Loading...
pc_09 26 1996I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 3:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number. Approval of the minutes of the August 15, 1996 meeting. The minutes of the last meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Ron Woods Suzanne McCarthy Hugh Earnest Sissi Brandon Doyle Daniel Herb Hawn Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Larry Lichty Pam Adcock Craig Berry Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Master Street Plan Amendment - Classifying roads in the Garrison and Barrett Roads area B. Land Use Plan Amendment - Suburban Office Definition C. 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Package D. Stamar Driving Range Plan Amendment - south of Baseline Road, either side of Stagecoach Road E. Z-6186 2717 West 12th Street I-2 to C-3 II. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Land Use Plan Amendment - West Little Rock District 2. Master Street Plan Amendment - Reduce classification of the South Loop 3. Master Parks Plan Amendment - Removal of Community Park Site September 26, 1996 ITEM NO.• A NAME: Amendment to Master Street Plan adding an area to the Plan LOCATION: West of Joe T. Robinson High along Hwy. 10 REQUEST: Add classified roads to the Street Plan SOURCE• Staff STAFF REPORT• The City of Little Rock enlarged its Planning Area in August of 1995. This was done in large part to allow the City to sell water to an improvement district. The resulting area is within 5 miles of Little Rock. When the City has planning jurisdiction over an area, the Subdivision Regulations are enforced. By state law if the City wishes to exercise Subdivision regulations, there must be a Master Street Plan adopted. Thus, it is necessary for the City of Little Rock to extend the adopted Master Street Plan into the area added to the Planning Jurisdiction. Today, Staff brings a Master Street Plan Amendment to add the following: Principal Arterial: Highway 10 (previous boundary to new boundary) Ferndale Cut-off Road (Hwy. 10 to boundary) Minor Arterial: Barrett Road (Highway 300 to Highway 10) Garrison Road (Highway 10 to boundary) Collectors: Goodman Road (All) Matthews Road (Goodman to Garrison) Studer/Story (Ferndale Cut -Off Road to planning boundary September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) Collectors: Ridgefield Road (Garrison to unnamed (continued) collector) Unnamed Collector (Studer Road to planning boundary) These roads should provide the needed transportation backbone on which further development of the area may take place. Both the Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and the Regional Planning Agency has commented based on the 2020 Transportation Plan for the region. All parties are in general agreement with the proposal as submitted to the Commission for consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, presented the proposed Master Street Plan Amendment. The City extended to 5 miles the Planning area along Highway 10 west of Highway 300. In order to administer the subdivision regulation, the City must first adopt Master Street Plan classifications. That is the purpose of today's meeting to adopt classifications. Mr. Malone briefly explained that the regional transportation plan was reviewed as a starting point. Each functional classification type was described along with typical spacings for each classification type. In addition, existing roads are generally used for arterials (where needed) or they are placed along property lines to spread the impact. The proposal was reviewed by both the Planning and Public Works Departments using the criteria and topographic maps. The result is the amendment before the Commission today. There are three major issues of concern of the people here today. First in notice or lack of notice. Property owners with more than 20 acres were notified and maps were placed in area businesses. Second is the uncertainty about straightening roads - exact locations. Third is the impact on existing homes of widening the roads. Dorothy Lanehart, 10715 Garrison Road was called. Ms. Lanehart expressed consider about the loss of rural life. The people in the area live there to be away from town. Several commissioners discussed the timing of the issue,that this will only occur if subdivisions are filed and that it will be in the future. The past example of the Markham/Bowman area was given. Ms. Lambert indicated she was against the proposal and suggested the Attorney review the York Acres Bill of Assurance. E September 26, 1996 Planning Hearincr ITEM NO • A (Cont.) There was some discussion about the water improvement district etc. Mr. Larry DeVorak, 12307 Garrison Road was called. Mr. DeVorak expressed concern about the impacts of any road straightening (Garrison Road). Mr. Bill Henry, Manager Traffic Engineering, gave some information about turning radii, design standards, etc. Mr. DeVorak indicated there should have been more information provided. Further some of the straightening indicated could not now be done due to recent subdivisions. People are upset about this. There was discussion about giving written statements as to the impact and when it might occur. Mr. James Morgan, 9701 Old Arkansas Road, was called. Mr. Morgan presented the Commission with a petition of over 70 names of people along Barrett Road opposed to the proposal. Mr. Morgan stated it was a shame that the Commission had already made up its mind. There was discussion from the Commission that action by owners in the area would initiate any action. In response, the Commission and Staff was asked what was the big hurry to adopt this if not going to act soon. Mr. Joe T. Tipton, 11305 Garrison Road, was called. Mr. Tipton expressed concern about straightening Garrison and what that would do to his house. The alignment should be laid out on plats to see exactly where the road would be. There was discussion among the Commission and Staff about just showing the existing alignment - no straightening. There was a suggestion not to show collectors. There appeared to be consensus to show collectors but to just classify roads not try to layout (straighten) the proposed roads. Ms. Debbie Moreland, 20311 Lake Vista, was called. Ms. Moreland indicated there were just alot of unanswered questions. The uncertainty of the map; lack of input and the perception that causes; who pays for Roland water lines being moved; is there going to be zoning; effects on flooding, runoff of widening Barrett Road; just too many unknowns. There needs to be some input by the local people. Everyone admits that growth is going to occur