pc_06 25 1998LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 25, 1998
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Craig Berry
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Rohn Muse
Hugh Earnest
Larry Lichty
Judith Faust
Pam Adcock
Richard Downing
Mizan Rahman
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING AND PLANNING AGENDA
JUNE 25, 1998
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEM:
A. S-1180
Riverview
Apartments - Subdivision
Central City
Site
Plan
Review
II. REZONING ITEMS:
Land Use
Plan Amendment -
I-430 District -
1. Z-6506
2100
Block
of John Barrow R-2 to MF -18
Land Use
Road
(west
side)
2. Z-6508
11400
Cantrell
Road R-2 to 0-3
III. PLAN ISSUES:
3. LU -98-08-02
Land Use
Plan Amendment -
Central City
District
- 1900 Block of Commerce Street
4. LU -98-11-02
Land Use
Plan Amendment -
I-430 District -
2100 Block of John Barrow
Road
5. LU -98-20-01
Land Use
Plan Amendment -
Pinnacle
District
- Chenal Parkway
and Highway 10
(NE and SE corners)
6. LU -98-20-02
Land Use
Plan Amendment -
Pinnacle
District
- 18600 Cantrell
Road
IV. OTHER MATTERS:
7. Kanis Road Corridor Study
S �
Oo
3NId
x
Y m
=
N
LL
a
`/
rn
�
�Oa
n
�
K
F
N
n
V
`
J
ypN
-
No
W
r
�
U mb
=ILLI
W °
p
�NObi
o w
x
�
¢
rc
Fx
1 3db1 S
NO1IIWVH OOS
z
> SaN/yam
N
NIiJdS 3AR) O
N LL
W O
U
T
�
Y
v
Z �
Ci
31tl
m
Y
°o
J INS
K
ZZ0
i
� U
y°
0
3
WW
bop o v
rc aOO
Liter
� �a
'
Q\
g
w
fpP� a
2
o
z
Lb°
U�
Sys_
1A_
0
O
o
5
N
[cW
�Olno
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1180
NAME: Riverview Apartments - Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: North side of North Street, at State Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
TAG Properties Wiedower Architects
A. J. Gilbert 1012 W. 2nd Street
10800 Financial Ctr. Parkway Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 2.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-5 ALLOWED USES: Multi -family residential
PROPOSED USE: Multi -family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow reduced rear yard setbacks.
2. A variance to allow reduced front yard setbacks.
3. A variance to allow reduced number of off-street parking
spaces (108 required, 100 proposed).
BACKGROUND•
This 2.8 acre tract is zoned R-5 Urban Residence District. A
site plan review is required for this site due to the fact that
the applicant is requesting a multiple building development. The
72 -unit apartment development is a permitted, by right use.
A. PROPOSAL•
The applicant is proposing to construct three (3)
multifamily residential buildings (72 units on 2.8 acres) on
the R-5 zoned property along the north side of North Street
at State Street. Each of the three buildings will be three
(3) stories in height.
The applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard setback
variance for buildings B and C. Building B shows a 5 feet
rear yard setback and building C shows a 20 foot rear yard
setback. A 25 foot rear yard setback is required by
Ordinance.
June 25, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1180
A total of 108 off-street parking spaces is required by
ordinance. The site plan shows 100 off-street parking
spaces, of which 35 spaces will be covered (along North
Street). The carport structures do not comply with the
minimum 25 foot front yard setback. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance for reduced front yard
setbacks for the carport structures. The proposed setbacks
for the carport structures range from 11 feet to 21 feet.
The carport structures will not be enclosed on any side.
As noted above, a total of 100 off-street parking spaces are
provided on the site plan (108 required by ordinance). The
applicant is requesting a variance for the reduced number of
spaces.
A portion of undeveloped Izard Street right-of-way runs
through the west end of the property. The applicant
proposes to abandon the right-of-way as part of their
application.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The portion of the property east of State Street is
undeveloped. The property west of State Street contains a
paved parking lot and 3-4 single-family residential
structures.
The general area contains a mixture of residential, office
and commercial uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no neighborhood comment as of this
writing. The Downtown Neighborhood Association was notified
of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Dedication of right-of-way is required for turnaround on
State Street and a 20 ft. radial dedication at the
southeast corner prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. One-half street improvements and sidewalks are required
for North Street and construction of turnaround with any
planned development.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5. Grading permit will be required on this new development,
if it disturbs more than one acre.
2
June 25, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1180
6. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
7. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
8. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements
within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
10. Utility excavation within proposed right-of-way shall be
per Article V of Sec. 30.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer located on property on State Street
that may be in conflict with project. Contact L.R.
Wastewater Utility for details.
AP&L: No comments received.
ARKLA: No comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment.
Water: Contact the Water Works regarding meter size(s) and
location(s). Submit two copies of plans for proposed on-
site fire protection.
Fire Department: If the buildings are sprinkled, an
additional on-site fire hydrant may be required. Contact
Dennis Free at 371-4796 for details.
County Planning: No Comment.
LATA: The property is located within one (1) block of
Central Arkansas Transit bus route #21.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No Comment.
Landscape Issues:
The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum perimeter
landscape strip width of 4 feet adjacent to on site
vehicular use areas. The plan submitted only provides for a
width of 2 1/2 feet west of the proposed 13 space parking
lot and south of the proposed 21 space parking lot.
Additionally, the minimum buffer width allowed at any given
point south of the proposed 13 space parking lot is 6 feet.
3
June 25, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1180
The plan submitted only provides for a width of 2 1/2 feet
part of the way.
If dumpsters are to be used, they must be shown on the plan
and be screened on three sides to a height of 8 feet.
Prior to a building permit issued, three copies of a
detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at
371-4864.
G. ANALYSIS•
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
March 9, 1998. The revised plan addresses all of the
outstanding issues as raised by the Subdivision Committee.
The revised plan shows a turnaround at the end of State
Street as required by Public Works. The applicant has noted
that all other Public Works requirements will be complied
with.
The revised plan also shows a ground -mounted sign location.
This sign must comply with ordinance standards (setback 5
feet from any property line, maximum height - 6 feet,
maximum area 24 square feet).
The applicant is requesting the variances as noted in
paragraph A. Staff supports the variance requests.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with paragraphs D, E and F
2. Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested.
3. Staff also recommends approval of the abandonment of the
undeveloped Izard Street right-of-way.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 26, 1998)
Bill Wiedower was present, representing the application. Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan proposal.
Bruce Kemmet, of Public Works, reviewed the Public Works
requirements with the Committee. There was a very detailed
discussion regarding the required turnaround at the end of State
Street.
4
June 25, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1180
Other issues briefly discussed included required off-street
parking, Izard Street right-of-way and the variances requested
for reduced building setbacks.
The Committee then accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 1998)
Bill Wiedower was present, representing the application. There
was one person present with objections. Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal and a recommendation of approval with
conditions.
Bill Wiedower addressed the Commission in support of the
application. Mr. Wiedower stated that the site plan had been
revised based on Subdivision Committee comments. He stated that
he had been working with Public Works on the turn -around at the
end of State Street.
Carrie Holyfield, of Arkbest Realty, addressed the Commission.
She stated that she had 3 objections to the site plan. She
stated that the objections are with the turn -around at the end of
State Street, the parking variance and the front yard setback
variance. She also requested that an 8 foot privacy fence be
constructed along the property line between the apartment
development and Davidson Law Firm.
There was a brief discussion concerning the turn -around at the
end of State Street. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that
one of the reasons for the turn -around at the end of State Street
was to prevent vehicles from turning around in the Davidson Law
Firm parking lot.
There was a discussion relating to the parking variance for eight
spaces. Mr. Wiedower stated that he was trying to maximize the
use of the property. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, pointed
out that a portion of the property (north of the proposed
buildings) was not buildable due to the topography.
Commissioner Adcock asked the justification for the front setback
variance request.
Mr. Moore stated that staff had talked to Mr. Wiedower and
suggested moving the covered parking to the next row of parking
spaces to the north.
Mr. Wiedower stated that the covered parking could be moved to
the next row of parking to the north and he had no problem doing
that.
5
June 25, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1180
Commissioner Nunnley asked about Ms. Holyfield's request for a
privacy fence and if it was required.
Mr. Moore stated that it was not a requirement.
There was a general discussion relating to a letter submitted by
the Bank of Little Rock and the variances requested.
There was also discussion relating to the development and the
general area. Mr. Wiedower discussed the possibility of reducing
the size of the apartment complex. He stated that the funding of
the project was through HUD and to an extent they required a
certain number of apartment units.
After additional discussion, Mr. Moore explained to the
Commission that the applicant mailed the notices as required by
the bylaws with one exception. The notices were mailed three
days late. Mr. Moore stated that the adjacent property owners
received the notices based on conversations with the property
owners. Based on this conversation, a motion was made to waive
the bylaws and accept the notification as done by the applicant.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay.
A second motion was made to approve the application as
recommended by staff, including approval of the variance
requests. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
The application was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:
At the City Attorney's request, staff has placed this item on the
agenda for reconsideration in response to a lawsuit which has
been filed, objecting to the Planning Commission's previous
action in approving the site plan with variances.
The applicant has revised the site plan, making several changes.
Most notably, the applicant has moved the covered parking
(eliminating the front yard setback variance) and has added
parking spaces (eliminating the variance for reduced number of
parking spaces). A variance for a reduced rear yard setback for
the eastern most building is requested as before. Staff and the
applicant will present and review the revised site plan at the
public hearing.
The City Attorney is requesting that the Commission expunge its
vote taken on March 19, 1998, approving the site plan for this
development. The City Attorney is also requesting that, after
review, the Commission approve the revised site plan as submitted
by the applicant.
6
June 25, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1180
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998)
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, addressed the
Commission and reviewed the revised site plan which had been
submitted by the applicant. He noted that there were several
minor charges in the site plan and that it was within his
authority as Planning Director to approve the site plan, which he
had already done. He noted the following minor charges in the
site plan:
1. A 12 foot easement has been added along the railroad tracks
along the north side of the property as part of the parks
trail system.
2. A cul-de-sac has been shown at the end of State Street, as
required by Public works.
3. The site plan now meets the requirements for front yard
setback and minimum number of parking spaces, thus
eliminating those variances as previously granted by the
Commission.
4. The site plan continues to show a reduced rear yard setback
for the easternmost building, as previously approved by the
Commission.
Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that Mr. Lawson does have the
authority to approve the revised site plan. She noted that the
revised site plan supersedes the previously approved site plan.
She also noted that if the applicant wishes to request another
variance for the site plan in the future, the issue must be
brought back before the Commission.
David Grace, attorney for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the applicant understands that the
action of Mr. Lawson supersedes the previously approved site
plan.
Chairman Lichty asked if Mr. Skip Davidson was present, having
filled out a card. There was no response.
Chairman Lichty concluded that staff's presentation was a review
of the revised site plan as approved by Mr. Lawson, and that no
commission action was necessary on the item. The Commission
accepted the briefing.
