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff recommended deferral of the item to the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting with review at the May 16, 1996 Subdivision Committee meeting. It was noted that there were many unresolved issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 6, 1996 commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 69 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • 1 Z-3369-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Bob and Sherri Woodworth Bob Woodworth/Cheryl Stanfield 12501 Kanis Road Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Antique Automobile Sales .93± acres Vacant land SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Kanis Road and undeveloped, MF-18 zoned property South - Single Family homes; zoned R-3 East - Single Family residence; zoned R-2 West - Little Rock Cleaning Systems Office; zoned 0-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Dedicate Master Street plan right-of-way for Kanis Road, 45 feet from centerline. with planned construction widen Kanis to 1/2 of a 60 foot minor arterial with sidewalk. Due to less than 300 feet of frontage an In -Lieu contribution is recommended for this frontage prior to building permit. The In -Lieu amount shall be submitted by a Registered Professional Engineer and approved by Public works. Since lot is less than one acre stormwater detention is not required. However, the effects of stormwater discharge onto adjacent properties shall be addressed prior to construction permit. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial. The requested C-4 reclassification is in conflict with the plan, and staff cannot support a plan change to accommodate the proposed rezoning. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-3369-C (Cont.) STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant, .93± acre tract from °C-3" General Commercial to 11C-4" Open Display district. The applicant proposes to construct a building on the property for the storage and sale of antique automobiles. It is staffs understanding that the applicant proposes to keep the vehicles inside the building and that there may not be any outside display. However, automobile sales is a use which is not permitted in the C-3 district whether the vehicles are kept inside or outside of the building. Thus the C-4 zoning request. The abutting properties are zoned R-2, R-3 and 0-3. Uses on these properties are single family homes and one office building. The vacant property across Kanis Road is zoned MF-18. Staff does not believe C-4 zoning is appropriate for this site. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial for the property. The requested C-4 reclassification is in conflict with the plan. Perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to file a Planned Development application which would allow C-3 uses (as the property is currently zoned) and would also allow the storage/sale of antique automobiles within the building with no outside display. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 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 the item needed to be deferred. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda deferral to the June 20, 1996 Commission was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. and approved for meeting. The vote K May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • 2 Z-3592-J Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: West Little Rock Partnership James E. Hathaway, Jr. Southeast corner of Shackleford West Blvd. and Centerview Drive Rezone from C-2 to 0-3 Future office development 5.56± acres Vacant property SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, woodland; zoned C-2 South - Koger Office Park Development; zoned 0-3 East - Vacant, wooded; zoned C-2 West - Vacant, wooded; zoned 0-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS A grading permit and ADPC&E permit will be required. Stormwater detention analysis will also be required. Sidewalks with CLR standard ramps will be required on street frontages. Driveways will require traffic engineering approval. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office and Commercial. There is no land use issue. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant 5.56± acre tract from "C-211 Shopping Center District to 110- 3" General Office District. The proposed rezoning is to allow for the future development of the site as an office. The 5.56± acre tract is part of a larger C-2 zoned area -May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-3592-J (Cont.) located between the Koger Office Park and Kanis Road. The remainder of the C-2 zoned property is also vacant. Zoning in the immediate area is primarily 0-3 and C-2. The property adjacent to the East and across Shackleford West Blvd. to the north is undeveloped and zoned C-2. A large area of undeveloped 0-3 zoned property is located across Centerview Drive to the west. The large 0-3 zoned Roger Office Park is adjacent to the south of the site. The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office and Commercial for this site as well as the remainder of the C-2 zoned property. The requested 0-3 zoning conforms to the adopted Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The 0-3 zoning request was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. K ,May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6121 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Arlan Harris Arlan Harris 4717 West 65th Street Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Antique Auto Sales and Strip Shopping Center 1.04± acres Vacant, one-story commercial building and paved parking lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Trucking companies and other industrial uses; zoned I-2 South - Single Family residences; zoned R-2 East - Church; zoned C-3 West - Regional U-Haul Rental Center; zoned I-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 65th Street is a minor arterial that requires 5 lanes per the Master Street Plan. If planned construction warrants, contribute In -Lieu for cost to widen to 30 feet from centerline with construction permit or widen frontage 6 feet with construction. A grading permit is required and a stormwater detention management plan is required if increase in impervious area exceeds 500 square feet. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the 65th Street East District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Commercial and Industrial for the property in question. C-4 is appropriate for a Mixed Commercial and Industrial area, and there is no land use issue. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6121 (Cont.) TAFF ANALYSI The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.04± acre tract from "C-3" General Commercial to "C-4" Open Display District. The property is currently occupied by a vacant, one-story commercial building. The applicant proposes to use a portion of the property for automobile sales, with a sales office in the existing building. The remainder of the building will -contain other allowable retail, enclosed uses. The property is located on the western fringe of the large, 65th Street Industrial District. Uses along this portion of 65th Street range from churches to apartments and a variety of industrial uses. The I-2 zoned property adjacent to the west is occupied by a large U-Haul truck and trailer rental facility. The large area of I-2 zoned property across 65th Street to the north contains a variety of industrial uses including 2 truck terminals. The property to the east is zoned C-3 and is occupied by a church. This property was just recently zoned from C-4 to C-3 to allow the church to occupy the site. The Wakefield single family residential subdivision is located to the south of this site. The 65th Street East District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Commercial and Industrial for the property. The C-4 request conforms to the Plan. Appropriate locations for C-4 property are along heavily traveled major traffic arterials such as 65th Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) The applicant, Arlan Harris, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The C-4 zoning request was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 ,May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.• 4 Z-6130 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Dortha Shoemaker Herschel Smith 6112 Forbing Road Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Expansion of equipment sales and rental company .53± acres Single Family residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family residence; zoned R-2 South - Equipment rental company; mini -warehouses; zoned I-2 East - Office and equipment rental company; zoned I-2 West - Single Family residence; zoned R-2 and West Tree Service; zoned PCD PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Dedication of right-of-way for 1/2 of the minor arterial right-of-way. Public Works information suggests this dedication amounts to a strip 15 feet in depth by the width of the property. If planned construction warrants there may be a requirement for widening of Forbing Road or contribution of In -Lieu fees. Forbing is a 4 lane roadway and the Master Street Plan calls for 5 lanes. One driveway is all that Ordinances permits on frontage. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the 65th Street East District and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for the property in question. The Plan shows the commercial area on the north side of Forbing Road extending from Geyer Springs to the parcel west of 6112 Forbing (650 feet). On the south side of Forbing, the commercial area is limited to a distance of 250 feet west of Geyer Springs, West of the 250 feet, on both the north and south sides of Forbing, the Land Use is primarily industrial and a high percentage is zoned May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-6130 (Cont.) I-2. Because of the existing development, a plan change is reasonable for the north side of Forbing. It is recommended that the plan be amended to reduce the commercial to conform to that on the south side of Forbing and to change the remaining area to industrial. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this .53± acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial. The property currently contains one single family residence. Once rezoned, the property will be used by an equipment rental company which already occupies several properties in the area. The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses with I-2 being the predominant zoning. The properties to the east are zoned I-2 and contain an office and the previously mentioned equipment rental company. A large area of I-2 zoning extends from Forbing Road south to I-30. This area south of Forbing Road contains a variety of industrial uses. One single family residence is adjacent to the west and beyond that is a large tree service company and a warehouse, zoned PCD and I-2 respectively. A small pocket of single family homes lies north of the site, along-Myerson Drive. The subject property is one of only two remaining residential properties located on Forbing Road between Geyer Springs and University Avenue. The vast majority of the property in the area is zoned I-2. There is an area of C-4 and C-3 zoning at the intersection of Forbing and Geyer Springs Road. The 65th Street East District Land Use Plan is reflective of the zoning pattern in the area with one exception. It does not recognize the I-2 zoned property on the north side of Forbing Road to the east of the subject property. Staff recommends amending the Plan to Industrial for the two remaining residential properties and the I-2 zoned property on the north side of Forbing. The Plan currently recommends Commercial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 zoning and of an amendment to the 65th Street East District Land Use Plan. K, May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-6130 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the requested I-2 zoning and of an amendment to the 65th Street East District Land Use Plan. The I-2 zoning request and Plan Amendment were placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.• 5 Z-6131 Owner: Frances Brain Applicant: James E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: South of 908 Autumn Road Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 Purpose: Parking lot for adjacent office development Size: .867 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant property; zoned 0-3 South - Vacant property and Single Family residence; zoned R-2 East - Single Family residence; zoned R-2 West - Mini -Warehouse development; zoned POD and Vacant property; zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Access and boundary street issues are associated with adjacent parcel used for access. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted Land Use Plan shows Commercial and Mixed Office and Commercial for the area in question. 0-3 conforms to the recommended land use pattern and is supported by the Plan. There is no land use issue associated with this request. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant, .867 acre tract from "R-21, Single Family to 110-311 General Office. The property is proposed to be developed as a parking lot to serve the 5-story office building which is to be constructed on the 0-3 zoned property adjacent to the north. The property is currently vacant and is, in fact, the rear portion of a large tract which extends to Kanis Road. The applicant is proceeding with a replat of the May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • 5 Z-6131 (Cont.) property which will separate this .867 acres from the tract to the south and add it to the proposed office building tract to the north. Uses and zoning in the area are varied, ranging from R-2 zoned single family residences to a C-3 zoned hospital and a POD zoned mini -warehouse development. The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for the north half of this tract and Mixed Office and Commercial for the south half. 0-3 conforms to the Plan and is an appropriate zoning for this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 , May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4478-B NAME: OWNER/APPLICANT• Southwestern Bell Services (Saddle Hill Dr. Site) - Conditional Use Permit 13625 Saddle Hill Dr. City of Little Rock/ Southwestern Bell Services by Brian Powers PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole cellular communications tower on a lease area located within this R-2 zoned Little Rock Municipal Water Works property. Associated with the tower is an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment building. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed tower site is located just west of Saddle Hill Dr., between Pleasant Heights Dr. and Fox Chapel Court, adjacent to Phase I of the Pleasant Heights Subdivision. This subdivision is located just south of the Hillsborough Subdivision, which is located south off of Hinson Road, approximately 1/3 mile west of Pulaski Academy School. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed site is within an existing Little Rock Water Works' water tank site. The surrounding properties are zoned R-2. The property to the south and west of this site is vacant and tree -covered, with a few single-family residences further west on Belle Point Drive. The property to the north and east contains new single-family residences. This existing Little Rock Water Works site is located on a hill, overlooking the property to the north and east. The site contains two existing towers, each 130 feet in height. The proposed 75 foot tall tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4478-B 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the property will be gained by utilizing an existing drive which runs west off of Saddle Hill Dr. to the Water Works site. Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: No Comments 6. Utility Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole tower on this R-2 zoned site located at 13625 Saddle Hill Drive. Associated with the tower is an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment building. The proposed 75 foot tall tower will be located in the south one-half of this Little Rock Municipal Water Works tank site, within the existing fenced area. The tower will be located approximately 50 feet east of the existing 2.5 million gallon water tank (the water tank is approximately 40-50 feet in height). In addition to the water tank, the site contains two (2) existing towers, which are located on the west side of the water tank. One of the towers was constructed by Arkla Gas Co. for radio communications purposes and is 130 feet tall. The second tower is owned by Alltel and is also approximately 130 feet tall. There are no height or setback variances needed for the proposed tower or equipment building. A 6 foot high chainlink fence with three strands of barbed wire will surround the lease area. 2 . May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4478-B Given the fact that this existing Little Rock Municipal Water works site contains a 40-50 foot tall water tank and two (2) 130 foot tall towers, the addition of the proposed 75 foot tall tower should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal. He described the height of the proposed tower, the size of the proposed equipment building, and their proposed location within the Little Rock Municipal water works site. There were no other comments offered by committee or staff. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Brian Powers and Ann Kyle were present, representing the application. Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. There were two objectors to this matter present. Chairman woods stated that he wanted to hear from the opposition first. L. K. Moore spoke in opposition to this application. Mr. Moore stated that he represents owners of the remaining vacant lots along Belle Pointe Dr. and lots in the Pleasant Heights Subdivision. Mr. Moore stated that the presence of the existing towers on this site effect the sales of the lots in this area. Mr. Moore referenced the Arkla Gas Company tower conditional use permit. Commissioner Brandon asked what was between the end of Belle Point Dr. and the tower site. Mr. Moore stated that it was a continuous ridge. 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4478-B Commissioner Putnam asked when the cul-de-sac was constructed on Belle Pointe Dr. Mr. Moore stated that the cul-de-sac was built in 1988-89. Commissioner Putnam asked if the towers were there when the street was built. Mr. Moore responded that they were. Greg Graham spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that the construction of another tower would be a detriment to value of the vacant lots in the general area. He stated that all of the property in the area is zoned residential. Mr. Moore stated that he had a letter of opposition from Dr. Charles Fowler. Brian Powers and Ann Kyle spoke in support of this application. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, addressed the Commission regarding the situation involving the Arkla Gas Tower. He also stated that the proposed tower is only 75 feet tall and needs no variances. He stated that Arkla Gas has been notified of the situation involving their tower and that the tower would be removed or an amended conditional use permit would be applied for. Commissioner Putnam asked the height of the water tower. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, responded 40-50 feet tall. Brian Powers stated that because of the height of the tower and the placement of the equipment building, there should be no impact on nearby residential properties. He also stated that this type use (communications towers) should not effect the value of nearby properties. Mr. Powers presented the Commission with an example of the antennas which will be placed on the tower. Commissioner Brandon asked about fencing around the property. Mr. Powers stated that the water works site was fenced and the tower and building would go inside the fenced area. He stated that the trees immediately north and east of the site would screen the building from nearby residential properties. Commissioner Brandon asked if this tower would interfere with radio or television reception in the area. 4 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-B Mr. Powers answered that it would not. Commissioner Lichty asked what other types of structures Southwestern Bell has co -located on and what was the possibility of placing this structure on one of the existing towers. Mr. Powers stated that the Arkla tower would not support the added structure. He stated that the water tank was masonry and an antenna could not be attached to it. Commissioner Daniel asked about the life expectancy of the tower. Mr. Powers stated that the tower will be built to be there forever. Commissioner McCarthy stated that she could not understand why there could not be a single structure that all of the companies could use. She also stated concerns about the health and safety concerning this type of tower. Mr. Powers stated that his company uses existing structures anywhere possible. He also stated that there are no known adverse health effects associated with cellular towers. Mr. L. K. Moore restated his concerns regarding the proposed tower. A motion was made and seconded to vote on the application. The application was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. 