and that orderly growth is better. But we must address the concerns of those people here now, not just those to come in the future. There needs to be some meetings in the area to discuss the issues and explain some of the unknowns. The Commission discussed deferral to allow for the meetings. Mr. Lawson agreed to work with Ms. Moreland to set up the Kl September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. meetings. Commissioner Adcock (second Commissioner Hawn) made a motion to defer the item to an unknown time in the future so that staff could meet with area residents. The audience objected to the Commission voting and stopping the hearing. Chairman Woods agree to hear from Jo Ann Wortham 25624 Highway 10. Ms. Wortham included she had only one acre and it was unjust to contact only those with over 20 acres. If Highway 10 were widened to a principal arterial, the road would be to her front door. There was some discussion about stopping debate or limiting the time for additional comment. Mr. Malone indicated that anyone who had written, signed a petition or filled out a card would be notified of future meetings. A sign up sheet was sent around for others to add their names and addresses. Ms. Martha Jarvis expressed concern about not being allowed to speak. She stated that she had been on Barrett Road for 47 years. Her half acre, given to her by her mother was all she had. To widen Barrett would in danger her children and destroy all the homes along Barrett Road. This land is all she has to given her children. By unanimous vote 9 for, 0 against and 2 absent, the item was deferred. STAFF UPDATE: As requested by the Planning Commission, Staff met with residents and property owners of the area on July 15. The meeting was well attended and several issues were raised. A few of the concerns of area residents were addressed as well as possible - annexation, timing, etc. The concerns about impacts of possible widening were again raised and requests for roads not to be classified were made. After staff made a short presentation and questions and answers, six individuals asked to speak. Issues raised by the speakers included: 1. No need for Barrett to be an arterial - lack of developable land. 2. Should just adopt the classification on the regional plan. 3. Do not want the area annexed to the City. 4. City should not be zoning outside the city limits. 4 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) 5. The City does not give any one anything, unless the city pays for do not want the City saying what should be. 6. Impacts on existing homes and businesses. 7. Placing on the Plan, does have an effect on properties. 8. City is only doing this to benefit the developers not the current residents (developers agenda). 9. This is a blatant abuse by the government. While there were a number of concerns expressed about specific impacts on "their property", the list above gives an indication of major issues. After the meeting, staff arranged a meeting with Barrett Road representatives to discuss some alternatives. This meeting occurred in late July. Public Works and Planning Staff met again to discuss the issues and review recommendations. From this meeting based on comments received, a revised recommendation was developed. A mailing to all individuals who requested contact or signed petitions was made for delivery the week of September 2. Staff recommends the following additions to the Master Street Plan: Collector: Barrett Road from Hwy. of 40 feet. Goodson Road from Hwy. 300 to Hwy. 10 with a setback 10 to Hwy. 10 Minor Arterial: Garrison Road from Hwy. 10 to Planning Boundary realigning a segment to the north (to bypass existing homes and straighten the road) Principal Arterial: Ferndale Cut -Off Road from Hwy. 10 to Planning Boundary Hwy. 10 from zoning boundary to Planning Boundary No new collectors are not shown. As development of the area occurs each subdivision should be carefully reviewed and collectors may be added to support future development. The Commission as well as Staff will have to carefully review these cases to assure circulation and connectivity occur. Staff recommends the Commission approve the revised proposal for classification of roads in the Barrett -Garrison area. 5 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II reminded the Commission that the reason for adopting the classifications was to permit subdivision review of the area recently added to the City's Planning area. The Master Street Plan assumes full development of the area (could be 5, 10 or 50 years). Since the last presentation the following changes are proposed. First, no new collectors are proposed. When plats are reviewed, the Commission based on the submission may add a collector. Second, Barrett Road will be classified as a collector with a platted 40 foot setback. Based on the lack of developable land to the north (lake and no development area) and south (large floodway/floodplain), Barrett with a proposed collector (West Pinnacle/Forestwood Farm) should be able to service the area. Staff does want to note that Barrett will carry higher volumes than a typical collector. It is hoped that the additional setback will help offset this additional traffic load. Third, Garrison Road realignment to the north to go around an area of existing homes. This change is in response to comments made at the July 15 meeting. The City Staff believes this is a workable plan for the City. Mr. Malone indicated that the major issues still remaining is first that the area residents do not want the City to regulate anything there. Secondly for the Garrison Road people, the uncertainty about the realignment location is a problem. Some people have stated a desire to leave the road with the existing alignment. Mr. Malone indicated Mr. David Scherer and Jim Lawson wished to add some comments. David Scherer, Civil Engineer indicated Public Works believed it was important to smooth out the roads. As corridors this is fine however adjustments will have to be made. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development stated the roads could be footnoted to say they are general alignments and at the time they are built the exact alignment shall be established. Mr. Scherer explained the process used by the City when building a new road, and noted without engineering work they could not tell the exact location. Commissioner Putnam and Mr. Scherer discussed the uncertainty issue, horizontal and vertical road changes, and process for doing a street job. Commissioner Earnest asked about the 2020 Plan. Mr. Malone responded that the 2020 plan is cost constraint, the city plan is in place to react to requests and the major difference is the cross-section for which an amendment is forthcoming. Commissioner Rahman asked about the existing versus new alignments. After discussion staff agreed that with the corridor footnote, the existing alignment is acceptable. Mr. Philip Baldwin, 9718 Garrison (Architect/Urban Planner) is the proposal classification or relocation of area roads. The flaw in the plan is that Barrett Road is a loop. It connects Hwy. 300 and Hwy. 10. It is not a through street. And if one 11 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. looks at Garrison Road in the larger since it too is a loop (Highway 10 to Ferndale Cutoff Road). If Garrison is straighten in it will act like an arterial. There are other ways to provide access to the large ownerships in the hills to the west of this area. You are proposing the three migration west (Heights, Pleasant Valley and hills west of Garrison). Where is the City stopping? Ms. Debbie Moreland was called to speak. Ms. Moreland thanked the City for the July meeting - it helped. While the realignment proposal may have been to help residents, the location is too uncertain. There are still several issues of concern. One is having a large road in front of these homes is a problem. The issue of water line relocation cost to the Roland Water District, easements and Eminent Domain. Mr. Lawson explained the right-of- way issues. Ms. Moreland stated the area is a bedroom to Little Rock which needs to be preserved. Everyone agrees Little Rock needs positive growth but residents wish to continue their rural way of life. Mr. Mike Watson, 10600 Garrison was asked to speak. Mr. Watson stated he built his home 9 years ago; and set it back knowing one day the road would be widened. Mr. Watson indicated he was against Garrison being an arterial and against not staying with the existing alignment. The alignment proposed today goes through his property and through his home. One should study the area before putting a line on a map. Commissioner Putnam asked to clarify if houses would be taken. Mr. Scherer indicated it was premature to say. However the City avoids buying houses. Mr. Zachary Mason was asked to speak. Mr. Mason stated the proposed realignment goes directly through is property. The road would ruin the area which is Pristine. The existing alignment is the high point and should be used. Dr. Mason requested that the existing alignment be kept. Ms. Betty Saugey, 20812 W. Pinnacle was asked to speak. Ms. Saugey expressed concern about the West Pinnacle/Forestwood Farm collector. There was discussion about the roads. Staff enforced Ms. Saugey the roads already were on the Plan. There was more discussion about the issue. (Meeting was recessed - Tornado sirens sounded. Everyone was advised to go to the basement. After a few minutes the meeting was reconvened.) Mr. Mike King was asked to speak. Mr. King thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. (Discussion, talked about areas he lived). Mr. King stated this showed he was familiar with how the City worked and is opposed to three or four 7 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A ( font . ) real estate companies running the City. (Discussion about Development by real estate interest and response to citizen petition versus real estate requests.) Mr. King asked that the City consider the interests of those living there over a few real estate interests. Mr. Jim Cason, 10921 Garrison was asked to speak. Mr. Cason asked that after an engineering study there be a meeting with area residents to get comments. In addition the S-curve in Garrison is a good thing. It shows vehicles down, children do play on and near Garrison. Ms. Michele Brown asked to speak. Ms. Brown resides on Barrett Road and just wished to express concern about notice. (She had been told she would get added to the list notified and was not.) There was discussion about whether this item needed to be dealt with now. Mr. Lawson gave the Commission three options 1) deny the proposal; 2) except proposal as presented; 3) keep existing alignment footnote alignment will be determined at the time of development. There was further discussion about when this might occur (widen 10 to 20 or more years) and trying to work together to get the best future for the area. Third option was restated, plan would show existing alignments with footnote; this is the not engineering alignment. The alignment will be determined at the time of development in the area. Commissioner Lichty moved to amend Master Street Plan classifying the roads as proposed but using existing right-of-ways and footnoting the final road alignment is subject to a public hearing with final engineering alignment after said hearing. The motion was approved 9 for 1 against (Earnest). A September 26, 1996 ITEM NO.: B LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NAME: Land Use Plan Definition Change REQUEST: Modify the definition for Suburban Office SOURCE: Planning Commission - Staff STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Commission, the Plans Committee and Staff reviewed the definition for Suburban Office (SO). The Committee, with Staff assistance, attempted to better define "SO" without writing a special ordinance. The definition is for the Land Use Plan, which the Zoning, Landscape etc. Ordinances will implement. There will be two types of Suburban Office, a campus on a large site or a single building on a small site. Either type is to be well landscaped (beyond average) and designed with the site in mind. Attention should also be paid to impacts on adjacent or near by residential areas. The revised wording was agree to by the Committee after two meetings on the issue. The current definition for Suburban Office is: "The suburban office category provides for development of professional office parks." The new definition would be: "The Suburban Office category provides for the development of large office complexes (over 10 acres) within a park like setting with increased setbacks and landscaping encouraged. Office Parks will have a campus design with buildings ranging in elevation, not more than 5 stories. For smaller areas (10 areas or less), the office buildings will be low rise (no more than 2 stories) with extensive landscaping including trees, and the structure will easily blend into a residential setting. Either sized area shall encourage: 1) access to pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems through the design and siting of the buildings and their entrances; and 2) extensive landscaping, distributed throughout the site using methods optimizing the existing natural features and trees to produce a composition which is ecologically user friendly. A Planned Unit Development is recommended.