VA
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-6506
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Macie Reichstadt
Macie Reichstadt
West side of the 2100 Block of
John Barrow Road
Rezone from R-2 to MF -18
Future Multifamily development
9.35± acres
Undeveloped, heavily wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Undeveloped, wooded; zoned 0-3 and MF -18
South - Beauty Shop, zoned 0-3; Multiple Multifamily
units, zoned R-5 and MF -12
East - Undeveloped, wooded, zoned 0-1; Single Family,
zoned R-2
West - Multiple unit multifamily development;
zoned MF -12
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. Barrow Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577 on future development.
3. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to
construction, site grading and drainage plan will need
to be submitted and approved.
4. Stormwater detention Ordinance applies to this property.
5. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
6. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded
to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with
the site development package.
8. Street improvement plans shall include signage and
striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic
Engineering prior to construction.
9. John Barrow has a 1996 average daily traffic count of
17,000.
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6506
10. Obtain barricade/street cut permit for improvements
within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way.
11. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
12. Utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall
be per Article V of Sec. 30.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route. The nearest
routes are located on Kanis Road to the north and West 36th
Street to the south.
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NOTIFICATION
The John Barrow, Brownwood Terrace, Twin Lakes and Twin
Lakes "B" Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The request is in the I-430 District. The John Barrow
Neighborhoods Plan reviewed the area in 1995-1996. The Plan
recommends the area be Mixed Office Commercial. Prior to
the Neighborhood Plan effort the area was shown for
Multifamily. The Neighborhood was opposed to any additional
multifamily in the area. Thus any area shown for
multifamily and not used or zoned for multifamily was
changed.
Six weeks ago the Planning Commission with the support of
the Neighborhood changed the Plan from residential (Single
Family) to nonresidential (Mixed Office Commercial) in the
3900 block of John Barrow. Staff believes it is appropriate
to replace this lost residential. Since the area west of
John Barrow from Tanya to Labette is almost totally
multifamily in use and zoning, this location appears
appropriate to serve as the replacement.
A Land Use Plan change is Item No. 4 on this agenda (LU98-
11-02). For additional information about the land use
issues please refer to this item.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone the
undeveloped 9.35± acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to
"MF -18" Multifamily District. Although no immediate
2
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6506
development is proposed for the site, the applicant has
indicated that plans are to develop a multifamily project on
the property.
Staff believes multifamily is appropriate for the site.
Property adjacent to the north is now zoned MF -18 (having
recently been rezoned from MF -12). A conditional use permit
for a nursing home was also recently approved for this MF -18
property. An R-5 zoned apartment complex is located further
to the north. A large multifamily complex is located on the
MF -12 zoned property adjacent to the west and south. An
area of R-4 zoned duplexes is further to the south and
approximately 40 acres of MF -12 and MF -18 zoned property is
south of Tanya Drive. Other properties in the vicinity of
the subject property are zoned 0-1, 0-3 and POD. A large
high school is located on an R-2 zoned tract across Barrow
Road.
Until 1996, the Boyle Park District Land Use Plan
recommended Multifamily for this site. As a result of the
John Barrow Neighborhoods Plan Initiative, the Land Use Plan
for this site was amended to Mixed Office Commercial. Staff
believes it is reasonable to consider restoring multifamily
at this site. There does not appear to be immediate
pressure for additional office/commercial development in the
area. A proposed Land Use Plan amendment from Mixed Office
Commercial to Multifamily is item no. 4 on this agenda
(LU98-11-02).
The proposed MF -18 rezoning request is compatible with the
existing zoning and use pattern in the area. The
predominance of properties on the west side of John Barrow
Road, from the Kanis commercial strip south to West 29th
Street, are now zoned residential at a density higher than
single family. The Land Use Plan had traditionally
recognized this site as multifamily.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested MF -18 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were
Staff informed the Commission that the
June 24, 1998, requested a deferral to
commission meeting. Staff stated that
response to neighborhood concerns and
3
(JUNE 25, 1998)
no objectors present.
applicant had, on
the July 23, 1998
the deferral was in
staff's suggestion.
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6506
A motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the request
for deferral which had been received less than 5 days prior
to the hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred
to the July 23, 1998 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
4
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-6508
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Pearl Sullivan Herrod, et al
Bob McCarley
11400 Cantrell Road
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Future Office Development
2.78± acres
Undeveloped, wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family; zoned R-2
South - Shopping Center and Convenience Store under
construction, zoned PCD and one single family
home, zoned R-2
East - Church; zoned R-2 with conditional use permit
West - Undeveloped, wooded tract; zoned 0-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. Cantrell Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial, dedication of right-of-way to 55
feet from centerline will be required.
2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3. Construct sidewalks and ramps with any development.
4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
6. Grading permit will be required on this new development,
if more than one acre is disturbed.
7. Stormwater detention Ordinance applies to this property.
8. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
9. On site striping and signage plans shall be forwarded to
Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the
site development package.
10. Cantrell Road has a 1996 average daily traffic count of
25,000.
11. Obtain barricade/street cut permits for improvements
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6508
within proposed o
Engineering prior
12. Obtain permits fo
right-of-way from
13. Utility excavatio
be per Article V
14. No access will be
Heights Road.
15. Change address to
r existing right-of-way from Traffic
to construction in right-of-way.
r improvements with State Highway
AHTD, District VI.
n within proposed rights-of-way shall
of Sec. 30.
allowed east of centerline of Woodland
11400 Cantrell Road.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Express bus route.
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NOTIFICATION
The Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association was
notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the River Mountain District. The River
Mountain Neighborhoods Plan reviewed the Land Use Plan in
1997-1998. The adopted Land Use Plan shows the area for
Transition. Office and Multifamily are appropriate uses
within the Transition area. There is no adjacent single
family and staff believes 0-3 General Office is appropriate
for the site. If development of the site cannot conform to
the Highway 10 Overlay District Standards, a Planned
Development will be required.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped 2.78± acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to
"0-3" General Office District. The site is now heavily
wooded. Once rezoned, the site will be developed for office
uses.
The site is located on the north side of Cantrell Road, at
its intersection with woodland Heights Road. The property
is within the large office node located along Cantrell Road,
from I-430 to Pleasant Ridge Road. Large scale office
developments and institutional uses are located to the east,
at Rodney Parham and Cantrell. A medical facility has
recently been constructed on property across Cantrell Road,
to the southeast. A new, large convenience store is now
being built on the PCD zoned property across Cantrell Road
to the south. A new shopping center is also proposed on the
2
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6508
south side of Cantrell, in this area. Recent site
preparation work has taken place on the proposed shopping
center site. The property adjacent to the west is
undeveloped and zoned 0-2. Southridge Drive, the sole
entrance to the Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood, is
located to the rear of the site. A narrow strip of R-2
zoned property is located between the subject property and
Southridge Road. No access will be taken from the site to
Southridge.
The River Mountain Land Use Plan recommends Transition for
the site. Office uses are appropriate in the Transition
area. Once a specific development is proposed, it must
conform to the heightened design standards of the Highway 10
Overlay District or the applicant must return to the
Commission with a Planned Development.
Staff believes 0-3 to be appropriate for this site. The
zoning is compatible with uses and zoning in the area. The
Land Use Plan states that office uses are appropriate for
the site.
The Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association was
notified of the rezoning request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
It was noted that one letter of objection had been received
and forwarded to the Commission. In that letter, Ben Briley
of 12133 Southridge, stated that he would prefer that the
site remain undeveloped or else developed with single-family
dwellings or small one-story offices.
The rezoning request was placed on the Consent Agenda and
approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: LU98-08-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment -- Central City District
Location: 1918 Commerce
Request: Single Family to Mixed Use
Source: Mable I. Ellis
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning
District from Single Family to Mixed Use. Mixed Use
provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial
uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the
use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a
mixture of the three.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning
Staff expanded the area of review to include the lots facing
Commerce on the west side of the 1900 block and those lots
along Commerce in the 2000 block on both sides of the
street. The area is composed of 7 houses, one commercial
structure and 5 vacant lots. It is a total of 1.03± acres.
The lot at the northwest corner of 20th and Commerce is a
vacant isolated two story brick commercial store front
building.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R4 and is approximately 1/16
of an acre in size. Across Commerce Street, occupying a
half of a block is the Metropolitan Baptist Church and is
shown as Public Institutional on the Land Use Plan.
Otherwise, the site is surrounded by R4 zoning and Single
Family land use classification.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
May 21, 1996, a change for Single Family to Mixed Use for a
three block area between 26th and 27th east of I-30.
March 5, 1996, a change from Single Family to Mixed Use on
the west side of Bragg Street from 23rd to 24th.
February 20, 1996, a change from Single Family to Public
Institutional between Marshall and Battery from 13th to 14th
Streets.
January 16, 1996, a change from Single Family to Public
Institutional an area west of I-30 between 18th and 19th
Streets.
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-08-02
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Commerce, 19th, 20th and 21st Streets are shown as
residential streets by the plan.
BACKGROUND•
This site is located in the core of the Central City area.
This particular neighborhood is characterized by one-story
houses of a modest size, scattered churches, the occasional
isolated commercial structure and many vacant lots. This
neighborhood is currently undertaking a neighborhood action
plan.
This land use case can and should set precedence for the
future of cottage industries in distressed areas on a city
wide basis. There are several distressed areas of the city
that need economic jump-starting. The question is as
follows: Should we hold out for residential infill in these
neighborhoods or should we open up development on the basis
that any development is good development as long as it is
aesthetically compatible with the existing neighborhood?
Distressed areas of the city need economic assistance.
Applications for land use amendments and zoning changes
indicate that there are citizens willing to make an
investment into the neighborhood. Allowing small businesses
and cottage industries to exist within a portion of a
person's residence is a means to allow economic development
to happen without further reduction of the already reduced
number of housing stock in the area.
Commerce Street has a bridge over I-630 making it possibly
more significant than other north south streets in the area
and provides a direct connection between Pettaway Park and
MacArthur Park. This connection to the North and to the C-3
area to the South would make it a prime location to have
mixed use. The Alert Center at 21st and Commerce is one
block to the South. In depressed areas, investments are
good investments as long as they are aesthetically
compatible with the neighborhood.
On the northwest corner of 20th and Commerce Streets is an
abandoned two story commercial storefront building. Across
the street, is the Metropolitan Baptist church. This
suggests, that at one time, this was a commercial node.
Changing the land use on this storefront building will make
it more desirable for redevelopment as a residence over
either an office or commercial venture. With Mixed Use land
use classification, a PUD is required if a structure is
entirely office or commercial or a mix of office, commercial
and residential. The object is to make the proposed uses in
these mixed areas are sympathetic to housing, to try to
protect housing by requiring a PZD.
2
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • LU98-08-02
The Granite Mountain bus route travels along Rock Street
which provides bus service within a block of the site.
On the other hand, we should encourage areas with depleted
housing stock to have infill of residential structures that
are compatible to existing structures.
As stated before, Granite Mountain bus route is close to the
site, but not actually on this block. The streets involved
are local streets, not built to support commercial uses that
generate large amounts of traffic and parking lots that are
not in scale with the residential environment. Parking at
certain "cottage industries" is not of a residential scale.
