pc_09 20 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the August 9, 1994 meeting were
approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Diane Chachere
Ramsay Ball
John McDaniel
Kathleen Oleson
Bill Putnam
Mizan Rahman
Brad Walker
Emmett Willis
B. J. Wyrick
Ron Woods (arrived after the roll call)
Members Absent: Joe Selz
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. G-23-211 "R" Street - Exclusive Right -of -Way
and Easement Abandonment
B. 1994 Ordinance Amendment
II. REZONING ITEMS
1. Z -4343-H Highway 10/The Ranch C-2 to 0-2
O-2 to C-2
2.
Z -5258-A
West Markham
C-2
to
C-3
3.
Z -5552-B
Mabelvale West Rd. (at Nash Lane)
R-2
to
I-2
4o
Z-5875
5101 "A" St.
R-3
to
0-3
5.
Z-5876
1807, 1813 and 2021 Sanford
R-2
to
R-5
6.
Z-5877
Train Station Drive
R-2
to
C-1
III. OTHER MATTER
7. Fletcher Branch Library C.U.P. - 5805 "H`° Street (Z-5878)
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: G-23-211
Name: "R" Street Exclusive Right -of -Way
and Easement Abandonment
Location: "R" Street, between North Pierce
and North Fillmore Streets
Owner/Applicant: Calvary Baptist Church
by Burt Taggart
Recruest: To abandon the "R" Street
Right -of -Way between North Fillmore
and North Pierce Streets and to
abandon any public easements
located in that portion of public
right-of-way.
The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the
July 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant desires
more time to meet with the neighborhood and city staff in hopes
of finding an acceptable means to abandon or realign this block
of A°R'° Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 26, 1994)
The Committee was informed of the applicant's request to have
this item deferred to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 14, 1994)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that this item be deferred to allow more time to meet with
neighborhood residents and to revise the application.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved for
deferral to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The
vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 7, 1994)
The Committee was informed that the applicant had requested a
second deferral, this time to the September 6, 1994 Planning
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-211
Commission meeting. This deferral will allow for further
development of the plan to realign "R" Street and to continue
meeting with the neighborhood. There was a meeting with the
Heights Merchants Association and the Heights Neighborhood
Association on June 30, 1994.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a request for a
second deferral. As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was
deferred to the September 6, 1994 meeting. The vote was 8 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE AND ANALYSIS:
In response to meetings with the Planning Staff and the staff of
the Public Works Department, the applicant has submitted a
revised application. The revised application asks for the
exclusive abandonment of the north 11.2 feet of the "R°' Street
right-of-way between Fillmore and Pierce Streets and of any
easements located within that 11.2 feet. A 28 foot wide street
with sidewalks on both sides will be constructed in the remaining
40 foot right-of-way.
This block of "R" Street currently contains a 24.5 foot wide
street with sidewalks. Parking is allowed on the south side of
"R°o Street leaving only about 16 feet of pavement to accommodate
the flow of traffic east and west on the street. Calvary Baptist
also has a parking lot located south of this block with a
driveway exiting onto "R" Street. This makes for a dangerous and
congested situation.
If this proposal is approved, the resulting 28 foot wide street
would accommodate parking on one side and leave about 20 feet of
traffic lane for the east/west traffic flow. The driveway
entering the street from the south would also be removed, further
lessening the congestion.
A great deal of neighborhood and staff concern has been raised
over the initial proposals submitted regarding this block of "R11
Street right-of-way. The initial proposal put forth by the
applicant was to close this block of "R" Street altogether. It
became immediately apparent that this proposal had neither staff
nor neighborhood support. The second proposal submitted by the
applicant was a realignment of the right-of-way resulting in a 49
foot offset at the Pierce Street intersection. Again,
neighborhood concern was voiced over the possible negative impact
2
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-211
on businesses which front on "R" Street to both the west and east
of this block. After a thorough review of this proposal, and
taking into consideration such factors as public welfare and
safety, neighborhood effect, and the availability of other
alternatives, the Planning Staff again advised the applicant that
it could not support the application.