- September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The item was placed on the Consent Agenda August 1, 1996. By unanimous vote 7 ayes, 1 open position, the item was deferred. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 18, 1996) for deferral to 0 nays, 3 absent and As requested by the Planning Commission, the Plans Committee with Staff relooked at the definition of Suburban Office. A revised definition was developed and distributed to the entire Commission. At the August 15 commission meeting, the Commission gave the go ahead to renotify the public on this issue. Notices were mailed for delivery the week of August 26, 1996. The revised definition for Suburban Office is as follows: The Suburban Office category shall provide for low intensity development of office and/or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility. A Planned Development or Planned Zoning Development is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II reminded the Commission, this amendment had been under review for several months. Letters of support have been distributed and the only issue is some wording changes made by the City Attorney's Office. There was discussion with Stephen Giles, City Attorney concerning use of "and/or" and the last sentence of the definition. The "and/" was dropped and the last sentence changed to read "A Planned Zoning District is required." Commissioner Hawn made the motion to approve as amended. By a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention (Putnam) the item was approved. `a September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • C NAME/SUBJECT: 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendments REQUEST: That the Commissi-on hold a review and instruction hearing for purposes of receiving public comment. STAFF REPORT: At its meeting May 23, 1996, the Commission was presented with draft 3 of the 1996 Ordinance Amendments. This draft is the proposal of the Plans Committee and Staff after having worked through numerous changes over several months. Staff performed the typical mailing of materials to the comments and contacts list. This was accomplished several times and a final memorandum was mailed on June 6, 1996 asking for comments and advising of the public hearing date. A legal ad was published in the Daily Record as required. The fifty-two proposals included in this package involve the following areas of change: • 5 bulk and area modifications. These deal with how lots are utilized by structures. • 21 use regulation changes. These are placement changes which insert a new or redefined use in the various districts. • 18 procedural changes which deal with how the staff, applicants, owners, Planning Commission or City Board review applications. • 10 definition modifications or new. Definitions being the base for all use placement and identification. Absent changes introduced by the Commission or others, Staff proposes to forward this material for review by the Board of Directors and submit the Ordinance for adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 11, 1996) Cynthia Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, presented to the Commission a statement concerning the City Attorney's recent review of the amendment package. She offered that there were a September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) number of areas where the City Attorney's Office determined that there was language that needed to be cleaned up while properly structured to make it work better and be more enforceable. There were revised copies provided later in the hearing for the commissioners for their review. There was no discussion of the specifics of the material in the package. After a brief discussion, it was determined by the Commission that a deferral of this item would be in order. The deferral to the August 15, 1996 Planning meeting. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 15, 1996) Due to the order of hearing at this meeting, the Planning Commission placed this matter as the last item of business for the day. Upon reaching that point, the Commission was informed by Commissioner Adcock that she had problems dealing with this matter without a full discussion if there are issues to be discussed. A brief discussion followed during which time it was determined that it would be appropriate to defer this matter until a later time when there would perhaps more commissioners in attendance. There would be a broader discussion of the amendments prior to a vote. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) The Chairman identified this item as the next order of business and requested staff recommendation and report. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief statement to the effect that the text as revised by the City Attorney was ready for final action by the Commission. He indicated the only possible items for further discussion are two paragraphs that require minor change. Wood identified the two and in a brief discussion with Mr. Giles of the City Attorney's Office and several commissioners the language received change to appropriate wording. A brief discussion followed during which a motion was made and seconded to recommended the changes to the City Board as presented. The motion passed by vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Pa September 26, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-6178 NAME: STAMAR DRIVING RANGE -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 9222 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Gerald Staley Samuel F. Davis 14200 Wimbledon 5301 West 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72204 AREA: 19.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: Driving range and outdoor recreation PLANNING DISTRICT: #16 Otter Creek CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This owner approached staff with a request for a variety of outdoor recreational uses centered around a golf driving range. Staff recommended that the land owner apply for a Planned Commercial Development designation of this 19.2 acre parcel. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A one lot PCD consisting of a golf course driving range, practice green, pro shop, baseball batting cages, parking and landscaping. Proposed hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently vacant. Several older dwellings were recently removed by the current owner. Three domestic water wells remain and may be used for irrigation purposes on the future driving range. A small pond consisting of .7 acres is situated in the southwest portion of the site. The property is bordered by Stagecoach Road and rural residential on the east, a 100 foot wide AP&L easement on the south, a 40 foot Arkla easement to the west, and vacant land on the north. September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178 Stagecoach Road is a minor Street Plan but currently with open ditches. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: arterial street on the Master exist as a 24 foot asphalt road Staff has received several calls mostly from passersbys on Stagecoach Road. To date all calls have been supportive of the proposal. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: A development permit will be required prior to construction. A portion of the property is located in the flood plain. A sketch grading and drainage plan with soil loss calculations is also required. The drainage maps indicate a pond in excess of one acre, provide documentation as to Little Rock Corps of Engineers approval for draining this pond. Stagecoach is a minor arterial, thus dedicate 45 feet of right-of- way from centerline widen to 30 feet from centerline with a sidewalk or contribute in -lieu fees for like amount. Existing Stagecoach is a 24 foot asphalt lane with open ditches. Traffic Count was 7,790 ADT in 1992. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Water: Service charge is $150/acre and $15/front foot. AP&L : No comment Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: A 50 foot radius by the proposed equipment shed is required. No fire hydrants are shown on the site plan. We need a hydrant within 500 feet of all buildings. County Planning: No comment K September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for street- and land use buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area will be required to be landscaped with interior landscaped islands. Landscaped islands are required to be at least 100 square feet in area. Because the property to the north, south and east are zoned residential, opaque screening is required by ordinance. This screening can consist of dense evergreen plantings or six foot high wood fence with its face directed outward. Since the property to the south is used for public utilities, screening in this area may not serve much of a purpose. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Issues: The following are unresolved items on the PCD submittal. • Show culvert under Stagecoach Road on site plan. • what are the overall dimensions of the batting cage area? • Define number of batting cage stations within area termed "batting cages". • Show all proposed fire hydrants. • Why was the size of the pro shop increased in the revised submittal after Subdivision Committee review from 1,800 square feet to 4,500 square feet? • What are the dimensions of the "practice green" area. Planning Division: The site is located in the Otter Creek District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Multifamily. At this time, Staff cannot recommend a Plan amendment to nonresidential. However if the use is limited to a driving range, it is staffs opinion that the request would not be in conflict with the adopted Plan. In other areas and in the zoning ordinance golf courses have been considered appropriate uses in a residential area. 3 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178 G. ANALYSIS• The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Multifamily uses for this site. A golf driving range can be viewed as a transitional use in an area planned for residential development. A small Pro Shop and practice green are compatible uses with a golf driving range facility. The introduction of baseball batting cages and the proposed hours of operation (Monday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) changes the nature of the proposal to more of a general outdoor recreational facility. This type of proposal as submitted by the applicant would not be appropriate in an area designated as multifamily in the Land Use Plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the PCD request (Z-6178) with the deletion of the batting cages and with a Pro Shop not to exceed 2,000 square feet. Exterior lighting except for security lighting should be eliminated. This would limit the period of operation to day time hours. Approval is subject to the conditions listed in paragraphs D, E, F or this report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Gerald Staley and Stan Martin represented the project. Planning staff requested more specific information on hours of operation, lighting and signage, adjacent utility easements and the culvert under Stagecoach Road. Public works indicated that the size of an existing pond that is to be drained needs to be determined. The developers contribution to future improvements to Stagecoach was discussed. Staff noted the Fire Departments requirement that a hydrant be provided within 500 feet of all structures. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for determination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) After presentation of the staff report, Mr. Lawson indicated that the project as proposed is a "activity center" which is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. Mr. Lawson stated that the batting cage element of the proposal would be a C-4 use. He stated that this could result in this portion of Stagecoach Road becoming commercial. 4 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178 Applicant Gerald Staley indicated that the proposed uses can be considered commercial but the complex except for the structures are not permanent. He stated that his project will provide a place for the Otter Creek Community youth to go. Commissioner Brandon ask Mr. Staley why he changed the project description after the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Staley stated that the civil engineer who drew the original site plan should have shown The Pro Shop as 3,000 rather than 1,800 square feet in size. Commissioner Adcock asked if the applicant planned to include miniature golf in his proposal. Mr. Staley stated that if the initial elements of the facility were economically successful than he plans to have a future phase that would include miniature golf. The applicant presented a lighting plan to the Commission. He indicated the importance of lighting in respect to the golf driving range. Sonya Martin spoke in support of the project and read a letter from Coach Randy Rutherford of Fair High School. Walter Coleman IV read a letter from Coach Mike Johnson from Fair High School in support of the project. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Lawson changed the staff recommendation to denial since the proposal is in conflict with the multifamily designation on the Land Use Plan. He also stated that staff does not have a good feel for the proposal since the applicant has continually changed the project description. In response, Mr. Staley and Mr. Stan Martin stated that the proposed project is a good use for this 19 acre site. Mr. Martin said there is widespread support of this project in the Otter Creek Community. They showed to the Commission typical elevation and architectural style of the proposed Pro Shop. Commissioner Adcock and Chairman Woods asked for the neighborhood association position on the project. Commissioner Hawn would like to see staff look at the Land Use Plan for this site and area. Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated the Commission policy in this type of matter is that they discuss the land use issue at one meeting and the proposal itself at a subsequent meeting. A motion to defer the land use decision on this item to September 26, 1996 and consider the Planned Commissioner Development for this site on November 21, 1996. The motion passed 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 5 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178 STAFF UPDATE (SEPTEMBER 1996) As requested by the Commission, a plan amendment has been prepared. Staff reviewed the area for a commercial rezoning in early 1995. At that time no justification was found to expand the node at Baseline and Stagecoach Road. Again when the Planned Development was filed, Staff did not find reason to expand the commercial use area. There are areas shown for commercial to the north at Stagecoach and Baseline Roads. To expand the node enough to show commercial on the property in question would more than double the commercial use area. For several decades, commercial has been shown at the intersections of Baseline and Otter Creek Roads with Stagecoach Road. Most of this commercial area remains vacant - showing lack of demand for commercial uses. Nothing has changed significantly to justify a change in use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial of the plan amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director Planning and Development, reviewed the issue and proposed an option to the Commission. If the Commission believes the use is temporary, then do not change the Plan. The proposal which initiated this request started as an outdoor use (drive range, batting cage) but grew to include a 4,000 square foot recreation building. Staff felt this was too intensive and a commercial use should be on the Plan is the proposal were approved. Staff is opposed to amending the Plan and increasing the commercial use area. The residents do have some concerns about the Plan Change but like the proposal (driving range, etc.). The Commission could agree by leaving the Plan as Multifamily and approving the PCD (driving range, etc.) on the basis it is a temporary or holding use. If the Plan is change the power line south of the property could be used as the line to stay commercial. But there is a concern about being able to stop the commercial, making Stagecoach another Rodney Parham or Geyer Springs (strip commercial) . There was a discussion about the zoning application, intensity of use, what the neighborhood wanted to see, availability of existing commercial land. M September 26, 1996 Plannincr Hearina ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178 Carl Moody, Otter Creek Residents Association, the association would like to be involved in every step of development in their area. A presentation was made to the Association, and they would like to see the area developed as shown - there should be tight controls. The preference of the Association is not to change the Land Use Plan but to allow the development. The Association wants to learn and work with the City to assure a good development pattern. Commissioner Adcock summarized that the neighborhood wanted family oriented commercial uses. There was discussion about the PCD and Plan Change, etc. Mr. Gerald Staley, owner of PCD property, stated he believes everyone is trying to get to the same place. Mr. Staley reviewed a letter from Phillip McConnell of the Highway Department. The existing zoning and floodway issues were illustrated by two other handouts from Mr. Staley. In principle Mr. Staley agreed to the suggestion by Mr. Lawson - no plan change, approve PCD as temporary use. Mr. William Seffens, owner to north, stated he wanted is property commercial. There was a review of where his property was, existing use versus zoning, etc. Mr. Seffens was advised to speak to staff at their office about his property. Dr. Peter Thomas, representing land to south, stated after review of what exists on Stagecoach all the property should be commercial. Thomas family ownership is zoned multifamily and single family. Mr. Jim Gray, realtor for Thomas, stated there is not demand for multifamily and there has been inquiries about using their land for an equipment yard. Commercial is the appropriate use. Mr. Moody returned to speak to the Commission. There has been little development in the area for the last 8-10 years. Now that development is an issue the Association wants to be intelligent and Plan for growth. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, requested that the Commission please reject the plan amendment. The area is changing from old uses to a new diverse area. A large amount of commercial will be a problem. Staff should be directed to work with interests in the area to develop alternative uses for the area. Commissioner Earnest moved to not amended the Plan. There was discussion about approving the PCD and leaving the Plan. Mr. Giles stated the Plan did not have to be changed to zone it PCD. By a vote of 10 for 0 against the Commission approved the motion. (The Plan was not amended). 7 September 26,1996 ITEM NO.: E Z-6186 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Marcus Elliott & Ramona Elliott Ramona Elliott 2717 West 12th Street Rezone from I-2 to C-3 Utilize existing building as beauty salon .17 acres Vacant building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Residential structure and church; zoned C-3 South - Residential structure and railroad right-of-way; zoned I-2 East - Railroad right-of-way; zoned I-2 West - Vacant lot; zoned I-2 and various commercial uses; zoned C-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Right-of-way for 12th Street is required to be 35 feet from centerline, dedicate that portion needed to bring to this MSP standard. Provide access agreements associated with access to property. Provide off street parking or provide information concerning planned parking for patrons with an adequate method to turn around rather than backing onto 12th Street. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The property is located on a CATA bus route which extends down West 12th Street. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the I-630 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial. The request is for Commercial. There is no land use issue. September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: E Z-6186 (Cont.) STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this .17± acre tract from "I-2" Light Industrial to "C-3" General Commercial. The property is occupied by a one story brick and block building which nearly covers the entire property. In fact, portions of the building extend beyond the property line on the east and west sides. The building has a front yard setback of 23± feet. This front yard area is paved. The building was formerly occupied by a construction company. The applicant proposes to convert the building into a beauty salon. The zoning pattern along this portion of West 12th Street is extremely varied, ranging from R-3 to C-3 and I-2. Uses in the area are just as mixed, ranging from residential to a variety of retail commercial uses and auto related uses. Several of the Industrial uses which were located on the I-2 zoned properties appear to no longer exist. The C-3 request is not out of character with this extremely varied area. The I-630 District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for this site. The C-3 zoning request conforms to the Plan. Although the C-3 request conforms to the Plan and is not out of character for the area, the applicant needs to be aware that there is an issue which will affect the potential use of this site. There is no on -site parking. It appears that previous occupants parked either on the railroad right-of- way or on the I-2 zoned, gravel parking lot on the adjacent property to the west. Rezoning the property to C-3 will not relieve the applicant of the requirement to provide adequate on -site parking to serve the proposed beauty shop. No doubt, a Board of Adjustment variance will be needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning. There is no Plan Issue. Staff again reminds the applicant that approval of the C-3 zoning does not eliminate the requirement to provide Ordinance required on -site parking to serve the proposed beauty shop. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 12, 1996) The applicant, Ramona Elliott, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to follow proper procedure in notifying area property owners. 2 September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: E Z-6186 (Cont.) Ramona Elliott advised the Commission that she had obtained a list of area property owners from an abstract company but had only mailed the notices on September 12, 1996. Chairman Woods commented that the item needed to be deferred and asked staff if it could be deferred to the September 26, 1996 meeting. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the deferral date was at the Commission's discretion. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the applicant could mail the notices September 13, 1996. Mr. Carney noted that the applicant would not be able to comply with the 15 day notice requirement if the item is deferred to September 26, 1996. Mr. Lawson responded that the Commission could waive the bylaws at the September 26, 1996 hearing to accept less than 15 days notice. The item was added to the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the September 26, 1996 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) The applicant, Ramona Elliott, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant had mailed the required notices on September 13, 1996, as directed by the Commission. Staff offered a recommendation of approval of the C-3 rezoning request. A motion was made to waive the Bylaws and accept the notices being mailed less than 15 days prior to the public hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A motion was then made to approve the requested C-3 zoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 September 26, 1996 ITEM NO.• 1 Name: Amend City Land Use Plan - West Little Rock District Location: Area bounded on the north by Cantrell Road, on the south by Missouri Street, on the east by Biscayne Drive and on the west by Broadview Drive Recru.est: Change various areas to: single family, low density multifamily, multifamily, commercial, and public\institutional. Source: Board of Directors Staff ReAort• At the April 25, 1996, meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission voted against approving the request to rezone the property at 1818 Georgia Avenue. The applicant appealed to the Board of Directors at the June 4, 1996, Board of Directors Meeting. During the Board meeting on July 2, 1996, the applicant withdrew his request. Staff was directed to review the West Little Rock District Land Use Plan. Staff met with representatives of the Meriwether Neighborhood Association on two separate occasions. At the first of the two meetings, staff explained the mechanics of a land use plan, the process to make an amendment and land use options. Staff asked the representatives to meet with their neighborhood association to create scenarios on their own, and meet with staff in a couple weeks. At the second of the two meetings, staff and representatives reviewed all scenarios and agreed on an option. Staff presented this option at the monthly Meriwether Neighborhood Association meeting. The neighborhood association voted to recommend the plan amendment to the Planning Commission. Several areas on the current plan are changed to Single Family to recognize existing conditions. They are: (1) along the north side of Illinois Street west of Georgia Avenue (from Public / Institutional); (2) along both sides of Georgia Avenue between Ohio Street and Indiana Avenue (from Multifamily); (3) at the end of Winslow Drive (from Multifamily). Item (2) above was the area the Meriwether Neighborhood Association was most concerned with. They felt that the intersection of Georgia and Ohio Streets was the primary entrance September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) to their neighborhood and needed to be protected from incompatible