The neighborhood action plan committee, which is currently
working on the neighborhood plan, is trying to remove R-5
and C-3 from their neighborhood. There is a large amount of
C-3 sites available to south, along 21st street for
activities to locate. Much of the C-3 area is not used for
commercial or office use, This may show a lack of need to
add non-residential use options. The Central City
Neighborhood Activists have certainly spoken against the
loss of housing stock in the Central City. Many have called
for programs to repopulate the areas to the 1960 levels.
This would require significant construction of new
residential units. Therefore, the loss of any residential
units could be considered a negative action.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood association:
East of Broadway. A notice was also sent to the Downtown
Neighborhood Association Action Plan Committee. As of this
printing, staff has received one phone call of a positive
nature and two of a neutral nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998)
Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case with the
surrounding uses and zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the
expansion of the original area to the proposed amendment
area. Two comments from the neighborhood were negative, one
was neutral and three comments were positive. The Downtown
Neighborhood Association President, Kathy Wells, sent a
letter stating that she is against any wholesale changing to
mixed use. She would propose that we change things on a per
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-08-02
use basis. The East of Broadway Association has noted that
they are in favor of the change. Staff has recommended
approval of the change. The applicant is here.
The applicant, Mable Ellis, stated that she owned the
building next to her house in which she would like to put a
beauty shop. She lives in the neighborhood and it is her
desire to improve her neighborhood. She stated that she has
letters of support from her neighbors.
Ruth Bell of the League of women Voters of Pulaski County
spoke of her concerns about considering this as a cottage
industry issue since the Plans committee has "not yet come
to grips with the cottage industry" concept. She spoke of
the premature nature of approving the application prior to
the resolution of the Plans Committee's work. She also
spoke that it was "presumptuous for us here to tell a
neighborhood that it is low down economically." Thirdly,
she spoke that they had a problem when there was
under-utilized commercial properties in the area, whether on
plan or actually built. we do not think that this is an
appropriate use.
Stuart Yancy, who owns property in the area, spoke that he
had met Ms. Ellis prior. He has several concerns about this
item. He spoke that he had offered her a commercial space
for lease some time ago. Mr. Yancy stated that some mixed
use in some older neighborhoods in some instances is a
viable plan that is realistic in many cases. He stated that
he was not personally notified, and he stated that persons
directly involved that he talked to have not been notified.
Chairman Lichty asked staff to state for the record the
procedure for notification.
Brian Minyard, of the Planning Staff, stated that the tax
records are checked from the assessors' office. Those
persons directly involved are mailed letters notifying them
of the change. Neighborhood associations are also notified
and we notified the Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan
Committee.
Mr. Yancy stated that he does not own land in the land use
amendment area. It is adjacent. He stated that he spoke
with the owner of the commercial building on the corner and
they said that they did not receive notification. He
further commented that the notification was not adequate for
the amendment.
Chairman Lichty stated that the procedures had been
followed.
4
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-08-02
Mr. Yancy thought it was premature for the change with the
current action plan being developed, and that it was in
opposition to the current land use plan. He stated that
Mrs. Bell's comment of not fully utilizing commercial
property in the area was a problem. He supports infill of
commercial and cottage industries, but does not feel that
this is the case.
Walter Malone stated that the Downtown Neighborhood Plan
would come to the Planning Commission in mid to late fall of
1998. They are currently reviewing the policy plan.
Commissioner Rohn Muse asked where the boundaries of the two
different neighborhood associations were. Walter Malone
explained the boundaries. Commissioner Muse asked if the
neighborhood action plan included representatives from East
of Broadway as well. Mr. Malone stated that it does.
Commissioner Hawn was concerned that staff stated that this
item should set a precedence. He stated that it should not
set precedence and that it my be in our bylaws that we
cannot set precedence.
Commissioner Faust asked questions concerning the history of
land use in the area. Discussion ensued between
Commissioner Faust and Mr. Malone concerning the historic
land use in the area, vacancy rates in the commercial areas,
and the area being one of the most demolitions and the least
reinvestment. Commissioner Faust restated the DNA letter
that they "support mixed uses in the neighborhood" at
intersections. "But they're concerned of the timing."
Commissioner Rahman asked what was the issue that initiated
the plan use amendment. Jim Lawson explained that we
expanded the area because it was a good candidate for the
mixed use classification. He further commented that the
question was "if the area would make it on its, own or do we
need to take some action. We feel that this area will not
come back by itself, and we need to take action. We took
her application to another step." Commissioner Rahman spoke
that existing commercial structures should be used before
creating more and that other areas are more appropriate.
Walter Malone spoke that the Mixed Use does not mean that
the area cannot be Single Family. He continued that if you
are not going to be residential, you must use the Planned
Unit Development process which makes sure that areas are
compatible with the residential.
Chairman Lichty spoke that he wondered if it was the time to
act on this with the current neighborhood action plan in
process.
5
• June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-08-02
Commissioner Putman spoke that staff had put in a lot of
time and effort to present this item and the staff
recommended approval. He spoke that we were going overboard
on discussion.
Mr. Lawson suggested that the commission could deny the
request and she could come back and file a P.O.D. with a
conditional use instead of a P.C.D. which would be in
conflict with your plan.
Commissioner Berry spoke that the Mixed Use can be a tool
for this neighborhood.
Commissioner Hawn spoke of the pending document of the
neighborhood plan. "The plan is not here yet... We need to
encourage development downtown instead of knocking pine
trees down out west."
Commissioner Earnest spoke in favor of the action.
Commissioner Hawn moved that we adopt the Land Use plan as
presented. Motion was seconded. Motion was approved, with
7 ayes and 3 nayes and 1 absent.
6
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: LU98-11-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - I-430 District
Location: 2100 block of John Barrow Road
Reauest: Mixed Office Commercial to Multi Family
Source: Maurey Mitchell - Rector Phillips Morse
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment in the I-430 Planning District
from Mixed Office Commercial to Multi Family. Multi Family
accommodates residential development of ten to thirty-six
dwelling units per acre.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R2 and shown as Mixed office
Commercial on the Land Use Plan. To the north is a medical
rental store with a POD in Mixed Office Commercial. Further
to the north is a "halfway" house in 03 and Multi -Family
classification. Further to the north is an apartment
complex with R5 zoning and Multi -Family classification.
This Multi -Family Land Use area surrounds the Mixed Office
Commercial on three sides. A tract to the northeast has
just be rezoned MF18 within the existing Multi -Family
classification for a retirement center. Westerly and
southerly, there are MF12 apartments within the same Multi -
Family Land Use Classification. To the east, across John
Barrow Road extending to the north, there is 01 zoning
within Office Land Use classification. Across John Barrow
and to the south, there are four single family houses which
area zoned R2 and depicted as Single Family on the Land Use
Plan. The site is 10 acres t.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
June 16, 1998, a proposed change from Single Family to Mixed
Office Commercial in the 3900 Block of John Barrow Road will
be heard.
June 18, 1996, adoption by resolution of the John Barrow
Neighborhood Area Plan with multiple changes including
changing this site from Multi -family to Mixed Office
Commercial.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
John Barrow is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan and is
built to a five lane width.
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-11-02
BACKGROUND:
The site is currently undeveloped and wooded. As mentioned
above, the recent amendment in the 3900 block of John Barrow
removed potential housing areas from the neighborhood. With
this previous subtraction of potential residential units, it
is justifiable to add potential residential dwelling units
in this area. In addition, properties on three sides of
this parcel are currently built and zoned either multi-
family and office on both the zoning and land use plan, so
the change would not have an adverse effect on surrounding
uses proposed on the Land Use Plan.
The John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan, adopted in June of
1996, does not support any additional multi -family in the
neighborhood. As stated in the Chapter 4 - Policy Plan,
"The Steering Committee recommends the implementation of the
following major initiatives necessary to protect and nurture
the vitality of the neighborhood. "No additional multi-
family or apartments in the area, The John Barrow
Neighborhood area already has more than enough. 11 The plan
also states that there is a need for additional dwelling
units in the area: 1) To create housing opportunities for
low and moderate income persons by becoming .a__Community
Development Corporation (CDC), and 2) To enhance housing
opportunities for seniors in the area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations: John Barrow, Brownwood Terrace and Twin Lakes
"B". As of this printing, staff has not received any
comments from the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998)
This item was on consent agenda for deferral until the
July 23, 1998 meeting. The consent agenda was approved by
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nayes and 1 absent.
2
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: LU98-20-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle District
Location: Northeast and Southeast corners of Chenal
Parkway and Highway 300
Request: Single Family to Office
Source: Gene Pfiefer
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District
from Single Family to Office. Office represents services
provided directly to consumers (such as legal, financial and
medical) as well as general offices that support more basic
economic activities. The application is for 15.2± acres.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The current property is zoned R-2. To the southeast, Multi -
Family is shown on the Land Use Plan and is zoned MF18 on
both sides of Chenal Parkway. Further to the south east are
lands classified as Office with zoning of 03 and Commercial
with a zoning of C-3. To the North, the lands on both sides
of Highway 300 are classified as Single Family with zoning
of R2. To the south on the east side of Highway 300 is a
tract of land classified as Single Family with a zoning of
MF18.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
December 21, 1993, a change from Single Family to Office for
an area between the intersections of Highway 300 and Chenal
Parkway along the north side of Cantrell and
A change from Single Family to Multi -family on both sides of
Chenal Parkway north of Cantrell Road.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Highway 300 and Chenal Parkway are shown as a Minor
Arterials on the plan. Highway 300 is currently a two lane
road with open ditches and Chenal Parkway at this parcel is
unbuilt.
BACKGROUND:
The land is currently vacant with dense forest. The uses
surrounding the site are diverse. To the north lies two
antique shops, a waterscaping company, an auto service
company, a bed and breakfast, and a convenience store. To
the east lies a horse stable that boards and offers trail
rides. In between these uses are scattered houses. The
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • LU98-20-01
area is not totally single family as shown on the zoning or
land use plans, but in fact, there are several non-
conforming businesses adjacent to the site.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations: Aberdeen and Johnson Ranch. As of this
printing, staff has not received any comments from the
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 25, 1998)
Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case with the
surrounding uses and zoning. Several non -conforming uses
were noted. No comments were received from neighborhood
groups or comments from public.
The applicant, Gene Pfeifer, spoke of the high voltage
power line and considered it a buffer between the site and
residences to the north. The applicant also owns the land
to the east and will notify potential buyers of the office
designation. He spoke of commitments of proposed roadway
improvements to Chenal Parkway.
Commissioner Berry asked about the non -conforming uses,
suggesting Suburban Office instead of Office, and that the
road to Pinnacle remaining scenic.
Commissioner Faust made remarks that mirrored Commissioner
Berry s and asked staff to respond. Jim Lawson spoke that
the fact that the single family and office land were owned
by the same developer would help insure that the development
was okay. Since the single family access was through the
office area, he does not believe that this developer would
do anything that would not be compatible since he is the one
who would stand to lose the most.
Commissioner Berry asked if the Design Overlay went out that
far. Mr. Lawson stated that it did not.
Chairman Lichty asked that Mr. Lawson explain about the
roadway improvements. Mr. Lawson stated the Suburban Office
is not appropriate at the intersection of two arterials.