5 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-6042-A NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT• Southwestern Bell Services (Colonel Glenn Site) - Conditional Use Permit 10700 Colonel Glenn Road City of Little Rock/ Southwestern Bell Services by Brian Powers PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole cellular communications tower on a lease area located within this R-2 zoned Little Rock Municipal Water Works property. Associated with the tower is an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment building. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed tower site is located near the northeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430, just northwest of Sams Wholesale Club and just east of the I-430 right-of-way. 2. Comvatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed site is within an existing Little Rock Water Works' water tank site. The vacant, tree -covered property to the north is zoned 0-2. The C-3 zoned property to the east and south is also vacant and tree - covered. Immediately west of the property is I-430 right-of-way. This proposal should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the property will be gained from Colonel Glenn Road by utilizing an existing drive used by Little Rock Municipal Water Works. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6042-A Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: No Comments 6. Utility Comments: NO Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole tower on this R-2 zoned site located at 10700 Colonel Glenn Road. Associated with the tower is an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment building. The proposed 75 foot tall tower will be located at the northeast corner of this Little Rock Municipal Water Works tank site. There is an existing 130 foot tall Alltel tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building located along the west property line of this site. There are no height or setback variances needed for this proposal. A 6 foot high chainlink fence with three stands of barbed wire will surround the perimeter of the lease area. Given the fact that the land surrounding this proposed site is vacant and tree -covered and the fact that the site contains an existing 130 foot tall Alltel tower, the proposed 75 foot tall tower should not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit application. 2 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6042-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal. He described the height of the proposed tower, the size of the proposed equipment building, and their proposed location within the Little Rock Municipal Water Works site. There were no other comments offered by committee or staff. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. There were no objectors to this matter. 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6129 NAME: Southwestern Bell Services (Rocky Valley Dr. Site) - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 11001 Rocky Valley Dr. OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock/ Southwestern Bell Services by Brian Powers PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole cellular communications tower on a lease area located within this R-2 zoned Little Rock Municipal Water Works property. Associated with the tower is an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment building. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed tower site is located at the end of Rocky Valley Drive, between Rocky Valley Drive and Pleasant Valley Drive. The site is west of and adjacent to Interstate 430. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed site is within an existing Little Rock Water Works' water tank site. The property to the north, south and west of this site is zoned R-2. The property north and west contains single family residences. There is a school and a church, as well as single family residences, located south of this site. Interstate 430 is immediately east of this site, with an area zoned POD (Planned Office Development) and an area zoned R-5 (containing a multifamily development) located further east, across I-430. The proposed 75 foot tall tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: z-6129 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the property will be gained by utilizing the existing drive which runs from the end of Rocky Valley Drive into the Water Works site. Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: No Comments 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: The access drive to this facility should be an all-weather surface at least 15 feet wide. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole tower on this R-2 zoned site located at 11001 Rocky Valley Drive. Associated with the tower is an 8 foot by 16 foot equipment building. The proposed 75 foot tall tower will be located within the Little Rock Municipal Water Works' tank site (Jack Wilson Water Treatment Plant). There are three (3) existing water tanks on this site; a large tank located within the north one-half of the property and two (2) smaller water tanks located within the south one-half of the property. The proposed tower will be located between the two smaller water tanks. The two smaller water tanks are approximately 30-40 feet in height. There are no height or setback variances needed for the tower or equipment building. A 6 foot high chainlink fence with three strands of barbed wire will surround the tower base. With the tower site located near the southeast corner of this property, near I-430 and away from nearby single family residences, the proposed 75 foot tall tower should not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. 2 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6129 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the Fire Department Comments. BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal. He described the height of the proposed tower, the size of the proposed equipment building, and their proposed location within the Little Rock Municipal Water Works site. There were no other comments offered by committee or staff. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Brian Powers and Ann Kyle were present, representing the application. Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the Fire Department Comments. There was one objector to this matter present. Skip Dahlgren spoke in opposition to this application. He stated that he was concerned with radio, television and computer interference (harmonic problems) that could be caused by this proposed tower. He also stated that he had concerns because the tower will not be lighted, and the danger that aircraft could hit the tower. Commissioner Hawn stated that the FAA regulations not requiring this tower to be lighted are valid. Brian Powers spoke in support of this application. He stated that this tower would not effect the normal receptions of radio, television or computers in the area. Commissioner Brandon asked if a good neighbor fence could be built around the facility. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, responded to this concern. He stated that because of the water tanks and the distance from the site to the residences, with a large open space area between the water works facility and the residences along Imperial Valley Dr., that the base of the tower and the building should not be seen from any adjacent property. 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6129 A motion was made and seconded to vote on the application. The application was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 4 May 9, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • 9 JOHN BARROW AREA NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN NAME: John Barrow Area Neighborhoods Plan LOCATION: Kanis Road to Asher/Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Road to Rock Creek REQUEST: Resolution of Support for Policy Plan SOURCE: John Barrow Area Neighborhood Steering Committee STAFF REPORT: In 1993 the John Barrow Community Organization along with many of the residents in the area felt there was a need to affect positive change in the areas various neighborhoods. They were successful in obtaining assistance from the City of Little Rock to develop a neighborhood plan of action to guide and govern this change and develop redevelopment programs and projects. The redevelopment and development items attempt to efficiently utilize available public and private financial resources to solve these problems and concerns. The neighborhood was an active participant in development of this plan and started to look at their problems from a holistic viewpoint rather than an incremental. The plans format is designed to facilitate implementation of the development items. However, it is the responsibility of the John Barrow Community residents, Mayor, City Board of Directors, and appropriate staffs to discuss, revise, and implement these items when appropriate. This neighborhood area plan was prepared by the John Barrow Neighborhood Association Steering Committee and facilitated by the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning of the City of Little Rock. The purpose of the plan is to guide the current and future redevelopment and development opportunities and the best use of land in the John Barrow neighborhood area of the City of Little Rock. The plan also provides recommendations for various groups, public and private, which should result in improvements leading to revitalization and improvement of the John Barrow neighborhood. A neighborhood survey was conducted and distributed by the Neighborhoods and Planning Department to determine the attitudes of neighborhood residents about their neighborhood. Based on the survey actions which should be undertaken to provide neighborhood improvements can be determined. May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: (Con In late October 1993, the City of Little Rock mailed between 3200-3300 survey forms to residents of the John Barrow Neighborhood Area. This survey was conducted to help identify needs and/or problems which should be addressed as part of the neighborhood study. The identified concerns and problems were compiled so that each could be addressed with suggested remedies and/or steps to lessen the negative impacts. This section consists of the survey analysis or identification of concerns and problems. Of the over three thousand surveys mailed, just over 14 percent were returned and tabulated to produce the information which was used to identify problem areas. This is a good response rate for a mail survey and should provide a good representation of the area. Based on the survey results, as well as information from technical professionals and the committee's own knowledge, the Steering Committee developed a set of goals. These "professionals" provided information on zoning, land use, transportation, housing and recreation. The technical information assisted the committee's development of goals to address the needs identified by the survey and market analysis. The committee agreed on 14 goals related to seven topics. Staff provided sample goals to the Steering Committee. The committee modified, added, and deleted goals to fit the John Barrow Neighborhood Area. Once the goal statements were developed, sample objectives were provided to the committee for each approved goal. The committee again modified, added and deleted objectives to meet the area's needs. A complete set of goals and objectives was agreed to. A neighborhood meeting was held to present the goals and objectives. Fliers were distributed to all who received surveys, inviting them to this public meeting. Each statement was reviewed and comments requested. Additional copies were distributed to those in attendance. The committee took all comments and re-examined the goals and objectives. Modifications were developed and the goals and objectives finalized. During the summer and autumn of 1995 action statements were added. Subcommittees were used for this work. The John Barrow Neighborhood Area Steering Committee, after review and study with continuing input from the neighbors, has developed the following as a blueprint to the area's future. To achieve the desires and meet the needs of the residents, we must work toward: • Enhancing the climate directed towards encouraging new business and commercial establishments to locate in the area as well as retention of existing. 2 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) JOHN BARROW AREA NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN • Providing outdoor passive recreation areas of residents. • Providing indoor recreation and cultural facilities in and around Parkview High School. • Improving overall appearance and safety of the John Barrow Neighborhood Area. • Reducing the number of unsightly vacant houses and lots in the neighborhood area. • Improving the circulation, transportation corridors, and street traffic in the area. • Proposing more facilities towards the social service needs of the area. • Increasing communication between residents and businesses with aid from the Alert Center. • Establishing an efficient flow of traffic along local streets. • Reducing excessive speeds in the neighborhood. • Reducing parking congestion and the number of abandoned cars. • Improving the quality and efficiency of delivery of municipal services to John Barrow Neighborhood Area. • Promoting public investment in improvements and facilities to encourage private reinvestment in the neighborhood areas. • Establishing a distinctive image for the neighborhood. • Ridding the John Barrow Neighborhood Area of real and perceived crime problems and foster a secure environment. The Steering Committee recommends the implementation of the following major initiatives necessary to protect and nurture the vitality of the neighborhood. • Immediate and explained funding of crime prevention, and interdiction programs. • Careful review of plans or projects which may have worked in other places before attempting to copy them here. • No additional multifamily or apartments in the area, the John Barrow Neighborhood area already has more than enough. 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) JOHN BARROW AREA NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN • Development and construction of a community center with organized, adult supervised activities for area youth. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of resolution of support PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, stated that Staff would give some background information and then representatives of the committee would present the Plan. For Item No. 10, Staff would present the land use changes if the commission wishes. Due to the nature of this plan, a resolution of support is suggested as the approval. This is so that no department of the City, the Commission or the Board is obligated to an specific item (Action Station). Staff knows that there will be concern and objection to a few specifics here and there. The process began in 1993 and was funded partly with CDBG money. A 100 percent survey was conducted (over 3,200 surveys), with the results used by the committee to develop the goals and objectives. The Goals and Objectives were taken to a neighborhood meeting and presented. Questions and suggestions were encouraged as well as an indication that the committee was on the right track. Modifications were made to the Goals and Objectives based on the comments. Action Statements were developed and the entire document was taken to another neighborhood meeting. At this meeting, after presentation and discussion, a motion was made to approve the Plan. This motion was approved. (Additional neighborhood distributions were made through several of the Associations before the neighborhood meeting.) Betty Synder and David Carr will present some of the goals and important points of the Plan. Betty Synder, President of the John Barrow Association, presented the four major initiatives that the committee felt were necessary for the neighborhood area. Ms. Synder proceeded to review the Goals and Objectives. with many of the objectives she presented an accomplishment. Commissioner Lichty congratulated Ms. Synder and the committee on their hard work. Commissioner Putnam expressed concern about the "no more multifamily" statement. City Attorney, Cindy Dawson, indicated while the City must allow multifamily use to occur within Little Rock, a resolution of support would not require that the Commission reject all multifamily in the area. David Carr, President of Twin Lakes B and the West Central Coalition rose to complete the review of the Plan Goals. Mr. 4 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) JOHN BARROW AREA NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN Carr stated the area had learned to work together through this process and had began to work on accomplishing the Plan Tasks. As Mr. Carr presented Goals and Objectives, he also presented an accomplishment. The Commission praised the committee's work. David Scherer, Engineer - Public Works Department, asked to put a statement in the record on behalf of the Public Works Department. The Department while no agreeing to all elements of the Plan wishes to support the overall intent and will work with the Neighborhood to further their goals. In response to a question, the issues of concern dealt with potential commitments to do drainage, street, signage work as well as some of the specific methods and locations suggested. Commissioner Adcock moved to approve the Resolution of support. Mr. Malone read the statement in the resolution and Attorney Dawson confirmed to the Commission that approval would not require fulfillment of each and every statement in the Plan. By unanimous voted 10 for, 0 against, and 1 absent (Ball) to approve the resolution of support. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 109 AN RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE JOHN BARROW AREA NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN. WHEREAS, the Neighborhood formed a Planning Committee to work with Staff towards the development of a Neighborhood Plan; and, WHEREAS, all the homes in the area were included in a survey of needs and desires and the Planning Committee went to the neighborhood throughout the process to both keep them informed and get their comments; and, WHEREAS, after more than two years of work by neighborhood volunteers a set of goals and objectives was developed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Committee has demonstrated support of the Plan by existing neighborhood based groups; and, WHEREAS, this Policy Plan (Goals, Objectives and Action Statements) provides a way for both neighborhood based groups and others working in and around the neighborhood to advance the desires and meet the needs of the residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The Little Rock Planning Commission does support the aims and desires, expressed in and by the John Barrow Area Neighborhoods Plan. ATTEST: May 9, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 10 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT JOHN BARROW AREA NAME: Amend City Land Use Plan - Boyle Park and I-430 Districts LOCATION: Kanis Road to Asher/Colonel Glenn and Rock Creek REQUEST: Change Various Areas to Single Family, Low Multifamily, Density Multifamily, Office, Suburban Office, Mixed Office Commercial, Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial Public, Park/Open Space, Mobile Home SOURCE: Neighborhood Planning Committee STAFF REPORT: The Neighborhood Steering Committee as part of their plan effort reviewed the Land Use Plan for their area of Little Rock. In addition to the current plan the committee also examined two other land use scenarios which were presented by the planning staff of the City of Little Rock. After careful review of each of the options, the committee designed the following plan which best presents the community's recommendations for land use within the John Barrow Neighborhood Area. The John Barrow neighborhood has predominately been a single family residential community and the plan maintains this land use. Infill with new single family homes is encouraged throughout the area. Both single lot and large tract single family infill is proposed. Most of the existing vacant land is recommended for single family use. Several areas on the current plan are changed to Single Family. They are: Along Kanis Road west of Leander (from Mixed Residential); north of Parkview and south of Howell Dr. (from Low Density Multifamily); west of John Barrow and north of 29th (from Park Open Space); southeast of John Harrow/36th (from Mixed Residential); south of 40th Potter to Whitfield (from Mixed Residential); south of 46th Holt to Ludwig (from Low Density Multifamily); either side of John Barrow north of 44th (from Low Density Multifamily); west of Aldersgate Road south of Kanis Road (from Suburban Office). The Plan recognizes the existing low density multifamily found on Scott Court and Wedgewood Cove in the northeast quadrant of the May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT JOHN BARROW AREA neighborhood (changed from Single Family). A tract of land on John Barrow Road lying to the south of Tanya Drive is proposed as low density multifamily, elderly housing is encouraged on this site (changed from Mixed Residential). A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is required to develop the site. There are three existing mobile home parks in the John Barrow Neighborhood Area. Each