This final plan offered by the applicant would retain the direct
east/west alignment of "R" Street. There would be approximately
a 3.85 foot offset to the south from the current alignment of the
street. The resulting 28 foot wide street would be an
improvement over the existing 24.5 foot wide street. The
driveway entering the street from the south would be eliminated,
thus lessening the congestion. The integrity of the Heights
commercial neighborhood fronting on "R'° Street would be
maintained and there should not be a negative impact on the
neighborhood.
Staff is supportive of this final proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this request to abandon the north
11.2 feet of the "R" Street right-of-way between North Pierce and
North Fillmore Streets and to abandon any easements located in
that 11.2 feet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Burt Taggart and Walter Draughon were present representing
Calvary Baptist Church. Mr. Taggart advised the Committee of
this latest proposal and explained the design of the proposed
street. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Burt Taggart and Walter Draughon were present representing
Calvary Baptist Church. Staff reported that a letter had been
received from the applicant and from a representative of those
opposed to the "R" Street abandonment indicating that an
agreement was near. Staff asked the Commission to defer the item
until September 20, 1994 in hopes that an agreement could be
reached between the church and the neighborhood.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved for deferral
to September 20, 1994 by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open
position.
3
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-211
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
Burt Taggart and Walter Draughon were present representing
Calvary Baptist Church. There were several interested
neighborhood business owners present both in favor and in
opposition to the proposed abandonment.
Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and
informed the Commission that the application had been amended to
abandon only the north 9.35 feet of the affected right-of-way.
At the request of the neighborhood, there will be no change in
the street. A new sidewalk would be constructed on the north
side of the street.
Burt Taggart addressed the Commission. He stated that an
agreement had been reached with Pulaski Bank and a coalition of
neighborhood commercial interests represented by the bank.
Mr. Taggart stated that there were one or two individuals still
opposed.
Mark Spradley, representing Pulaski Bank, addressed the
Commission. He stated an agreement had been reached whereby the
north 9.35 feet of right-of-way would be abandoned and the street
itself would be unaffected. A new sidewalk is to be constructed
on the north side of the street. The sidewalk would narrow to 4
feet wide where it is adjacent to the proposed building addition.
A 2 foot wide area of landscaping will be placed between the
building and the sidewalk. The building will then cantilever
over this landscape area and extend to the new property line,
giving a setback of 0 feet.
Larry Parker, owner of F'reddie's at 5719 Kavanaugh Blvd.,
addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. He
stated that he felt the church had adequate property to work
with, without reducing the right-of-way. Mr. Parker also stated
that he opposed the proposed building design.
Commissioner Oleson asked the applicant to discuss the proposed
building design.
Dana Carney reminded the commissioners that the issue before them
was the right-of-way abandonment. The Board of Adjustment will
hear the variance request and will review the building design and
overhang at that time.
Mr. Taggart discussed the proposed building design and informed
the Commission that all plans are preliminary and conceptual at
this point.
Commissioner Putnam stated that he did not have enough
information to vote on the proposal and questioned the
applicant's right to seek abandonment of the right-of-way.
N
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-211
Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, stated that it was
the adjacent landowner's right to petition to abandon right-of-
way. He stated that the land is owned by the adjacent property
owners and that the City has "easement rights" allowing for the
use of the property as public right-of-way.
Mr. Taggart stated that the Church had made an effort to present
the plans to the neighborhood and to as many commission members
as possible.
William "Buddy" Boswell, of 5606 "R" Street addressed the
Commission in favor of the requested abandonment. He stated that
several other business owners in the neighborhood also approved
of the request.
Susan Pfeifer, owner of Design Center at 5104 Kavanaugh Blvd.,
addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal.
Tim Polk, Acting Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, stated that the Department had been involved with the
neighborhood and the applicant to find an acceptable solution.