Mr. Lawson continued that the comment that Commissioner
Berry is addressing is that since it is a highway leading to
the state park, it should be well done.
E
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-01
Commissioner Faust asked what would guarantee what we would
want to see? Mr. Lawson said that the only guarantee would
require a P.O.D. Mr. Lawson said that the applicant may be
willing to agree to different setbacks, etc.
Mr. Pfeifer stated that he would be amenable to 0-3 zoning
with Site Plan Review if that would address concerns stated
by the Commission.
Commissioner Berry discussed sprawl, adjacency to the state
park, etc.
Jim Lawson reminded the committee that a convenience store
and a mini -warehouse had been approved for the other end of
this development at the node.
The motion was made by Commissioner Putman that the
application as submitted be approved and was seconded.
Commissioner Downy asked if the motion included the Site
Plan Review. Chairman Lichty stated that it did. The
amendment failed with a vote of 5 ayes, 4 nayes, 1
abstention and 1 absent.
Commissioner Putman asked Staff if this precludes the
Applicant filing an 0-3 or P.O.D. application. Mr. Lawson
explained that the next step would be for the applicant to
take it to the Board of Directors.
Commissioner Downy stated that there was already office in
the area and wanted to know the difference in Highway 300
and Cantrell. Commissioner Berry rebutted that it was the
extending of the office towards the park that was the issue.
Chairman Lichty stated that when it goes to the Board to
please not have it thrown back to us on a 5-4 vote.
Commissioner Adcock moved to expunge this vote.
Commissioner Berry stated that he had asked for a Suburban
Office designation instead of an Office designation at the
first. Chairman Lichty reminded the commission that the
applicant has committed to Site Plan Review and that there
was another chance to look at the plan.
Commissioner Putman stated that we were waiting on a motion
to expunge the vote and that discussion should cease.
Mr. Lawson stated that it would take a majority of the
commission to expunge the vote. The motion was made and
seconded to expunge the vote. The motion to expunge the
vote passed with 9 ayes, 1 nayes and 1 absent.
3
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-01
A motion was made by Commissioner Putman to approve the
application as submitted and was seconded. The item passed
with a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nayes and 1 absent.
A Point of Order was made by a commissioner that Land Use
plans were made incrementally and asked of Staff to give the
Commission any plans that the Highway Department had for
Highway 300 so that the Commission could look at it as a
corridor. Commissioner Hawn stated that he felt that they
had been nibbled to death. Since it is one owner, have him
file a comprehensive plan.
4
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU98-20-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle District
Location: 18600 Cantrell Road
Recruest: Single Family to Single Family, Office and
Multi -Family
Source: Ed Willis
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District
from Single Family to Single Family, Office and Multi -
Family. Single Family Residential provides for single family
homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre.
Office represents services provided directly to consumers
(such as legal, financial and medical) as well as general
offices that support more basic economic activities. Multi -
Family Residential accommodates residential development of
ten to 36 dwelling units per acre.
The original application included 95 acres, 10.3 for office,
20.5 for multifamily and 64.2 for single family (which is
not shown on the sketch). The area was expanded to the
south to include approximately 10 additional acres of multi-
family.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The current property is zoned R-2. Directly to the south is
an Existing Business Node with a variety of businesses with
PUD's. To the southeast is shown as Office on the Land Use
Plan and is zoned 02. vacant land designated as Multifamily
lies to the east across Patrick County Road and is zoned
MF18. Single Family, zoned R2, lies to the north, northeast
and west of the site. The Immanuel West Church site lies to
the southeast at the corner of Patrick County Road and
Cantrell and is zoned R2.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
April 17, 1997, a change from Existing Business Node to
Public Institutional at the northwest corner of Cantrell
Road and Patrick County Road and
A change from single Family and Existing Business to
Suburban Office south of Cantrell Road between Becknell
Lane and Chenonceau Boulevard and
A change from Single Family and Office to Multi -Family north
of Chenonceau Boulevard at Bayonne Drive and
A change from Single Family to Park/Open Space for an area
north of Chenonceau Boulevard east of Aberdeen Drive.
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-02
November 2, 1993, a change from Multi -family to Office for
an area along the north side of Ranch Road east of Ranch
Boulevard.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan
and is a five lane road. Patrick county Road is shown as a
collector and currently has open ditches. Northridge and
Buzz are two lane roads with open ditches. The unnamed
north south collector has yet to be platted or built. It
will be in the western portion of the site.
BACKGROUND•
The land is currently vacant forested land.
The proposed plan shows a reduction in the acreage of single
family. This, however, will be made up with the inclusion
of the multi -family component in the plan so that the number
of dwelling units will not be less than the amount prior to
the change.
The area of multi -family was expanded to the south and east
to make the line more logical. If not expanded, the single
family area on Northridge Road would have been sandwiched
between the existing business node to the south and the
multi -family to the north.
The Existing Business Node was one of the first to be
designated in the city. It was developed prior to
annexation with a rural flavor -- not an urban form of
development. Some of these businesses operate out of single
family houses. Suburban Office would be more in keeping
with the existing development of the area because of similar
massing, setbacks, etc. that would be addressed in suburban
office developments.
The change to Office would open the 10 acres up for all
office zoning applications. It would be more appropriate to
classify the land as Suburban Office to be more compatible
to the single family areas. Office can be viewed as a
buffer between residential and commercial, but this is not
the case. This application places the proposed office area
between multi -family and single family.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations: Aberdeen and Johnson Ranch. As of this
printing, staff has received three questions of a neutral
nature.
2
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-02
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that it is appropriate to change the land use
plan to Suburban Office and Multi -Family.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998)
Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case with the
surrounding uses and zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the
expansion of the area. Comments were received from
neighborhood groups and comments from public. Three
telephone calls were of a neutral nature, one of opposition
and one for. Staff feels that it is appropriate to change
the areas to Multi -Family and Suburban Office.
The applicant, Ed Willis, spoke that they had worked with
the city and stated that the area would be annexed into the
city. They do not have any immediate plans for the
property. He stated that he was not aware of what Suburban
Office entailed.
Chairman Lichty asked about the annexation question. Jim
Lawson stated that this was the first time he had heard of
any annexation as discussed.
Charles Hicks spoke in opposition to the plan. Major points
of opposition are the continued development out Cantrell.
Mr. Hicks spoke that he represented the Wilson Trust which
lies to the west of the proposed area. If there is going to
be a change, Suburban Office is better than Office, but are
opposed to the Multi -Family. He continued that the
intensity of the use is overwhelming and asked the
Commission go slow with the changes.
Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Hicks to clarify the ownership of the
properties. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Adcock asked who provided the plan to Mr.
Hicks. He answered that it was the developer.
Commissioner Earnest stated that when visiting the site that
there was a large number of multi -family land available.
Mr. Lawson stated that the approach that we took was "What
do you wrap around behind the existing commercial node?"
Multifamily acts a buffer between the commercial and Single
Family. Chairman Lichty asked why the area immediately west
of Patrick County Road was not changed to Multi -Family. Jim
Lawson stated that he did not know why it was not further
expanded into this area.
3
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-02
Casper Nehus, a resident of Northridge Road, answered a
question concerning property ownership along Patrick County
Road. Mr. Willis also spoke as to who owned the property in
question.
Commissioner Putman asked Mr. Willis to clarify the map.
Commissioner Muse asked Mr. Hicks if there was a timeline to
the plan.
Commissioner Hawn stated that the commission was being
nibble to death with development along the street. Mr.
Hicks stated that just because there was road frontage along
Cantrell did not mean that it has to be non-residential
uses.
Commissioner Rahman continued the discussion of Suburban
Office. Mr. Lawson clarified that the other amendment was
the intersection of two five lane roads and this is along
Highway 10. This is a different situation.
Chairman Lichty asked if there were additional questions
from other commissioners. He re -asked his original question
of why the multi -family could not be extended to Patrick
County Road.
Commissioner Rahman asked for a clarification of the
distances on the site. Mr. Minyard stated that the north
south distance was 1270' and expanded approximately 840' for
a total of about 20001. Chairman Lichty asked what the land
use category was on the site of Immanuel West Church. Mr.
Minyard stated that it was PI - Public Institutional and
further answered that the Existing Business Node lay to the
west. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson if we could extend
the area to the east at this time. Mr. Lawson stated that
we would need to contact the owners, both the church and the
residential, before we proceeded.
Commissioner Berry asked if it was possible to ask for two
different votes, one for suburban office and one for multi-
family. The applicant should be asked, stated Jim Lawson.
Mr. Willis stated, after lengthy discussion, that this was
the uses recommended by the staff and that there was no
answer to the question of whether he would want two votes or
one.
Commissioner Muse asked the question of Mr. Hicks, "Any
comments?" Mr. Hicks stated that the applicant was over-
reaching in this amendment. They believe that single family
is the highest use for this property.
Commissioner Putman asked Mr. Hicks to clarify the layout of
the land.
4
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-20-02
Commissioner Downy stated that a transitional land use is
appropriate. We should not have single family abutting
commercial, as shown now.
Commissioner Earnest asked of Staff, "Is there too much
Multi -Family in the area?"
Commissioner Rahman made a motion to approve as submitted
and was seconded. The item was approve with a vote of 6
ayes, 4 nayes and 1 absent.
k,
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7
NAME: Kanis Road Corridor Study
SOURCE: Kanis Road Corridor Study Committee
STAFF REPORT:
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning
Staff to undertake a study of the Kanis corridor. The Board
viewed the Kanis corridor as a fast developing area which needed
special treatment. A nine member citizen committee was appointed
and first met in December 1996.
The study area was originally to be Kanis Road from Rodney Parham
to Ferndale, but the committee focused on the section of Kanis
Road from Shackleford to Chenal. Areas to the north and south of
Kanis Road were also included, up to a half mile. The boundaries
were flexible, to assure surrounding impacts and issues were
included.
Staff developed a process for the corridor study and the
committee members agreed on a number of tasks that needed to be
accomplished as part of their work and to ensure a comprehensive
review of the issues. This included a review of the existing
land use and zoning patterns, a review of the Future Land Use and
Master Street Plans, a review of the current development trends
in the area, a review of the Chenal Task Force recommendations
and the Chenal Parkway Corridor Study, and discussions on design
overlay districts (DOD), roadway designs and funding
alternatives.
Many issues were debated including: future land use, roadway
design and funding alternatives. The issues were presented to
the public at a open house in July 1997. Four land use options,
three roadway design options and funding alternatives were
presented to over one hundred interested individuals and property
owners. Prior to the public presentation, the public was invited
to review the presentation boards and ask questions in an
informal setting.
At the most recent Kanis Road Corridor Study meeting, committee
members were asked to rate the four land use options, the three
roadway design options and the funding alternatives. The
committee members were to rate the options from their first
choice to their last choice. The results of this rating are
found in the draft of the "Report of Kanis Road Study Committee"
which is included with the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 2, 1997)
The Kanis Road item was presented by Rusty Sparks, Chairperson of
the Kanis Road Study Committee. There were a number of
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
interested individuals in attendance and two committee members,
Dickson Flake and Mary Zehr, were present.
