pc_07 25 1989subC
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING HEARING
JULY 25,1989
1:00 p.m.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being seven in number.
II.Approval of the May 2,1989 Minutes.
III.Members present:Rose Collins
Bill Rector
Martha Miller
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Fred Perkins
Connie Whitfield
Members absent:Stephen Leek
John McDaniel
Walter Riddick,III
John Schlereth
City Attorney
present:Stephen Giles
July 25,1989
Item No.A —Z-4350-A
Owner:Stagebase Partnership
Applicant:Robert East
Location:Southwest corner of Stagecoach Road
and Baseline Road.
Request:Rezone from "C-2"to "C-3"
Purpose:Commercial development
Size:2.0 acres
Existing Use:Vacant buildings
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,zoned "R-2"and "C-3"
South —Vacant and commercial,zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,zoned "C-3"
West —Single family,zoned "C-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property in question is located at the southwest cornerofBaselineRoadandStagecoachRoad(Arkansas State
Highway 5),and the request is to rezone the acreage from"C-2"to "C-3"for a mixed commercial development.Nospecificplanshavebeensubmittedbutaconveniencestorewithgaspumpsisbeingconsideredandthatiswhy"C-3"hasbeenappliedforbecause"C-2"does not permit conveniencestores.In addition to the convenience store,a smallcommercialcenterisapossibilityfortherearoftheproperty.Currently,there are three small buildings and asinglefamilyresidenceontheproperty.
The intersection of Stagecoach and Baseline is zoned forcommercialdevelopment,"C-2"and "C-3,"with the exceptionofthenortheastcornerwhichiszoned"R-2."The remaininglandintheimmediatevicinityiszoned"R-2."Land use isprimarilysinglefamilywithachurchandseveral
nonconforming uses which include a small commercial use andanindustrialfacility.A large amount of the land isvacantandthereisasignificantfloodwayareaonthe eastsideofStagecoachRoad.
July 25,1989
Item No.A —Z-4350-A
In 1984,the site and the property directly to the west wererezonedtothecurrent"C-2"classification.Thedevelopmentproposalin1984wasforonebuilding on a totalof4.5 acres.One item that was discussed during thehearingwasthenumberoflotsandthepossibilityof havingoneuseoneachlot.To try to address the concern,thePlanningCommissionpassedamotionthatrecommendedapprovalof"C-3"with a one-lot replat for "C-2"withoutanyreplat.
Staff feels that land use and zoning are not the significantissuesassociatedwiththisrequestbutratherhowthesiteisdeveloped.To ensure a workable development scheme,Staff recommends that a replat of the property be filed withonlyoneaccesspointforeachstreetfrontage.This isneededbecauseofthesite's location and the increasedtrafficdemandastheareadevelops.
The "C-3"reclassification conforms to the adopted OtterCreekDistrictPlanwhichidentifiestheintersectionforneighborhoodcommercialdevelopment.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial whichrequiresaright-of-way of 110 feet,or 55 feet from thecenterline.Stagecoach Road is a minor arterial which hasaright-of-way standard of 90 feet,or 45 feet from thecenterline.Both right-of-ways are deficient so dedicationofadditionalright-of-way will be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"rezoning as requestedsubjecttoareplatbeingfiledwithonlyoneaccesspointshownonBaselineRoadandStagecoachRoad.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 11,1989)
The applicant,Bob East,was present.There were noobjectorsinattendance.Staff recommended that the item beplacedontheconsentagendafordeferralbecausethenoticesweremailedlessthantherequiredfifteendays.Mr.East requested that the item be removed from the consentagendaandplacedontheregularagendawhichthePlanningCommissionagreedto.
July 25,1989
Item No.A —Z-4350-A
Mr.East then made some comments about the notificationproblemandaskedthatthenoticerequirementbewaivedbecauseofatimehardship.He went on to say that all thepropertyownerswerenotifiedtwiceandtherewasnooppositiontotherezoning.
Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,saidthattheLeaguefeltstronglyaboutthenotificationprocessandtheCityshouldfollowtherequiredprocedure.Ms.Bellalsopointedoutthateverybodybenefitedbyfollowingtherules,and it was a good way to avoid problems in thefuture.
After some additional comments,a motion was made to defertheitemtotheJuly25,1989 meeting.The motion wasapprovedbyavoteof6ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 25,1989)
The Planning Staff offered its recommendation of approval oftherezoningsubjecttoareplatofthepropertybeingfiledpriortoforwardingthismattertotheCityBoardofDirectors.The plat will provide for the dedication of anyadditi,onal right-of-way on both boundary streets and willprovideforestablishmentofoneaccesspointoneachabuttingstreetaspermittedbyordinance.Staff pointedoutthatthisplatwillbeastaffmatterandwillnotrequireareturntotheCommission.