site, on Kanis Road, the east end of 36th Street, and south of 36th Street on Shackleford Road, is designated as mobile home park on the Plan. The current plan shows these areas for mixed residential, mobile home, and multifamily respectively. The Plan does not contemplate a change in use for the next five to ten years. All existing multifamily developments are sited north of 36th Street. Two multifamily developments, west of John Barrow Road, are accessed from 36th Street. A large number of multifamily units can be found on John Barrow Road, north of Tanya Street, and another development sits on Kanis Road to the west of John Barrow Road. At the end of Aldersgate Road is the Good Shepherd Ecumenical Retirement Center. The land to the south of the Center has been designated as multifamily to encourage expansion of the Center or to accommodate new retirement or nursing home facilities. The only other area proposed for development of multifamily is south of 36th Street just east of Shackleford Road. A few areas have been changed to multifamily from other residential and public uses. The locations of these changes are as follows: either side of Caulden south of Leander (from Low Density Multifamily); either side Tanya west of John Barrow Road (from Low Density Multifamily); either side of 36th Street west of Shackleford (north from Public Institutional, south from Mixed Residential). Office uses and mixed office and commercial is located along the neighborhood's major arterials. New areas for office development are suggested on Kanis Road west of Leader Road (from Mixed Residential) and north of 36th Street on Shackleford Road (from Public and Multifamily). Additional office and mixed office and commercial is located around the Kanis Road/John Barrow Road intersection and extends south from the intersection along John Barrow Road. Office usage is also recommended between 42nd and 43rd Streets along John Barrow Road and on Kanis Road west of Wilson Road (from Low Density Multifamily). The Plan recognizes the existing commercial strip that is predominate for most of the distance along Asher Avenue. The Plan recognizes the existing commercial uses along Kanis Road north of Leander Drive, and at the intersection with John Barrow Road. The corner of John Barrow and 29th Street has been suggested for neighborhood commercial (from park open space). 'A May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT JOHN BARROW AREA The intersection of John Barrow Road and 36th Street is noted as a commercial node serving all neighborhoods. More intense commercial uses, such as a grocery store, are suggested at the intersection while mixed office and commercial extends further north and south on either side of John Barrow Road. The mixed office and commercial suggested north of 24th Street on John Barrow Road is another potential site for a grocery store. Two new areas of Mixed Office Commercial are shown on the proposed Plan. The first is southeast of Kanis Road and John Barrow Road and had been shown for Mixed use. The zoning and use is generally a mix of Commercial and Office classifications. The second area is west of John Barrow between Tanya and Labette. The area had been shown for Multifamily. Currently, there is some office use in the area. Two new areas of commercial area shown on the Plan. Each of these areas is already zoned and/or used for commercial purposes. The first is along Asher/Colonel Glenn Road for the two blocks west of Holt. The second is for the parking area of a restaurant north of 39th at Blunt. The light industrial block indicated on Asher Avenue is the Borden Plant. A second area of light industrial use is located by the intersection of Shackleford Road and Colonel Glenn Road. This area is a developing warehouse district with some light fabrication. Existing schools and churches are shown as Public/Institutional. Parkview High School occupies a large tract on John Barrow Road. Romine Elementary is located on Romine Road just north of 36th Street and Wilson Elementary sits on Stannus Road just north of Asher Avenue. The corner of Kanis Road and Junior Deputy Road is slated to be the site of a new police substation. Combined with a proposed park, the site will occupy approximately ten acres. This area had been shown for suburban office use. Other new public use areas are existing churches and had been shown as single family. They are north of 36th and west of Romine Road; north of Asher and west of Foster; at 40th Street west of Whitfield. Boyle Park occupies 243 areas on the east side of John Barrow Neighborhood. The plan suggests an expansion of the park south across 36th Street to enfold existing floodplain. A neighborhood park can be found at the corner of 36th Street and Potter Street. At the end of Junior Deputy Road is a large tract of land which used to be known as Junior Deputy Park. The plan recommends maintaining the land for a park and extending a greenway down to Asher Avenue. Part of this area includes a private, property owners association, recreation area and the rest is made up of drain and creekways. Beside the recreation area with the police substation described previously, the two lakes of Twin Lakes are 3 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT JOHN BARROW AREA shown as park/open space. These areas had been shown for single family use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, asked if the Commission wished to review each change. Commissioner Adcock asked if this was part of the committee's work. Mr. Malone stated they started this more recently, and it was more implementation. The land use changes were discussed and approved at the last neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Putnam asked if there were any problem areas. Mr. Bozynski, Planning Manager, and Mr. Malone stated "no." By unanimous vote 8 for, 0 against, and 3 absent (woods, Ball, Brandon), the Plan changes were approved. 4 May 9, 1996 ITEM NO.: 11 NAME: River Market Design Overlay District REQUEST: To amend the current River Market Design Overlay District STAFF 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 May 9, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) 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. 