Rusty Sparks addressed the Commission and gave an overview of the
committee's work and the process that was used. Mr. Sparks
explained the committee's charge and that the Mayor asked the
group to think "out-of-the-box." Mr. Sparks said Phase I of the
study was I-430 to Chenal Parkway and the committee concentrated
on the Kanis corridor from Bowman Road to Pride valley. As part
of the process, the committee reviewed existing conditions,
Master Street Plan, current land use plan, previous traffic
studies and the work of the Chenal Task Force. Mr. Sparks said
the committee also took a "field trip" and viewed the corridor
from a bus.
Mr. Sparks then discussed the committee's efforts to address
future land use and to determine if changes were warranted.
After many hours of debate, the committee agreed on four land use
options to present to the public for comment. Mr. Sparks then
reviewed the four options and described the major differences
between them. (Graphics and overhead transparencies were used
during the presentation.) Mr. Sparks said that Options 1 and 2
recommended a mixed use approach, but Option 1 was more sensitive
to the topography and Option 2 suggested a more intense land use
pattern. He went on to say that Option 3 was the "out-of-the-
box" approach because it identified large scale unified
development districts and did not specify land use. Mr. Sparks
described Option 3 in some detail and said that land use, roadway
design and financing were a package and tied together, an
integrated concept. Mr. Sparks said Option 4 was the current
land use plan for the corridor.
After reviewing the land use options, Mr. Sparks commented on the
roadway designs and funding alternatives. Mr. Sparks said that
the Kanis Committee agreed with the Mayor's Infrastructure Task
Force on the need for exploring innovative financing mechanisms
for street improvements. Mr. Sparks made a number of remarks
about the funding issue.
Mr. Sparks then told the Planning Commission that the committee
members were asked to rate the land use options, roadway designs
and funding alternatives. Mr. Sparks referred to the Kanis
Report and said the ratings could be found in the executive
summary. (See attached sheets.)
Mr. Sparks said the committee spent many hours discussing
circulation and traffic. He said the committee reviewed traffic
projections generated by Ernie Peters (Chenal Traffic Study) and
Metroplan.
There was a long discussion about Option 3 and a number of
comments were made. Rusty Sparks said that 18 districts
identified on options were illustrative and somewhat conceptual.
2
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.
He said there could be fewer districts, and the area would be
linked by a common denominator. Mr. Sparks indicated that he
thought some support for Option 3 was expressed at the July
public meeting.
Dickson Flake, a committee member, was asked to comment on Option
3. Mr. Flake said that it could paralyze development and create
some problems. Mr. Flake said the property owners would not work
together and coordinating the timing of a development would be
difficult. Mr. Flake told the Commission that he thought Options
1 or 2 were reasonable plans.
Commissioner Craig Berry was also asked to comment on Option 3.
Commissioner Berry said the concept was innovative and the city
was not accustom to doing the type of planning suggested by
Option 3. Commissioner Berry said the Board of Directors needed
to see Option 3 and the development community could be gaining
something by the land use not being specified on the plan.
Commissioner Ron Woods spoke and said Option 3 presented too many
unknowns.
Jeff Hathaway, representing 3 property owners on Kanis, was asked
to address the Commission on Option 3. Mr. Hathaway said he
agreed with Dickson Flake and Option 3 raised some concerns.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, said a Design Overlay District
or other special districts was needed on Kanis Road.
There was some additional discussion about Option 3 and other
issues related to the Kanis Study.
The Planning Commission took no action on the report and said it
would be discussed at the informal meeting on October 16. The
item was deferred to the October 30th hearing and the Commission
would be asked to make a recommendation at that time.
(Staff was asked to develop some pros and cons for the options
and to try to get more information about Option 3. It was also
suggested that staff look at the Option 3 districts to see if
they could be better defined.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997)
The item was introduced by the Chair and staff was asked if there
was any additional information to be presented. Jim Lawson,
Director of Planning and Development, responded and said that
staff had nothing to add. There were a number of interested
individuals in attendance and several had indicated (registration
cards) that they wished to address the Planning Commission.
3
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
Kathleen Oleson, representing the League of Women Voters, read a
prepared statement and added some additional comments. Some of
the major points made by Ms. Oleson included Kanis Road needed to
be a rural suburban boulevard and Option 3 was a unique
opportunity, especially with some design standards. Ms. Oleson
said that the City should explore all the study's proposals and
the Kanis area needed careful planning. Ms. Oleson went on to
say the details of the roadway design and financing the road
improvements were very important elements.
Gladys Post, a resident on White Road, spoke and said she was
representing the homeowners on White Road which she described as
an established residential neighborhood. Ms. Post made a number
of comments and said the residents appreciated the time and
effort that the study committee and Planning Commission have
given to the Kanis Road study. Ms. Post described the Kanis
corridor and asked the Commission to give serious consideration
to the established residential areas when considering the various
options.
Comments were then offered by several of the planning
commissioners. Commissioner Hawn said that the Commission should
accept the committee's vote on the options. Commissioner Putnam
voiced his support for Option 2 because he said it was a middle
of the road concept. He made some other remarks. Commissioner
Earnest said Option 3 provided more flexibility and presented a
concept that would allow developers to pull back from the
regulations. Chairman Lichty expressed some concerns with Option
3. Commissioner Daniel said he viewed Kanis from Shackleford to
Bowman as being commercial and from Bowman to the west as being
very different. Commissioner Rahman said that Option 3 presented
some unique opportunities for the city. Commissioner Hawn spoke
again and said CATA has concerns with the parkway with service
roads design. Commissioner Putnam suggested that the Commission
forward the study to the Board of Directors without a
recommendation. Commissioner Berry commented on creating a
vision for Kanis and the need for some design standards.
There was some additional discussion and the commissioners were
asked to vote on their preferred options for land use, roadway
design and funding. The votes were as follows:
Land Use
Option 1 - 1
Option 2 - 3
Option 3 - 3
Option 4 - 0
Roadwav Desitin
Standard minor arterial - 3
Minor arterial five lane - 0
Parkway with service - 3
type roads
4
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
Funding
Developer pays for improvements - 0
Nontraditional general - 4
obligation bonds
Improvements districts - 1
Impact fees - 0
(Some commissioners abstained from voting on the options.)
Because none of the options received a majority vote of the
Commission, the study would be forwarded to the Board of
Directors without any recommendations.
STAFF UPDATE:
In order to bring closure to the Kanis Road Corridor Study, City
Staff reviewed the four future land use options and three
proposed roadway designs as developed by the Kanis Road Corridor
Committee. Based on this effort, staff developed
recommendations for future land use and roadway design. In
addition, staff examined criteria to be included in a Design
Overlay District for Kanis Road.
A memorandum with the staff's recommendations was forwarded to
the Board of Directors on March 31, 1998. A discussion of the
Kanis Road Study took place at the May 12, 1998 agenda meeting
and the Board of Directors determined this item should be
returned to the Planning Commission since the recommendations had
not been presented to the Commission. The Board of Directors
felt the Planning Commission should review the future land use
option and roadway design and formulate a recommendation.
Staff reviewed the Kanis Road Study and recommendations at the
Commission's informal meeting held May 28, 1998. The Commission
was also asked to support the concept of developing a Design
Overlay District for the Kanis Road Corridor. At the May 28,
1998 informal meeting the Commission decided to add the Kanis
Road Study to the June 25, 1998 public meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff generally supports the Committee's Land Use Option One, as
presented on October 30, 1997. Option One allows for more
flexibility and less intense land development. Based on the
current topographical features of the area, this is the best
economic use of the terrain. Consideration was also given to the
existing development pattern in the area. Although this option
emphasizes a less intense development pattern the recommended
option does allow for more intense development at major
intersections. (Staff did recommended some changes east of South
5
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
Bowman Road to Shackleford Road to bring existing land use in
conformance with the future land use plan.)
Staff recommendation for the roadway design is a four lane
divided standard minor arterial with the following footnote added
to the Master Street Plan: 'The design standard for Kanis Road
from Chenal Parkway to Bowman Road shall be the standard minor
arterial (with median) with median breaks only at street
intersections. Road construction shall be held until an entire
segment between two public streets is constructed, unless
necessary to provide turning lanes when warranted due to
intensity of development.'
Staff also recommends the development of a Design Overlay
District for the Kanis Road Corridor. Some of the items to be
included in the Design Overlay District Ordinance are building
setbacks, fences, signage, access points to Kanis Road, parking
lot layout, landscaping, utility placement, lighting design and
layout, and minimum lot size.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 25, 1998)
Staff presented a review of the background of the. Kanis Road
Corridor.
Stan Hastings, landowner along the corridor, addressed the
Commission stating he was in support of the plan as presented by
staff. He felt the land use plan and the roadway design were the
best use of lands in the area. He also stated it was obvious the
city was moving west and that land use and roadway design should
be addressed prior to development. In addition property lines
and the exact location of land use designations could be
addressed when property is zoned.
O.C. Sparks, Chairman of the Kanis Road Corridor Study Committee,
addressed the Committee in support of the land use and roadway
design. He stated there were four points the Committee reached a
consensus on and felt the commission should be aware of prior to
making a decision. The four points are as follows:
The City should develop a non-traditional approach to funding of
the roadway. The roadway should be developed all at one time and
not be allowed to be constructed in segments. It is important to
develop a funding mechanism to meet this recommendation.
The Kanis Road Corridor needed to be widened for safety reasons.
It is important to widen prior to future expansion and growth in
the area.
The preservations of the natural environment as much as possible
were a great concern of the committee. Development should be
compatible with future growth in the area.
r
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
City officials should avoid allowing Kanis Road to "strip out"
like other corridors in the city such as Rodney Parham.
The land use recommended by staff supports the less intensity of
uses by allowing suburban office and low density residential.
The plan has reduced the intensity of use at the intersection
Kanis Road, Cooper Orbit and Kirby Road. The entry point of
Point West Subdivision also has a reduced intensity of use. The
three blocks of low density residential near Baker Elementary and
White Road should addresses concerns of the White Road residents
and the single family classification from Cooper Orbit to Pride
Valley should address the concerns of the existing neighborhoods
to the north of Kanis Road.
One issue that will need to be addressed is the depth of the land
use plan. Some of the lots along White Road are 1600 feet deep.
What happens to these parcels has a direct effect on the
residents of White Road and consideration should be given to not
allow another Birchwood to occur.
Funding is the largest issue the Commission and the Board must
face. It is important to construct the roadway all at one time
and develop a funding mechanism to allow for the total
construction. He did express concern of a center median. The
concern stated was the lack of maintenance. It ,is important to
acquire the full 90 -foot of right of way at this time since the
cost now is as "cheap" as it will ever be.
He also spoke in support of design overlay lay district for the
Corridor. It is important to address the rural character of the
area through design guidelines, building setbacks and
landscaping.
Ms. Gladys Post addressed the commission in support of the plan
with a concern of the depth of the plan in the White Road area.
This was not only her concern but was a concern of many residents
along White Road. Commercial exists in the area and the
residents do not which any more encroachment by commercial.