After a few more comments, a motion was made to recommend
approval of the requested abandonment of the north 9.35 feet of
the "R" Street right-of-way between Pierce and Filmore Streets.
The motion was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent
and 1 abstaining (Mizan Rahman).
5
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B
SUBJECT: An amendment to the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance establishing
rezoning procedure and conditional
approval.
REQUEST: To approve the content and
recommend the draft submitted by
the City Attorney and forward to
the Board of Directors.
STAFF REPORT:
At its meeting on August 2, 1994, the Board of Directors directed
staff to pursue the creation of an ordinance amendment that would
permit the placement of conditions within a rezoning ordinance.
This request resulted from a hearing on an application of
significant interest.
Although the subject of conditional rezoning has been discussed
by the Board and numerous cases approved with conditions the City
Attorney and certain Board members felt that the Zoning Ordinance
should be clear on the matter. The Planning staff worked with
Mr. Carpenter and his staff to draft language that is workable.
it should answer questions that consistently reoccur, while
avoiding both P.U.D. conflict and contract zoning.
The draft submitted is constructed so as to place the applicant
at the control point of allowing the applicant to initiate a
conditional request at the Planning Commission level. The
applicant could introduce use, bulk or area, access or density
restrictions in response to concerns voiced in the Commission
meeting. The application would come to the Board with the
Commission's recommendation. The Board would then act to
approve, deny, modify or return for more study.
We feel this amendment will permit all involved parties to be a
part of the process, see concerns dealt with in a controlled
fashion and a permanent public record made of commitments.
A copy of the draft is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Approved as submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 23, 1994)
The Chairman asked the staff to present its comments on the
proposed ordinance.
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Ron Newman, of the Planning staff, presented a brief overview
identifying the history of the ordinance proposal and its origin
with the City Board of Directors.
Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, then continued Mr.
Newman's comments by adding -his thoughts on the need for the
ordinance and the purpose of the current ordinance draft. In
general, those comments were centered about the need that was
perceived by the City Attorney's Office for specific language in
the zoning Ordinance, providing for what the City Board is
currently doing. Mr. Giles stated that the City Attorney's
Office had on numerous occasions identified that the City's
legislative authority was broad with respect to land use.
He followed that comment by a statement that "an open zoning
classification in some instances might not be appropriate for a
particular location. But with some conditions attached to it,
the Commission might find that it is compatible; therefore, the
proposed process here is somewhere between a straight rezoning
application and a true P.U.D. application." He stated further
that "unlike a P.U.D., which is user specific, this type of
application would not be user specific."
Mr. Giles pointed out that he wanted to stress that every zoning
situation will not be susceptible to this process or the kinds of
conditions proposed by this ordinance. "It is only to be used in
those circumstances where the Planning Commission finds it
particularly appropriate." He stated that "this ordinance does
not attempt to state what those kinds of locational circumstances
are but leave some discretion to the Planning Commission. Any
conditions imposed would be those imposed by the applicant upon
his or her request. The Commission after accepting such
conditions imposed by the applicant would then forward the
recommendation on the application to the City Board."
Chairperson Chachere asked that the City Attorney address the
issue of time constraints on an application. Mr. Giles responded
by saying, " that is not one of the several issues in it to hear.
It deals with such as bulk and area, use and access.
Mr. Giles offered an example, being a C-3 application where
concerns offered by both the Planning Commission and neighbors as
to certain factors involving the uses allowed by the district.
He pointed out that with the applicant's concurrence that the
Commission could accept a restriction on the use listing to
eliminate those that were deemed to be inappropriate to a given
location.
Mr. Giles also pointed out that on the official zoning map the
posting of the reclassification would include a notation with
W
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
conditions, and the ordinance that creates that conditional
relationship would set forth all of the various conditions
imposed. These would subsequently be filed with the circuit
clerk's office to assure a tie to the title to the property and
would run with the land and provide notice to subsequent buyers
of the property.