Mr.Robert East,the applicant,was present and offeredcommentsonthestaffrecommendation.Mr.East expressedobjectiontotheaccesscontrolasofferedbystaff.Heindicatedthattheuserofthepropertyrequirestwocurbcutsoneachstreet.He stated that the end user of thispropertywouldbeaconveniencestoreandasmallstripcentertotherearonasecondlot.He felt that access tothesitetoservetheseusesproperlycouldbetterbeaccommodatedwithmorecurbcuts.
Mr.Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department waspresent.Mr.Gardner offered commentary on the Public WorksDepartment's position on traffic control on thisintersection.Mr.Gardner confirmed his recommendation oflimitingonecurbcutoneachstreetfrontage.
July 25,1989
Item No.A -Z-4350-A
A lengthy discussion of the application followed.TheresultofthisdiscussionwasamotionbytheCommission torecommendtotheCityBoardofDirectorstherezoningto"C-3,"General Commercial,conditioned on the owner filing arecombinationplatforthefivelotsonthisproperty.Theplatwouldincludethetwolotsasproposed,would provideforthecontrolaccessasrecommendedbythePublicWorksDepartment,and any additional right-of-way which may berequired.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,4 absent.
July 25,1989
Item No.1 —General Plan
Name:General Plan for the City of
Little Rock
STAFF REPORT:
The General Plan is a combination of all the district land
use plan maps and a summation of related documents (MasterStreetPlan,population information,etc.).The plan is
meant to provide a general overview of the City forcitizens,developers and those interested in future
development plans for the City.
The Commission has had the information for six weeks to
review,and Staff has made the draft available for public
review.The newspaper notice was supplemented with an
airing on the Public Access channel and a mailing to
interested groups.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of the General Plan until the
June 13,1989 planning hearing.The deferral is requested
due to the City Board of Directors'nterest in developing a
policy statement relating to growth,management,
neighborhood development,economic development and communityfacilities.The policy framework and an action plan are
currently being developed by City staff.Upon completion,
the policy statement should be made a part of the General
Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 2,1989)
Since there was no opposition to deferring this item,the
Planning Commission placed the item on the consent agenda.
Staff distributed the current outline for policy
implementation that the Board had requested.The item was
deferred to June 13,1989 by unanimous vote (8 for,
0 against).
July 25,1989
Item No.1 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 25,1989)
Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff reviewed changes made tothedocumentsincetheMaymeeting.He directed the
Commission's attention to pages 2 and 3 of the document
where the Board's interim goals statement had been insertedintothedocument.Mr.Lawson stated that the staffpreferredtouseinterimgoalsratherthanwaitinga year toeighteenmonthsforthecompletegoalsprocess.
The Planning Commission had a general discussion on whetherornotlanguageshouldbeincludedinthedocumentstatingthattheplanwasnotawarrantyforthefuture;that this
was a very general document that should not be takenspecifically;that plans change and are not concrete;andthatplansarenotall-controlling documents.The
Commission decided to defer the issue for two weeks so that
language could be inserted into the document expressing thissentiment.By a vote of 6 for and 1 against,the item wasdeferred.
July 25,1989
Item No.2 —Geyer Springs East Amendment
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment along
Scott Hamilton Road
Location:South of Avery to Coffer Lane
STAFF REPORT:
At the request of the Commission,the City staff re-examined
the Scott Hamilton Road land use pattern.Currently,there
are several nonconforming commercial uses located alongScottHamilton.However,most are not substantial and couldeasilychangeintosomeothertypeofuse.Thus,Staff does
not feel that it is,or should be,necessary to considerScottHamiltonacommerciallylinedstreet.
Staff does recommend the addition of some commercial.ThefirstareaisonthewestsideofScottHamiltonatHarper
Road.This area has existing commercial buildings.The
second area is the southwest corner of Scott Hamilton andInterstate30.This area is highway related commercial
(motels and gas stations)though the current plan showsindustrial.The third area is east of Scott Hamilton and
south of Avery,half-way to Harper Road,with office oneitherendasatransitiontotheresidentialuse.This
area has the existing and new liquor store and one other
commercial business.A fourth area is the southeast corner
of Baseline with Scott Hamilton/Hilaro Springs for a
shopping center.
Mixed density residential is recommended for the area shown
for single family along Scott Hamilton.The mixed density
designation would start at Mize Road and continue west past
Community Road and Community Lane.A second new area of
mixed density residential is recommended as a transition
around the commercial to be located on the southeast corner
of Baseline and Scott Hamilton.
This amendment also includes two "OS"areas.The first is a
buffer between the new commercial area east of Scott
Hamilton with single family to the east.The second is a
200 foot strip between an "I-2"zoned area and a mixed
density residential area.This conforms with the previous
zoning of a 200 foot "R-2"strip for this purpose.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of amendment.