Mr. Lawson stated the exact depth of the plan had not been
determined. The existing topography and in some cases land
ownership will determine the depth of the plan. The depth will
also be set by development. He stated that this was a land use
plan, lines must be drawn somewhere and once development occurs
with zoning the exact lines will be drawn.
Tom Cole, Vogle Jones Realty, representing a client, FMN
Industries, addressed the commission stating his client was an
existing business and would like the plan changed to indicate a
conforming use. He stated the client owns 16.5 acres in two lots
and would like the plan to reflect the southern most lot to be
represented as Service Trades District.
Ms. Sandra Fiser, owner of FMN Industries, also addressed the
commission stating her company employed twenty persons and would
7
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.
like the designation on the land use plan to reflect the existing
business.
Mari B. Lee, area resident, stated she had also written the
commission a letter expressing her view. She stated she felt the
plan should reflect quite business or commercial and not single
family along the corridor.
Alice Rafferty questioned the change from Mixed Office Commercial
to Neighborhood Commercial on her property located on the
southwest corner of Kanis and Bowman. Mr. Lawson indicated the
change was to bring the existing use in conformance with the
plan.
Michael Schrader, Traffic Engineer for Metroplan, addressed the
commission with concerns for the construction of a four -lane
roadway. He stated he was the staff member for Metroplan whom
conducted a feasibility study on the corridor to warrant roadway
design. He projected Kanis Road would carry under 10;000 cars
per day and to construct a four lane was over building. He
stated Kanis Road was a local access generator and feeds traffic
from neighborhoods and out to an arterial network. He stated in
his opinion the roadway should be a two lane with bike paths but
the city should acquire the full 90 foot of right-of-way at this
time.
Jim McKenzie, Executive Director of Metroplan, stated he had
served on the Kanis Road Corridor Study Committee as well as on
the Chenal Parkway and the Mayor's Infrastructure Task Force. He
stated according to the traffic model studies Kanis Road would
not relieve traffic on Chenal Parkway. He also stated a two-lane
roadway would carry the traffic volume for the 20 -year projected
period. He also stated it was not fair for the city to require
developer to pay for the cost of roadway construction. when
developers bear the cost of construction the zoning is more
intense to allow for payment of the expense of the roadway.
He also stated the key to development of a useful design overlay
district was through visuals. He commented the city should
acquire the tools necessary to allow for visuals when working
with the residents in the future.
Dottie Funk, City Beautiful Commissioner, asked the commission to
take into consideration some of the specifics of the draft design
overlay district. City Beautiful has concerns with curb cuts
should only be allowed every 600 feet, all tree replacement
should be 3 inch in caliper, more specifics should be given on
tree replacement and the mature tree protection zone. Any
allowances to the tree replacement or the tree protection zone
should be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. The
commission should enact penalties for ignoring excavation
ordinance and sidewalk placement should be sensitive to the area
and not be required to be placed next to the street margin. The
building height, (Coger Center) should be allowed to exceed two
stories if trees are retained to block visibility from the street
8
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
and building exceptions should only be allowed by the Planning
Commission.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, address the commission on
several issues. The four -lane roadway should require a
landscaped median and the addition of bike paths should be
included. The roadway design did not address public
transportation nor did the roadway allow for express lanes for
car-pooling and van pooling. She also stated funding could be
addressed through a bond issue or improvement district in the
area. She stated the importance of the roadway being constructed
in one single project. She stated the plan as presented needed
to be improved in areas of landscaping, design, recreation,
financing and the implementation of a design overlay district.
Don Schultneis, Pastor of Rose Hill Nazarene Church, questioned
the plan as far as roadway relocation. Mr. Lawson stated the
area he expressed concern was park/open space, and the road was
not to be realigned in the area of his church.
Commissioner Mizan Rahman recommended the commission take
separate votes on each of the items, future land use, roadway
design, design overlay district and funding.
A motion was made to accept option one of the future land use
plan as presented by staff. The motion carried 6-3-2.
A second motion was made to amend the Master Street Plan for the
Kanis Road Corridor as presented by staff. The motion failed 0-
9-2.
Mr. Jim Lawson stated the need for a four -lane roadway in the
area. He commented that Chenal Parkway was designated to be a
six -lane roadway but was only constructed to four lanes. He
stated the need for a four lane on Kanis Road was to relieve the
traffic on Chenal Parkway.
Bob Turner, Assistant Director of Public Works stated the need
for an enhanced roadway design along Kanis. He also commented
due to the topography of the area a four lane roadway would be
expensive to construct.
Jim McKenzie stated the traffic projection model used by
Metroplan was the same traffic projection model used by the State
of Arkansas. The model generates long-range traffic projections
for roadways and is used by the city, on a regional basis and by
the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.
Commissioner Richard Downing, asked what other options was
available for roadway design.
Commission Craig Berry stated the other two options reviewed by
the committee was the standard five -lane arterial and a boulevard
with service type roads. The public paid for the center lanes
and the developers paid for the access roads. A two lane with
9
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
center turn lane with restricted turn lanes at intersections a
more controlled access facility was a possibility but was not an
option addressed by the committee.
Commissioner Ron Muse requested Michael Schrader give a
recommendation for roadway design. He suggested a 36 foot wide
roadway with two 12 foot bike lanes and a turn bay at
intersections would allow for future development. The 90 -foot of
right of way is important to retain at this time.
A motion was made for the roadway design to be an enhanced two-
lane roadway with bike paths and a center turn lane at major
intersections and 90 foot of right of way to be designed by
public works. The motion carried 8-0-2 with 1 abstention.
Ms. Mari B. Lee addressed the Commission with her concerns of
Kanis Road remaining a two-lane corridor. She commented on the
volume of traffic on the corridor from 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. coming
into the city.
Mr. O.C. Sparks addressed the commission on his concerns with the
volume of traffic that would feed into Kanis from existing
developments in the area. He stated internally of Kanis at full
build -out 14,000 to 17,000 cars per day would be generated. This
is based on calculations provided by public works_. 192 acres
development off Cooper Orbit Road will generate 7,000 to 8,000
cars per day. In addition there is 240 acres of prime
residential land that will feed into Kanis at Cooper Orbit that
will be developed that is not included in these numbers. The
development of Kroger on the West end of Kanis will generate
traffic on Kanis Road. The 90 -foot of right of way is important
because if the projections are wrong, the roadway can be
constructed.
A motion was made for the support of the development of a design
overlay district for the Kanis Road Corridor. The motion carried
8-0-2 with 1 abstention.
Commission Richard Downing stated the need for public financing.
The financing should not rest on the property owners. If the
road has to be widened in the future someone should pay the cost
other than property owners. Assessment fees to pay for future
developments and public financing should pay for the roadway.
The future land use plan will not hold up if developers have to
pay for the roadway. The 90 -foot right of way will have to be
donated to the city at the time of development.
Commission Mizan Rahman stated there were funds that would need
to be spent on the corridor. He stated there were sight distance
problems, curb and gutter and bike lanes that would have to be
added. He stated he did not want the citizens of Little Rock to
fund a four -lane roadway in the area to benefit a few residents.
10
June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
Mr. Jim Lawson stated that when a property owner applied for his
property to be rezoned the 90 -foot right of way dedication would
be given at that time. The owner would the begin set back
requirements from the site of the future road. The only
alternatives for building the roadway at this point are general
obligation bonds since we are not a Home Rule State. This limits
the city ability to fund development.
A motion was made for the funding of the roadway to be funded by
public financing. The motion carried 9-0-2.
Mr. Bob Wilson addressed the Commission during the Citizen
Communication portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Wilson
questioned the Commission's action of the road construction
development for Kanis Road. Commissioner Hugh Earnest stated his
intention was that the motion reflect the roadway be constructed
as an integral unit segment. The roadway has not been designed
so it is difficult to say how it will be constructed., An
amendment was made to the motion to reflect the intentions of the
Commission the roadway be constructed all at one time.
11
RESOLLTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
FOR THE KAKIS RAOD CORRIDOR, AND FOR OTHER
MATTERS.
WHEREAS, a Study Committee was established by the Mayor to
examine the existing and future development patterns along the
Kanis Road Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Kanis Road Study Committee examined the
existing land use, the Future Land Use Plan and the Master Street
Plan for the Kanis Corridor and made recommendations for
potential development patterns in the area; and
WHEREAS, the Committee recognizes that development can occur
and be environmentally friendly while preserving the natural
character of the area and the scenic beauty of the Kanis Road
Corridor while retaining the existing landscape; and,
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined the current city
ordinances do not address the particular concerns for the Kanis
Road Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined a design overlay
district for the Kanis Road Corridor would address some of the
concerns of the area; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined some of the items to
be included in the Design Overlay Ordinance are building
setbacks, fences, signage, access points to Kanis Road, parking
lot layout, landscaping, protection of existing vegetation and
replacement, utility placement, lighting design and layout,
sidewalks design and layout, building form and minimum lot size.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Little
Rock does hereby support the request of the Kanis Road Study
Committee to develop the standards for a design overlay district
for the Kanis Road Corridor from Bowman Road to Chenal Parkway.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
Secretary
Chairman
ro
rh
..J
r
LU
M-
i+
_z
a
ry-
<
b
D
�
z
v J
1-4
�.y
4
.�y
O
O
.b
U
C%]
Y
"d ~
U C6
R.
PQ
blo
Cd
a
�y
A
Io�
Yi
AAA
3
b
c
cd
cl
O
a
.�
SI --IAC KELFOR�
FROA[> TO NIX ROA1E>
Is \1. o
SF = single family residential
LDR = low density residential
MF = multi family residential '
MH = mobile home park
O = office
SO = suburban office
C = commercial
CS = community shopping
NC = neighborhood commercial
MOC = mixed office and commercial
MOW = mixed office and warehouse
PK/OS = park/open space
PX = public/institutional
T = transition
STD service trades district
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
to CS
GAMBLE F�pRp TO F0FRIpE VALLEY
0
c
C
so
so s
'RIDE VALLEY
I PI
SF = single family residential
LDR = low density residential
MF = multi family residential
MH = mobile home park to L
U = office
SO= suburban office
C = commercial
CS = community shopping
NC =neighborhood commercial
MOC = mixed office and commercial
MOW = mixed office and warehouse
PK/OS = parklopen space
PX = public/institutional pQ
T = transition vo
STD service trades district
W
to
E
SF
CMARKHA
PK/os to SO l--'
W to LDR
SF
z
Am LAND USE PLAN ENT
NORTH
A COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
April 6, 1998
Mr. Cy Carney
City Manager
City of Little Rock
500 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Cy:
y
t° APR 0 8 10'9'8
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your recommendations on
Kanis Road. After spending a number of months on the Kanis Study
Committee, I do have some thoughts on the matter. In short, I believe that
your recommendations miss a very real opportunity to set a different pattern
of development in west Little Rock, that they continue bad development
practices (especially as related to infrastructure funding), and that the land
use recommendations, like the City's land use plan for Chenal Parkway, mean
very little.
From a cursory reading, your design guidelines appear to be very
inefficient in the use of land; in particular, they require excessive building set-
backs that guarantee parking will front buildings -- the classic suburban design
motif that is pedestrian and transit unfriendly. The pages of text witbbout
illustrations are just exactly what the Kanis Study Committee did not support.