Chairperson Chachere then posed a question of Mr. Giles as to the
circumstance of a conditional rezoning where circumstances change
in the future and how that would be accomplished. Mr. Giles
responded by stating that, "it would be treated much like a new
application in that the owner would have to go back through the
same process to make modifications in the classification and
condition list."
Commissioner Oleson then posed a question as to whether an
applicant could initially approach the staff and file an
application with conditions that would subsequently be submitted
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Giles responded by pointing to the ordinance provision, as
now drafted, which would require that a public hearing be held
first before conditions are discussed and that those conditions
would then have to be offered by the applicant or owner. He also
pointed out that once established at the Planning Commission
level these conditions don't change to the Board of Directors'
level. The Board would then have the several options that are
pointed to in the ordinance. That is, approval as recommended by
the Commission, a denial or referral to the Planning Commission
or the possibility of accepting and placing within the ordinance
conditions that are more restrictive in nature,
Commissioner Ball then posed a question very similar to
Commissioner Oleson's as to whether or not the staff would
encourage someone to file an application with conditions imposed.
Mr. Giles responded by stating that was not the intent of this
ordinance. The intent is that those conditions arise during the
public hearing process at the Planning Commission level. Such a
circumstance with an applicant should actually be filed as a
P.U.D. on the front end.
Mr. Giles once again clarified the point that once a public
hearing has been accomplished and before a vote on the issue, the
Commission would identify those concerns that had been expressed
both by the Commission and neighbors. At that point then, the
applicant could introduce those kinds of conditions in the
proposed ordinance that would deal with the concerns expressed.
Once a consensus was reached, then the application could be
forwarded to the Board.
3
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Commissioner Ball then posed the
circumstance where an applicant
where the applicant could simply
as filed or would he be required
question as to whether a
did not want conditions imposed;
obtain a vote on his application
to deal with conditions.
Mr. Giles responded by stating that "this ordinance is not
intended to impose requirements on a developer and cause them to
submit to conditions they do not want to accept. Mr. Giles says
he feels like this ordinance will not force an applicant to
accept what it does not want. If an applicant wanted a vote up
or down on his application, that he should receive such a vote."
Commissioner Ball then asked whether an application that was
voted down without the application's being conditioned could the
applicant refile within the year and place the conditions on the
petition. The Chairman at this point commented that she thought
that an application would have to be appealed to the Board that
the one year rule would not apply until that issue had been
resolved at the higher level.
Mr. Giles concurred in this opinion. He stated "the application
would still go on to the Board with the recommendation of denial
by the Planning Commission and it would be the Board's decision
finally to determine the status of the application."
In response to Mr. Ball's question about the one-year turnaround,
Mr. Giles stated he had not thought out that question thoroughly;
however, he felt that the refiled application would have to be
substantially different from that which was previously submitted
and reviewed. That is a requirement of current ordinance.
Commissioner Ball then posed his last question which was
concerning landscaping as to whether or not that could be one of
the conditions imposed. Mr. Giles indicated that he did not
think it could since that is not one of the forms of conditions
that could be imposed under this ordinance.
After a brief conversation with Richard wood of staff, Mr. Giles
stated that the landscape ordinance is in fact a separate
ordinance. The City Beautiful Commission provides for its
administration and enforcement. Mr. Giles asked for
clarification as to whether or not Commissioner Ball intended his
question to include the Commission imposing super landscaping
requirements.
Commissioner Ball responded by stating that basically yes in as
much as everyone coming through for site plan review typically
offers or is asked to install a larger open space, landscaping or
whatever may be appropriate to go beyond the minimum landscape
V
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued
strips. Mr. Giles responded by saying the ordinance includes
only bulk and area uses, access, and density. It does not
specifically include landscaping.
A brief discussion followed involving Mr. Giles and Commissioner
Oleson and others concerning the many occasions which landscaping
is the issue on which an application will turn.
