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��