development. Staff agreed with their concerns. Several areas on the current plan are changed to Commercial to recognize existing conditions. They are: (4) along the north side of Cantrell Road west of Manney Road (from Single Family); (5) along the south side of Cantrell Road west of Mississippi Street and directly across from Manney Road (from Multifamily). Several areas on the current plan are changed to Public\Institutional to recognize existing conditions. They are: (6) along the north side of Illinois Street east of Watt Street (from Single Family); (7) along both sides of "T" Street west of Watt Street (from Multifamily and Office). Several areas on the current plan are changed to Low Density Multifamily to recognize existing conditions. They are: (8) between Ohio Street and Indiana Avenue east of Mississippi Street (from Multifamily); (9) along both sides of Indiana Avenue between Georgia Avenue and Florida Avenue (from Multifamily). Several areas on the current plan are changed to Multifamily to recognize existing conditions. They are: (10) the northwest corner of the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Ohio Streets (from Commercial); (11) along the east side of Bryant Street across from Indiana Avenue (from Commercial). Staff Recommendation: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) Staff presented the item and recommended approval. There were no objectors present. In reply to a question, staff indicated that the land use changes were to recognize existing land uses and to stabilize the neighborhood. John Carson, president of the Meriwether Neighborhood Association, was present. Mr. Carson stated that staff met with the neighborhood association about the proposed land use changes and the neighborhood association would recommend the changes to the Planning Commission and to the Board. A motion was made to approve the item. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent (Earnest and Berry), and 0 abstaining. E September 26, 1996 ITEM NO.: 2 NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment - South Loop LOCATION: Southwest Little Rock I-430 to Hwy. 65-167 REQUEST: Reduce the classification to Principal Arterial SOURCE: Staff - Public works Department STAFF REPORT: The State Highway Department in cooperation with Metroplan and the City of Little Rock conducted a "Major Investment Study" (MIS)for the South Loop. This is part of the study which must be completed to receive federal ISTEA funds for the route. Copies of the study have been distributed to the Commission (with this agenda). The study found that through the year 2020 traffic volumes are expected to be at or near design level for an arterial. The western section (west of Geyer Springs Road) is projected to carry from 12 to 22 thousand cars a day if built as an arterial (4 to 6 thousand more if built as a freeway). The east section is expected to carry around eight thousand cars as an arterial - 11 to 18 thousand if a freeway. Due to the projected construction cost, uncertainty of adequate funding and possible negative impacts, the freeway/expressway option is not recommended by the study. Rather, a "high" type arterial is recommended. These recommendations are based on traffic models, Little Rock Land Use Plan and project funding. The MIS task force cannot find justification of the high cost of constructing a freeway. The report indicates that a minor arterial would be over capacity by 2020 - less than twenty-five years from now. Note the road does not exist today. In addition the western most segment would be close to capacity if built as a principal arterial (by 2020). Therefore the capacity of the South Loop must be protected with design standards in accordance with the Land Use Plan, as was attempted with Chenal Parkway. Further studies of the South Loop project will examine environmental issues and impacts of various levels of access control. Until this review is complete, the most stringent access control should be adopted as the Little Rock Street Plan. September 26, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) access control should be adopted as the Little Rock Street Plan. Therefore South Loop should be changed from Expressway to Principal Arterial with the following design requirements: Only arterial and collector access (no access from local streets or driveways); median required; median breaks at arterials and turnarounds only; right-of-way 120 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II reviewed the location of the South Loop. A major Investment Study (MIS) has been done which recommends that a lesser standard road be constructed. The study found that traffic demand would not be great enough to justify the cost of an expressway. The traffic is projected to be high enough to justify a high level principal arterial (median, 4 to 6 lanes, etc.). There would be no interchanges and some access to adjacent property. There were a few question by Commission. Commissioner Lichty made a motion to except staffs recommendation. By a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no (Adcock) the item was approved. 2 September 26,1996 ITEM NO.: 3 NAME: Parks Master Plan Amendment LOCATION: Northwest of Chenal Parkway and Markham REQUEST: Remove Community Park - Rock Creek Park Expansion SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: On August 15 the Planning Commission discussed Land Use Plan Amendment to change an area from Park/Open Space to Commercial. At that meeting the Commission unanimously voted to change the Plan. However, the Parks Plan still shows the site for a proposed Community Park. The Parks Department is completing a report on the Rock Creek Park proposal. This report will be provided to the Commission at or before the September 26 meeting. If the Commission wishes to allow the commercial use of the property as indicated by your action on August 15, an amendment removing the park site is necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (To be given at the hearing on September 26.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development informed the Commission that the Parks Department and property owner regulations wished this item be deferred to October 10 when a plat and Planned Development Proposal for the area will be considered. By unanimous vote 10-0 the item was deferred. 0 cc w cc LU 0 z 0 cn U 0 z z z J a G, C 4 I� a� j O w 0 w°CzpzQ� Q Oc'3U):DQ0 ¢ cc w¢� = CC wm2icc0<10- — Z < w z ¢ co > U v¢¢ N_ 2 p w Z 0z0�—z 0 p::) J CO P p ¢> Z O _ U¢ m W = F- z w CO co Q w z F. ki w .Z September 26, 1996 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. n��