Commissioner Walker then posed a question as to whether this
ordinance proposal includes a staff allowable such as the 5%
modification allowed the Planning Director in the P.U.D.
Mr. Giles responded by saying that this ordinance did not intend
staff interpretation but that those conditions imposed by the
ordinance be specific in nature.
Chairperson Chachere then asked if there were no further
questions by members of the Commission whether it was appropriate
for Mr. David Jones to come forward and offer his comments.
There being no additional questions Mr. Jones was requested to
present his position on this ordinance.
Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the origin of this
ordinance, especially as it related to an application that he has
currently before the City Board of Directors. He offered
additional comments on the appropriateness of the type of
legislation that is being offered here by the City Attorney and
that which the City Board is expecting to be presented to them.
Mr. Jones pointed out that he had observed that this Commission
had been dealing with conditional zoning relationships for as
long as he had been dealing with zoning before the Planning
Commission. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had not
been privileged to receive a copy of the detail memorandum
prepared by City Attorney, Tom Carpenter, and presented to the
City Board which specifically outlined the intent of the area
provision of this draft ordinance. That communication gave
Mr. Carpenter's interpretation of what this ordinance is intended
to do and how it will be interpreted by the City staff and
ultimately carried through the Planning Commission and the Board
of Directors.
Mr. Jones stated that the area in the ordinance that he took
specific exception to "was" and he quoted from Mr. Carpenter's
memo to the Board, that the volunteer nature of the applicant
under these restrictions is going to be changed to where it will
be required and that the authority will shift to the Planning
Commission to demand that an application be restricted to certain
conditions that come out of the public hearing. He stated that
he felt that he would interpret the ordinance as saying that a
vote would in fact be on required conditions imposed by the
5
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued
Planning Commission in addition to the actual zoning requested.
He continued by saying that in regard to the Camp application on
Hinson Road that he was still agreeable to do those things which
he said he would do. However, he stated that was not the reason
that he was here before the Planning Commission today.
He said that was a good faith effort on his part and they will
continue to do what they promise to do. Mr. Jones stated that he
felt some of the Board members agreed with him that there was
really no need for further legislation to do what the Planning
Commission has always being doing, as long as he could remember.
Attaching additional requirements at the request of the applicant
if they agreed so, and if not the Commission would simply vote
the issue down. He stated that he felt the legislation was
coming down as a direct result of Director Adcock asking a
question at the Board meeting "is there any way that we could
assure that these restrictions that are agreed to by the
applicant will be carried on no matter who owns the land." At
that meeting, Mr. Carpenter, the City Attorney, responded by
saying "no and the only way you can assure is to impose a P.U.D.11
Except, Mr. Jones stated that he did not agree with that
interpretation of Mr. Carpenter and felt that most of the
commissioners agreed with him.
Mr. Jones stated that he felt like all the people that had been
involved in all of these conditional issues and compromises
reached over the years would not agree. But now, all of sudden
their actions are lacking the authority to be enforced at any one
point in time. Mr. Jones said "he felt like that practically
speaking there are no minimum standards remaining after the
adoption of an ordinance such as this." The reality of it is
when it comes before the Planning Commission with a C-3 or 0-3
request and the Planning Commission has the ability to attach
additional restrictions guess how many times requests will be
granted simply with the conditions set forth in the ordinance.
He stated "that if the Planning Commission feels like there are
additional standards or requirements required in the ordinance
that those zoning districts should be modified to deal with
that." This ordinance means, if adopted, that nothing is
definite. There are no fixed standards such as setback
requirements and height.
He felt this ordinance imposed the P.U.D. process on every
rezoning application short of the use listing. Mr. Jones then
posed the question of whether or not this was contract zoning and
in his opinion it was. Mr. Jones stated that he felt that this
legislation was simply a knee jerk reaction to his application on
Rodney Parham and Hinson Road, too out of line and way too
restricted. He indicated that the rest of the development
community probably had questions and reservations about it.