No citizen can read that text and have the faintest idea what will be built on
Kanis Road. Neither can I.
As you recall, Metroplan did an extensive sub -area travel model analysis
on the Kanis corridor using a variety of assumptions. In no case did Kanis
carry a significant amount of traffic in our twenty year projections. That has
significant implications on being able to build a four lane divided facility in a
reasonable time period. The Study Committee felt quite strongly that the
roadway should be improved in one piece.
501 West Markham Suite B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone (501) 372-3300 Fax (501) 372-8060
Mr. Cy Carney
April 6, 1998
Page 2
Finally, the Kanis Study Committee felt that all of its options had merit
and that all of them should be presented to both the Planning Commission and
the Board for their consideration. It does not appear that has happened, and I
think that is unfortunate and a breach of faith with the citizens that
volunteered their time to serve on the Study Committee.
Sincerely yours,
im cKenzie
Exe tive Director
cc: Rusty Sparks, Kanis Road Study Committee Chairman
Mayor Jim Dailey
Director Michael Keck
eL Womac
League of Women Voters
Pulaski County
5209 G Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
Phone & FAX (501) 664-1136
AFFILIATED WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES
May 2,1998
Telephone &Fax:
Mayor Dailey and
(501) 664-1136
City Board
City Hall
Officers:
Little Rock, Ar.
President:
Dear Mayor Dailey and Board Members:
Judy L. Smith
`'e i.. the Leaguc are appreciative of your concern with
ClaudeVice Presidents:
tta Harrod
Kanis Road redevelopment and of this opportunity to
Millie
Millie Havard Hansen
respond to the Kanis Road proposal before you.
Treasurer &
We would want the Kanis Road of 2010 to retain a sense of the
Membership Treasurer.
green country road it has been, as it presents a combination of
Martha Bass
residential, suburban office, and neighborhood commercial uses
Membership Chairs:
coexisting harmoniously.
Belinda Shults
Carolyn Richesin
Our comments on Mr. Carney's Kanis Road proposal are:
Secretary:
Land Use Recommendation:
Sue Clark
We feel these designations, although giving thought to the
Action Chair.
unique topography of the area, allow more intense uses than the
Ruth Bell
ones - residential, suburban office and neighborhood commerical -
we prefer.
Development Committee:
Emily Barrier
Roadway Design:
Ruth Bell
The four land divided roadway design is probably needed.
Charlotte Crawford
Vivian Davis
We would prefer a landscaped median. As hillside cuts and
Susan Inman
"~�~~ required, ��V landscaping
roadibe fill are required .ve recommend intense landscaping and
Shirley McFarlin
terracing along the roadway to lessen the visual impact on drivers
Kathleen Oleson
and residents.
Julie Orr
Carolyn Richesin
Jean Saunders
Judy Smith
AFFILIATED WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Zkt,,w I
Costs of Roadway Construction:
It is very important that the roadway be constructed at
one time, and if the cost is not borne by the City, that it be
spread among all who benefit from the road. Impact fees or
improvement districts are two funding sources, if the City is
still without home rule capabilities.
Overlay District Design Standards:
We are very pleased with the attention the standards
devote to tree retention, maintenance and planting; the siting of
parking lots to sides and back of property; and building setback
requirements thoughtful of adjacent users.
Signage, utilities, lighting, sidewalk, and building form
standards are excellent.
We have concerns about the following Design Overlay Standards.
Landscaping, protection and replacement of trees.
We have talked about saving on site trees and shrubs over
the years and have been remarkably unsuccessful in accomplishing
it. That will not change unless the DOD includes meaningful legal
and financial penalties for "dozing" marked trees and shrubs. We
recommend a hefty tree cost ($500-$1,000) for taking down pro-
tected trees, coupled with a requirement that they be replaced with
like trees. DOD language should make clear that "it wasn't me, it
was my subcontractor" is not an acceptable excuse.
We prefer tree density of 18 trees per acre, with majority of
them hardwoods, and would like a prohibition on clear cutting
tracts subject to the Kanis Road DOD.
Access Points:
We prefer access points 1 every 600 feet, due to safety
concerns and to maintain a boulevard feel to the roadway.
Lot Size:
In view of the areas's difficult topography, and DOD
setback, height, parking lot location requirements, we think a
minimum lot size of 2 acres would give developers a better
return for their investment.
-TL -t,, 7
Loopholes:
We are concerned that #15A of the proposal
could become the loophole that would negate all DOD
standards. Section 15A would allow exceptions to the DOD
due to topography, irregular lot shape or other constraints.
Given the lay of the land along Kanis, topography will
impact any development along it.
We request that specific criteria be established for
eligibility for exceptions to DOD requirements, and be made
part of the DOD ordinance.
Public Transit:
Public transit is not part of this proposal. We feel that
any plan that will increase traffic should have a public transit
component.
Variances:
The proposal offers the possibility of granting variances
from DOD requirements. Such variances should be granted by
the Planning Commission rather than administratively.
The Kanis Road proposal has much that is excellent, but many
specifics need to be worked out. Rather than doing that at Board
level, we recommend the proposal be returned to the Planning
Commission, where citizens, property owners, neighborhood
planning groups can have input to plan details.
Judy Lo n Smith
President
cc:Cy Carney
cc: Planning Commission
FMN INDUSTRIES, INC.
14309 Kana Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone 501-224-0080
Fax 501-223-7341
May 21, 1998
Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning Director
Ms. Donna James, Staff
Planning & Development, City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
RE: Kanis Road Study (1997 & 1998) & Little Rock City Manager Land
Use Plan (April 1998)
Dear Mr. Lawson & Ms. Dorma James:
Please be advised that I am writing each of you in regard to that certain land described as
Tract B 16 and Tract B 17, Sach's Suburban Addition, Pulaski County, Arkansas pursuant to a
recent meeting with Ms. Donna James and Jim Gattis, a representative of our corporation,
regarding input on land use issues. Consequently, I am hereby requesting that my family
corporation's land as described herein be submitted as "Suburban Office" to any and all standing
or future committees regarding furlure land use planning.
Furthermore, I am assuming that this land use category will allow for office and
office/warehouse uses.
Please insert my name on your list of contact people regarding land use issues in my
respective land use planning district and keep me informed in a timely manner.
In the event you have questions please contact me @ 225-9798 otherwise please respond in
writing to our address confirming this request.
Sincerely yous,
J.Thomas Fiser,
President
Sandra N.
Secretary reasurer
CC: Ms. Donna James
s
s
TWMI 11■
ti
I ) i
M■
BID
a
Z.
U
M
N
Z
N
U
e
A
� V
a
o
u
Lw
W
V
O
�. L
O
c
<
Q
N
i
N N O a Q
O
a W ; "� a
C M M QQ
W
Q
N 11 N
N
CO)
f
W
cc
o n ao •o eo
�1
O
H �
■
_...
4 Aq z
O 6 ::)
Ov
►
`o
4
r�
—4
pq �
H
H W w
ti
I ) i
M■
BID
a
Z.
N
Z
e
A
a•
C
u
N
(
�. L
O
U
W
LL
N N O a Q
O
a W ; "� a
C M M QQ
W
Q
N 11 N
N
CO)
IV
W
cc
o n ao •o eo
cc cc
Z.
Lij.`. .
Z
J
u
O�
0
(
�. L
U
W
LL
C.) W
O
-37_ke_�,j q
JUNE 8, 1998
Little Rock Board of Planning and Development
West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Subject: Kanis Road Planning Meeting June 25, 1998
1. I have been there several times trying to get a copy of our
signature for the Point West Subdivision in back of our house at
13 201 West Kanis Road. I want to see a copy.
2. How many people know that is considered a "blanket
permission" slip for a subdivision to keep growing and growing
without need for further permission?
3. A remark was made to the effect in Arkansas Business,"that an
effort is being made to keep a stampede from happening -that of
home owners wanting: to get their property zoned as commercial."
Why should it not be the homeowners who have lived there for
years, maintained and paid taxes and insurance on the property.
Why not them rather than professional opportunists/investors?
4. Will we have maps showing access roads and utility access?
5. Will we be furnished the names of all the owners of home and
raw land owners, developers who own the land so we can see who is
going to benefit?
6. Some people have bought at the intersection of Chenal and Kanis,
and are sitting it out,these people are already wealthy.
7. What has happened to the Simpson Subdivision, Block 1 and 2,
has the zoning proposed diminshed the value of the property. What
is LDR-limited density residential, does that encompass
condominiums and apartment buildings?
8. What kind of planning is this, why would this not be commercial
here, next to Bowman feed in? This will be an access point, with
backed up traffic, and noise and should be commercial, why further
out? Who would want to live near the exhaust of all of these cars?
9. Will this not be backed up like the feed -in off Cantrell Road to
Conway at 5: p.m. in the evenine?
S`-v,V l
10. How much does Point West Subdivision influence these houses
staying residential? This will not be a residential area, too much
fumes and exhaust.
11. I live at 30 Tallyho Lane, my yard is being marked with yellow
T's, what is going on, what are the plans for my house? Why are we
not informed?
12,' What is the best city map for locating, libraries, ponds,
churches,post offices, banks, grocery and pharmacy stores?
13. At what time of day may neighbors put out trash and leave it all
weekend in front of another's house?
14. What is the best way to find out what surrounding property is
being sold for?
Thanks for your attention to these questions.
M. B. Lee
30 Tallyho Lane ��.
94 -A -
Little Rock, Arkansas 72227
1 501 225 2468
Js: �aR ccs Nns /4-� d°j�'
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION
May 19,1998 AGENDA
Subject
Kanis Road Plan
Recommendations
Action Required
✓Ordinance
✓Resolution.^
Approval
Information Report
Submitted By
}
`4
Cy Carney
City Manager
SYNOPSIS
Kanis Road Plan Recommendations for land use and
roadway design.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the land use changes, a four
lane divided roadway, a standard minor arterial, for Kanis
Road and develop the standards for a design overlay
district. Also included in the roadway recommendations
are median. breaks only at street intersections and the
staging of construction.
CITIZEN
The Kanis Road Corridor Study Committee presented land
PARTICIPATION
use, roadway design and funding options to the public at a
town hall meeting in July 1997'. The Planning Commission
held public hearings on the study on October 2 and 30,
1997. The Commission could not reach a consensus on the
options and the study was not forwarded to the Board for
final action.
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the
Planning Staff to undertake a study of the Kanis Corridor.
A nine -member citizen committee was appointed and met
first in December of 1996. The study area was originally
to be Kanis Road from Rodney Parham to Ferndale, but the
committee focused on the section of Kanis Road from
Shackleford to Chenal. The boundaries to the north and
south were flexible to assure surrounding impacts and
issues were included.
BACKGROUND
CONTINUED
�4+nv 7
Committee members agreed on a number of tasks that
needed to be accomplished as a part of their work to ensure
a comprehensive review of the issues. Those included a
review of the existing land use and zoning patterns, a
review of the Future Land Use and Master Street Plans, a
review of the current development trends and the Chenal
Parkway Corridor Study, discussions of a design overlay
district (DOD), roadway design and funding alternatives.