July 25,1989
Item No.2 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 25,1989)
Walter Malone of the Planning Staff reviewed changes to be
made to the Geyer Springs East Land Use Plan.Mr.Malone
reviewed each change in the area between I-30 and Baseline
Road which was to be incorporated into the amendment.Thequestionwasaskedwhythevo-tech school site had not
previously been changed from industrial to public use.Staff explained that this was probably due to the fact thatallareasaroundthevo-tech school were shown as industrial
and this site would split the industrial area.Thus,if the
plan is general,you would get the feeling that the area wasindustrial.A motion was made to approve the amendments.
The motion was approved unanimously,7 for and 0 against.
July 25,1989
Item No.3 —Master Street Plan Amendment
Name:Addition of Interchange to the
Master Street Plan
Location:Asher and University Avenues
STAFF REPORT:
The Asher/University intersection is one of,if not,thebusiestintheState.Recent improvements to theintersectionimprovedthelevelofservicefrom"F--"tolevels"C"and "D"depending on the direction and turning
movement for the a.m.and p.m.peak conditions,with "C"
considered acceptable.The intersection is expected to fall
to "F"again within the next ten or so years.The onlypossiblewaytoimprovethetrafficsituationistobuild an
interchange at this location.
The Engineering Department has completed a preliminary
geometric design and cost estimates for an urban interchange
to be built at the intersection of University Avenue and
Asher Avenue.The estimated cost to complete this
interchange,based on 1988 construction costs,is 2.85
million dollars.The Regional Transportation Plan (PATS)
has been amended to include this interchange as a highpriorityproject.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 25,1989)
Wayne Sherrell of the Traffic Engineering staff reviewed the
change proposed,an addition to the Master Street Plan of an
interchange.Mr.Sherrell stated that in the future an
interchange would be needed due to traffic demands at theintersection.By making this amendment,we will be putting
everyone on notice of that fact.As for right-of-way,the
only major right-of-way addition would be in the southwest
corner of the intersection which is currently undeveloped.
The northern sections may require slight acquisitions of
right-of-way and since these are totally developed,the City
would have to acquire the property.As for requiring
July 25,1989
Item No.3 {Continued)
dedication,Mr.Sherrell stated that the most we could get
would be 110 feet required for a principal arterial plus anadditional10feetforturninglanes.Anything above that
would have to be acquired by the City.A motion was made to
approve the amendment.By a vote of 7 for and 0 against,the motion to approve was accepted.
July 25,1989
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Capi tal Improvements Program
Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff reviewed the processwhichhadbeenusedtodateandhowthestaffintendedtoproceedwiththisproject.A listing of projectshasbeencollectedfromdepartments,both inside andoutsidetheCity,for capital needs for both 5-year and10-year bases.These will be reviewed and compiledwiththePlanningCommissionhavinganopportunity toreviewtheprojectsinSeptember.A question was askedwhetherornotthegoalstheCityisdevelopingwillbeusedtoevaluatetheproposedprojects.Mr.Lawsonstatedthatthegoalstatementhasbeendistributed todepartmentsandwouldbeusedinevaluatingtheprojects.
2.Distinguished Development Awards
Gary Greeson of the Planning Staff presented anoverviewofthepastDistinguishedDevelopment Awardsprocessesused.He said that this year we haddiscussedusingsixvotesasarequirementto award adistinguisheddevelopmentandthatlastyeartheCommissionhadgivenbothaDistinguishedDevelopmentAwardandanHonorableMentionAward.Mr.Greeson thenturnedthemeetingovertoJimAchardtopresenttheprojects.
Mr.Achard presented ten projects to the Commission forreview.
1-Hour Sunkist Cleaners
1515 Building
American Red Cross
Arkansas Childrens Hospital
Coppass MotorsLittleRockAthletic Club
Park Plaza Mall
Southwest Hospital
University Mall
Village Shopping Center
A motion was made to remove University Mail as anincompleteprojectandrequestthatUniversityMall beresubmittedwhentheprojectiscompleted.Byunanimousvote,this motion was approved and staff wasinstructedtosendsuchalettertoUniversityMall.
July 25,1989
DISCUSSION ITEMS (Continued)
The Commission decided to vote on the items using azero-one-two method with two being the best (two for
giving the award and one for honorable mention).Inordertodeterminewhichprojectsshouldreceive
Distinguished Development Awards,the project would
have to receive 10 of the potential 14 points.In
order to receive the Honorable Mention,the project
would have to receive at least 6 of the potential 14points.A secret ballot was conducted and the result
was three projects were selected to receive theDistinguishedDevelopmentAwards:American Red Cross,Little Rock Athletic Club and Park Plaza Mall.TheadditionalprojectstoreceivetheHonorableMention
Awards were:1515 Building,Arkansas Childrens
Hospital and Southwest Hospital.Awards are to be
presented in October.
I
July 25,1989
There being no further business,the Planning Commission
adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Date:~~mt P