G
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Commissioner Oleson then touched on the question Mr. Jones raised
about contract zoning. She asked Mr. Giles to respond.
Mr. Giles indicated there was a fine line in certain
circumstances between contract and conditional zoning. He
offered some -comments about case-law in other states and an old
case in Arkansas dealing with the Hocott properties on Kavanaugh.
He stated that after looking at cases and studying the Arkansas
law, that the City Board can do this through this ordinance. He
stated that "the concern that his office has had is that the City
has been doing this without legislative authority." He stated
that Fits not that the City can't do it under state law. It is
just that we have not made provision for such in the past and
that the bottom line is if we are going to follow state law, we
must have an ordinance to authorize what we are doing." He
stated that "it legitimizes what the Planning Commission has been
doing for a number of years, especially in those cases where the
Commission had questioned the appropriateness of conditional
relationships."
A general discussion followed between the City Attorney and
commissioners involving history of several cases. Commissioner
Putnam then offered a number of comments about this ordinance
proposal and what he felt was appropriate or inappropriate about
it. He offered some history on Planning Commission activities
with regard to conditional zoning. He closed his comments by
stating that as he understood it this ordinance proposal allowed
the staff and/or the Planning Commission to impose conditions on
an application for rezoning whether the applicant agreed or not.
Mr. Giles responded by stating no that is not the intent of this
ordinance. He stated that if an applicant did not want to be
hamstrung with conditions imposed by the Commission or the staff.
The Commission could not impose those conditions upon the
applicant.
Mr. Putnam expanded on his previous comments by stating that he
was not certain that he understood the line or direction that was
being taken by the staff and City Attorney on this proposal. He
felt like that more study was needed on this ordinance.
Commissioner Walker then offered a comment along the lines of he
had proposed and worked an arrangement with the Commission and
staff a number of years ago whereby the Planning Commission would
not receive these kinds of single ordinance issues but develop a
package for each year and not expand upon it until they complete
that package before initiating the next series of amendments. He
felt like the Board of Directors was well past the time when this
package of amendments was assembled and they had missed their
7
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
window of opportunity. He stated that what he was hearing from
David Jones was that David would not like this ordinance to be
approved.
Mr. Jones responded to that comment by stating that he was not
necessarily opposed to people allowing conditions to be attached
to their application. -He was not against anything except that
this ordinance specifically says "Planning Commission has the
right to demand additional restrictions."
Mr. Giles then pointed out that Mr. Jones had the wrong draft for
the ordinance that it had changed since he had received that
copy. There was a brief give and take between Mr. Jones and
Mr. Giles as to what the ordinance content was at this point.
Mr. Jones read specifically language from the ordinance that he
said specifically gave the Commission the direction that he had
indicated.
Mr. Giles then offered to Mr. Jones and the Commission a response
to Mr. Jones' objection by reading what the current language and
the current draft proposes which was provided the Planning
Commission, before the public hearing. "A rezoning may be
conditioned upon the applicant's request and subject to the
Planning Commission's recommendation for an issue concerning the
number of permissible uses, bulk, area and access and density may
be made more specific than the provisions allowed within the
zoning classification when the following has occurred."
Mr. Giles then identified that language as coming from a memo
that was prepared by Mr. Carpenter and directed to the Board on
the 22nd. He stated that this was done after conversations
between his office and Mr. Jones. Mr. Giles pointed out that the
draft before the Planning Commission is a previous draft and is
not the one now recommended by his office. Several persons then
offered commentary on the appropriateness of continuing
discussion of this item on the wrong ordinance as being submitted
for their review.
Mr. Giles indicated that this was done as result of discussion
with Mr. Jones on the previous day and there was apparently not
enough time to provide everyone with a revision of the ordinance
text.