The Kanis Road Study Committee developed four land use
options, three roadway design options and funding
alternatives for presentation at a public hearing held July
1997. After the public presentation, the committee
members were asked to rate the four land use options, the
three roadway design options and the funding alternatives.
The ratings are included in the study's portion titled
Executive Summary.
Rusty Sparks, Chairperson of the Kanis Road Study
Committee, first presented the Kanis Road item to the
Planning Commission October 2, 1997. Mr. Sparks
presented the areas of concentration along with the
committee's "field trip" to get a better feel for the existing
conditions and development patterns along the Kanis Road
Corridor. The Commission took no action and deferred the
item to the October 30'b hearing. The commission also
determined it necessary to discuss the item at an informal
meeting on October 16`b.
Staff presented pros and cons for each of the options to the
Commission at the October 10b informal meeting. Also
staff presented detailed information on the large-scale
unified development districts, the study's option three,
which would have to be submitted as planned unit _
developments.
At the October 30m public hearing, the study was discussed
at length and the Commissioners were asked to vote on
their preferred options for land use, roadway design and
funding. The votes were as follows:
Land use: Option 1-1, Option 2 — 3, Option 3 — 3,
Option 4 — 0
Roadway design: Standard minor arterial — 3, Minor arterial
five lane — 0, Parkway with service type roads — 3 Funding:
Developer pays — 0, Non-traditional general obligation
bonds — 4, Improvement district —1, Impact fees — 0.
BACKGROUND Because none of the options received a majority vote of the
CONTINUED Commission, the study was not forward to the Board of
Directors.
In order to bring this issue to a closure staff reviewed the
four land use options, the three roadway designs and the
request for the development of a design overlay district.
Staff recommendations were presented to the Board of
Directors in a9dMarch 31, 1998 memorandum. The item
titled General Development Standards, Kanis Road Design
Criteria, are areas of concerns and issues that should be
addressed in a design overlay district for Kanis Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning Staff to undertake a study of the
Kanis corridor. The Board viewed the Kanis corridor as a fast developing area which needed
special treatment. A nine member citizen committee was appointed and first met in December
1996.
The study area was originally to be Kanis Road from Rodney Parham to Ferndale, but the
committee focused on the section of Kanis Road from Shackleford to Chenal. Areas to the north
and south of Kanis Road were also included, up to a half mile. The boundaries were flexible, to
assure surrounding impacts and issues were included.
Staff developed a process for the corridor study and the committee members agreed on a number
of tasks that needed to be accomplished as part of their work and to ensure a comprehensive
review of the issues. This included a review of the existing land use and zoning patterns, a review
of the Future Land Use and Master Street Plans, a review of the current development trends in
the area and a review of the Chenal Task Force recommendations and the Chenal Parkway
Corridor Study.
The Kanis Road Study Committee met for a period of nine months and concentrated on three
primary issues: land use, roadway design and funding alternatives. The committee developed
options for the three focus issues and the committee's work was presented to the public at a July
1997 meeting.
The options for land use, roadway design and funding are as follows.
Land Use:
Option 1 - a mixed use concept with an emphasis on low density and suburban
office.
Option 2 - a mixed use approach, but more intense than Option 1.
Option 3 - designating eighteen "large scale unified development districts that
can only be developed under a planned unit development.
Option 4 - the current land use plan with no changes.
Roadway Design
• Standard minor arterial (four lane)
• Minor arterial five lane without bike lane
• Parkway with service type roads
Funding
• Developer pays for improvements
• Nontraditional general obligation bonds
•. Improvement districts
�-bLv4-, `Z
As the committee's last task, the members were requested to rate the four land use options, the
three roadway design options and the funding alternatives. Committee members were asked to
rate the options from their first choice to their last. Seven out of the nine members rated the
options. Following are the ratings and the one with the highest point total is the preferred option.
Land Use
Points
Option 1
22
Option 2
16
Option 3
19
Option 4
7
Roadway Design
Standard minor arterial 16
Minor arterial five lane 6
Parkway with service type roads 19
Funding
Developer pays for improvements 7
Nontraditional general obligation bonds 18
Improvement districts 14
Impact fees (added by committee member) 3
The committee was also asked if there is a need for a Design Overlay District along Kanis and a
majority voted yes (six yes, one no).
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION
aAk,k,..J 7
TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: CY CARNEY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: KAKIS ROAD PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE: MARCH 31,1998
Last year the Kanis Road Study Committee developed four land use options for
consideration, including the option of no changes to the current plan. There were also
three options for the roadway design. A final Kanis plan was not sent to the City Board
for final action since no consensus was reached by the Planning Commission.
I believe the plan should be forwarded to the Board and that there must be action on a
final plan. There is some concern about proceeding with the staff recommendation. It
would be unusual to proceed with a recommendation since the Planning Commission
could not agree on an option. Some of the members of the Kanis Study Committee may
also be concerned since no clear community consensus was reached and some citizens
and landowners may feel that they have not had current input since the Plan has been on
"hold" for quite sometime. The staff recommendations for land use, roadway design and
design criteria for Kanis Road are outlined below.
♦ Land Use Recommendation
Staff generally supports the Committee's Land Use Option One, as presented on
October 30, 1997. Option One allows for more flexibility and less intense land
development. Based on the current topographical features of the area, this is the best
economic use of the terrain. Consideration was also given to the existing
development pattern in the area. Although this option emphasizes a less intense
development pattern the recommended option does allow for more intense
development at major intersections.
These are the proposed land use changes from Bowman Road to Chenal Parkway
which correspond to the attached map.
1. Mixed Office Commercial and Service Trades District @ intersection of
Bowman and Kanis
2. Suburban Office Northside of Kanis to Atkins
3. Low Density Residential Northside of Kanis to Parkway Place
4. Suburban Office Northside of Kanis to Asbury .
5.. Mixed Office Commercial Northside of Kanis to Kirby
6. Single Family Northside Kanis to Pride Valley
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
:IlkiL"v 11
Page 2
Kanis Road Study
March 31, 1998
7. Suburban Office Northside of Kanis to Rock Creek
8.. Park/Open Space Northside of Kanis along Rock Creek .
9.. Commercial Northside Kanis to Cherial Parkway
10. Neighborhood Commercial Southside of Kanis to Atkins
11. Suburban Office Southside of Kanis to Gamble
12. Low Density Residential Southside of Kanis to White Road
13. Suburban Office Southside of Kanis to Asbury
14. Mixed Office Commercial Southside of Kanis to Kirby
15. Suburban Office Southside of Kanis to unnamed drive
16. Low Density Residential Southside of Kains to Baker Lane
17. Public/Institutional Southside of Kanis at Baker School
18. Suburban Office Southside of Kanis at Pride Valley
19. Park/Open Space Southside of Kanis at Rock Creek
20. Service Trades District Southside of Kanis to Chenal Parkway
The study committee did not recommend changes to the plan from Shackleford Road
to Bowman Road. Based on staff's review, several land use modifications are being
recommended to recognize existing zoning and land use. The proposed changes are:
21. Neighborhood Commercial on the Southeast corner of Bowman and Kanis
22. Office on the Southside of Kanis Road near Center View Drive
23. Community Shopping at the Southwest corner of Shackleford and Kanis
♦ Roadway Design
1. Roadway Four Lane Divided - Standard Minor Arterial
➢ Median Breaks at Intersections
➢ Limits Curb Cuts
➢ Roadway constructed all at one time and not as development takes
place parcel by parcel
♦ Design Criteria (Overlay District)
➢ General Development Standards Attached
Please carefully review the recommendations. I plan to schedule a work session in the
next few weeks to finalize the plan. I look forward to your suggestions. If you have
questions, please call.
Attachments:
1. Map
2. General Design Criteria
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning 65U-Devellopment Planning
Zoning and
723 West Markham Subdivision
Little Rock, -Arkansas 72201-1334
(501) 371-4790
Dear Area Resident and / or Property Owner:
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning Staff to undertake
a study of the Kanis Road Corridor, which the Board viewed as a fast developing
area, and needed special treatment. A nine member citizen committee was
appointed and began meeting in December of 1996.
As a part of the process, the committee examined the Future Land Use, roadway
design and funding alternatives for the Kanis Road Corridor. The issues were
presented to the public at an open house in July of 1997. Four land use options,
three roadway design options and funding alternatives were presented to
interested individuals and property owners. After review of the options and
public comments, the Committee determined all options should be presented to
the Planning Commission for Public Hearing consideration.
A Public Hearing was held on October 2, 1997. After a lengthy discussion of the
four Future Land Use Options and the three roadway designs, the Commission
took no action on the report and determined it would be a topic for discussion at
an informal working session on October 16, 1997. The report was deferred to
the October 30th Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted on each of the
options at the October 30th Public Hearing; none of the options received a
majority vote.
In an effort to bring some closure to the Kanis Road Corridor Study, City Staff will
make recommendations on Future Land Use and roadway design to the Planning
Commission at a regularly scheduled Public Hearing. (Enclosed are the
proposed Future Land Use Plan amendments, and the recommended roadway
design.)
DATE: June 25, 1998
TIME: 4:00 P.M.
LOCATION: Board Room, 2"d Floor, City Hall
500 West Markham
Written comments should be received prior to June 24, 1998 and addressed to
The City of Little Rock Planning Commission, Attn. Ms. Donna James, 723 West
Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. Should you have any questions or need any
additional information, please feel free to contact Tony Bozynski or Donna James
at (501) 371-4790.
z
I- June 25, 1998
ITEM NO.: 8 OTHER MATTERS
REQUEST: The owners of Lot 9 Hillvale
Addition desire to remove a
covenant on the land that was
placed by adoption of the Rock
Creek Zoning Plan in 1977.
STAFF REPORT•
This request is one of a continuing number of covenants being
presented for release. The Original Rock Creek Plan imposed
these covenant on a select number of sites and none of the
covenant provisions have ever been enforced. The enforcing body
for these provisions was a committee appointed by the City Board.
That committee never held a meeting and disbanded shortly after
appointment.
BASIS FOR COMMISSION ACTION:
The variance or repeal element of the covenants specifically
direct an owner to the Commission for resolution.
The various single property requests that are presented to the
Commission are the result of failure to gain support of all the
affected owners and perform one revision. No one is willing to
undertake the effort.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 1998)
The staff requested permission to add this item to the agenda
because it was not a public hearing item.
wood of staff offered a brief description of the proposed
convenant release, the plan history and how all of the covenants
are no longer valid.
Mr. Rhett Tucker was present and offered a brief comment in
support of his request.
The Commission determined that it would accept the item for
action.
A motion to approve the request was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
I
z m
m
0 w
co
w
d'ZZ
-D 0
cr) M w
w
w
m w o t. az
Cf)
w 0 M 0 S
21192clooll
lommossmalm
ommummummoom
�Zs p(l JW�W
MEMEMEMEMEN
00�����0�00
NNINNIffleffims
w:Oz
D
=> M
OR M
0- m w
M >: w
0 0
W
Z
FEZ
> w o
ww- wzw i rwn
Ec���o
Z
m w C, o< Da nz =Oi
2
I
01
i
June 25, 1998
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Date YZAV
Sr a Chai an