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 4-5) which established the Design Overlay District for the River Market District. The amendment to this Ordinance (pages 6-13) 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 11th, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. There was no one present in opposition of the deferral. The Planning Commission approved the consent agenda unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (APRIL 11,1996) Staff recommended the item to be deferred to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. There was no one present in opposition of the deferral. The Planning Commission approved the deferral unanimously (10 ayes, 0 nays). STAFF UPDATE Staff would like to add wording to the 4-5) to add clarity to the purpose and the application of district regulations adopted ordinance (pages intent section, and to section. K May 9, 1996 ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) SECTION 1. A. Add the following two paragraphs after the first one: 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. SECTION 1.C. Remove the existing second paragraph and replace with the following two: These regulations apply to all new development and redevelopment or expansion of existing development. The design guidelines will come into effect when a building permit is requested for major exterior improvements. Routine repairs or maintenance and interior changes will not require compliance with the design guidelines. Any nonconforming use, structure or lot which legally existed prior to the effective date of this section or any use, structure or lot which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this section may continue to be utilized in the same fashion as existed prior to the adoption of this section. Staff would also like to update the amendment (pages 6-13). SECTION 1.D.9. has been updated. SECTION 1.F. has been removed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, presented some background on the River Market District and discussed the proposed Design Overlay District (DOD). Mr. Lawson reviewed the 3 May 9, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont process for developing the Design Overlay District and said there has been continued dialogue with the property owners on the DOD standards. Shawn Spencer, Planner II, then reviewed the changes in the April 23, 1996 draft of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Spencer went through the draft page by page and responded to comments from the Planning Commission. Jim Lawson spoke again and said the River Market District would be accomplished through a private/public partnership. Mr. Lawson made some additional comments and there was limited discussion. Presley Melton, property owner on East Markham, addressed the Commission and expressed his concerns with the sign restrictions and said there should be further review of the sign section. Mr. Melton also said that he has reservations about the design review board. Frank Porbeck, property owner at the northeast corner of East Markham and Commerce, said he was opposed to the DOD because of the problems associated with the cost -sharing figures. Mr. Porbeck went on to say that the DOD includes a new definition of sidewalk and he cannot support the adoption of the DOD because of the proposed sidewalk standard. Mr. Porbeck told the Commission that the current sidewalk standard was 6 feet for the downtown area. Mr. Porbeck said that the property owners' contribution needs to be defined and the City has not been able to establish a cost for the property owners' share. Mr. Porbeck said that he supports the concept of the district and the overall project. He said the owners have not been able to reach an agreement with the City on sidewalks and the cost element was the biggest problem. Mr. Porbeck made some comments about developing property on East Markham and he said he was satisfied with the overall approach to the DOD. Marshall Ross and Russell Matchett, property owners, said they agreed with Frank Porbeck's comments. At this point, Chairman Ron Woods requested the speakers to limit the discussion to the DOD and not the cost issue. Charles Brown, attorney for Farrell and Schaer Blueprint, spoke against the DOD and made a number of comments about the standards. Mr. Brown said that it would be premature to act on the DOD until the cost issue (sidewalks) was resolved. Mr. Brown concluded by saying the DOD will impact the property owners. There was some discussion about various issues. Jack Larrison, property owner at East Markham and Commerce, commented on the sidewalk definition and certain design elements 4 -May 9, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. _11 (Cont. should be removed from the sidewalk section of the DOD. Mr. Larrison said that there should be separate DOD sections for the planting strips and other design elements of the proposed district sidewalks. Jim Lawson addressed the sidewalk issue and discussed the benefits of utilizing one contractor for the entire project. Jack Larrison spoke again and said the property owners have tried to negotiate with the City, but have failed to reach an agreement and the DOD should be deferred. Mr. Larrison also said that there were some problems with the DOD concept. Larry Jacimore indicated that he agreed with Frank Porbeck's comments. Greg Hart, 608 E. Markham, said that he also concurred with Frank Porbeck's remarks and then offered some comments about the process. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's Office, responded to some points raised by several commissioners. There was a lengthy discussion about a number of the issues. Greg Hart spoke again and discussed plans to develop certain properties in the River Market District. Mr. Hart also said the sidewalk standards in the proposed DOD have been expanded. Jim Lawson told the Commission that deferring the item would not accomplish anything and the staff was opposed to a deferral. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, supported the DOD and asked the Commission to approve the proposed ordinance. Frank Porbeck said the cost issue was a recent development and the definition of sidewalk was a significant problem. Mr. Porbeck suggested that the DOD and the sidewalk costs need to be separated. Mr. Porbeck said the DOD draft exposes the property owners to the state law. Russell Matchett, 318 East Markham, asked to address the Commission. Mr. Matchett discussed the sidewalk requirements and said cost was an issue. A motion was made to recommend adoption of the Design Overlay District standards for the River Market District with the condition that the cost -sharing arrangement be worked out by the Board of Directors prior to the adoption of the DOD Ordinance by the Board. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Brandon). 5 May 9, 1996 HDIVISION ITEM NO . • 11 (Cont.) (After the vote, the Planning Commission voiced some concerns with the cost issues associated with the sidewalks.) TION: (MAY 9, 1996) Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, reviewed the draft ordinance and highlighted the major changes. Mr. Carpenter told the Commission that a number of shoulds were changed to shalls to make the DOD more enforceable. Mr. Carpenter then discussed the proposed make-up of the Design Review Committee and its function. Mr. Carpenter then stated that changes made by the City Attorney s Office were not significant and did not alter the DOD's basic concepts. There was discussion and several questions were asked. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, offered some comments about the process and working with the property owners. A motion was made to accept the DOD ordinance amending Ordinance No. 17,136 (establishing the River Market DOD) and to allow the flexibility to possibly extend the width of the curb cuts and left to the judgment of the Design Review Committee. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Brandon). 6 w H 4 0 III I �0 A 1 1 pe� �Wfl 11 1111111 1 1 1111 111 MINIM EIIIIIIIII MINIM MEN I LIti b 0 0 •n z H 4 H Ui z w On 0 w z w 4 1 9 May 9, 1996 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Date 7 -, 3 ��