Mr. Jones then stated that if it could be stated that is the
voluntary discretion of the applicant where the conditions are
attached to an application, he had no problem with the ordinance
proposal. However if the Commission or the Board still have the
authority to impose conditions, he opposes the ordinance. He
stated that he and his attorney both agreed that what the staff
N
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued
and the Planning Commission has been doing for a long number of
years which is agreed with restrictions and for those added to
the ordinance on file, that those were legal and binding. If
somebody does not abide by them and if the City Board wants to,
they could come in there and remove the development. He again
stated that he only objected to moving these conditions away from
the discretion of the applicant to a mandate from the Planning
Commission or Board.
Commissioner Walker then offered a comment to continue a previous
statement. The thrashing out of details and perhaps timing is
something that is important to deal with the ordinance that the
City Board wants to deal with. He felt that it was very
important that Ramsay Ball's issues about the one year limitation
be addressed and needs to be expressly stated within the
ordinance that an application denied for a conventional rezoning
could be refiled and under what circumstances within the year.
Mr. Giles clarified that statement for purposes of the record.
Commissioner Walker then stated that in his former capacity as
Chairman of the Planning Commission he always made sure that the
applicant controlled his application. With the direction of the
City Attorney, the Commission had always allowed an applicant to
decide whether he wanted a vote on the application as filed or
with some modifications. In any event the Planning Commission
tried to avoid the appearance of extorting conditions from an
applicant.
Commissioner Walker commented further that he thought that we
should not be institutionalizing something that the Planning
Commission has been painfully dealing with over a period of time.
Mr. Giles then asked for clarification on Commissioner Walker's
comment as to whether he meant that an applicant, if he wished
not to include conditions in his application and it were denied,
that, he would have to wait for a year, Commissioner Walker
indicated that he believed that would certainly be a way to deal
with it. Commissioner Ball then inserted a comment at this point
that his previous comments were not necessarily directed to the
professional developers and realtors but directed to those
persons not familiar with the process. These persons would not
necessarily understand the ramifications of agreements that they
might make.
David Jones then came forward and offered comments about P.U.D.°s
and the value of land and the ability to determine value in land
based upon zoning and decisions made by the City. If all the
variables such as height and area are subject to negotiations
then that does hurt the value of the land.
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women voters, was then recognized.
Mrs. Bell came forward and offered comments. She stated that it
appeared to her that the Planning Commission did not understand
the proposal that had been presented and that this sounded like
perhaps attorneys are deciding that more laws are better than
less. She said that she was not -convinced that -this was a needed
ordinance.
Commissioner Putnam then inserted a thought that this change that
is now being discussed was handed out after the fact. The
Commission was given a draft which is now modified without their
benefit of having seen language. He stated that the Planning
Commission had not asked for any changes to be made and that the
Board of Directors had not explained to the Commission why they
were having problems. Commissioner Putnam said he felt that this
was an important piece of legislation and should not be passed
without due diligence. He felt the Plans Committee or the whole
commission should review this issue at length.
Commissioner Willis then offered some concerns about the process
contained in this ordinance. He asked Mr. Giles "are we now
asked to look at this ordinance at this time and then vote on it
or do we need to table this and obtain the additional
information."
Mr. Giles then stated that he understood the language in the
draft before the Commission sounded like the Commission would be
controlling the circumstances and imposing conditions. He stated
that this is not the case. The draft has been modified. He
indicated that this modification was accomplished after
discussions with Mr. Jones. Mr. Giles stated that the Commission
imposing conditions in that fashion would be true contract zoning
which is not permissible.
Commissioner Oleson then asked for clarification as to whether or
not the Planning Commission could asked that a request be changed
to a P.U.D. Mr. Giles responded yes they could do that.
Mr. Giles again pointed out the language and that it was in the
control of the applicant in this draft. After revision, the
Planning Commission would not be imposing conditions.
Mr. Giles also pointed out the conditions under which the
Planning Commission would deal with and forward a conditional
rezoning application. He stated that the City Attorney's Office
had intentionally inserted language that now puts the applicant
in charge of his application. The applicant would have to
verbally accept the conditions before a vote was taken by the
Planning Commission on his application.
FXi7
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Commissioner Selz then offered a question, "Why are we doing this
if the Supreme Court had already ruled that the process utilized
in the Hocott case on Kavanaugh was appropriate?." Mr. Giles
responded by saying that was under a former and much older
ordinance and there was a somewhat different subject and it was a
Bill of Assurance required by the City. He stated that the way
the City has been doing business with conditional
reclassification is not the same issue as the Hocott.
Giles then offered comments concerning the effect on an applicant
not performing conditions applied under our current structure and
the problem with attempting to enforce those.
Commissioner Oleson echoed comments by Mr. Giles and stated that
all of this is doing is attempting to place in the Zoning
ordinance procedures for legally doing what we are already
accomplishing.
Commissioner Selz pointed out that he felt that from this point
on under this structure that everyone who comes before the
Commission would be possibly subjected to a commissioner
requesting or asking for more landscaping or more of some
particular design facet.
Chairperson Chachere then pointed out that in some circumstances
her vote would not have been obtained by the developer had not
some conditions raised by the Commission not been included within
the applicant's petition.
Commissioner Putnam then restated a previous comment as he thinks
that more people in the community need to look at this proposal
before its rushed through the process.
Mr. .Tones then stated that although he had not read all of the
language since the ordinance draft had been modified and he was
reluctant to accept things verbally without having read them, he
would offer that if no other changes have been made other than in
the paragraphs that were read by the City Attorney as far as he
was concerned, all that this ordinance does is restate what is
currently being done. However, the ordinance draft that the
Commission has before them at this time substantially changes the
way we do business. He restated a previous comment of his that
if what the City Attorney is saying is factual and the changes do
what Mr. Giles had pointed out, then he has no problem with it
and would like to see it moved through as quickly as possible.
He felt that a holdup or continuance of this issue would be used
against him and hold up his application.
11
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Commissioner Putnam posed a question as to whether or not a
deferral for two weeks would be of particular significance. It
was determined that September 6 would be the next hearing of the
Planning Commission, which is the same date that the City Board
next meets.
Mr. Jones said he felt like the Planning Commission could hear
this issue on the afternoon of the September 6, and then the
matter be handed to the Board for their hearing that, night that
he would have no problem with that.
Chairperson Chachere then pointed out that she felt like the
Commission would expect corrected versions to be provided as soon
as possible within the next few days.
Commissioner Ball stated that he would like some further
discussion of landscaping as related to these kinds of
conditional ordinances and it is typically one of the items that
is discussed.
Mr. Giles pointed out again that this ordinance deals with use
type, area, bulk and access.
A brief discussion was then held involving Richard Wood, of the
Staff. Mr. Giles and the commissioners centered their discussion
on the Planning Commission meeting on September 6 being a heavy
agenda with many items and the need to place this item first on
that agenda to assure proper discussion and disposal of the
matter.
The discussion then moved back to conditions and types of things
that the ordinance might regulate such as hours of operation.
Commissioner Selz pointed out that the more you add things to
this and broaden the conditions the more it begins to look like a
P.U.D. Mr. Giles pointed out that this process is entirely
different from a P.U.D. and that a P.U.D is filed initially by
the applicant using a different set of criteria and difference
ordinance. It is something directed by the applicant from the
beginning point to completion. He pointed out that it does open
up some of the kinds of things that are dealt with in a P.U.D.,
but it is not intended to be a P.U.D. He pointed out that this
does pen the project down to a specific user such as a P.U.D
would.
A brief discussion followed involving several of the
commissioners and Mr. Giles as to whether or not a site plan
could or would be utilized in the context of this ordinance
structure. It was generally understood that it would not.
Mr. Giles stated that what this ordinance was trying to do was to
put something in place that would be workable and then at the
same time would not be abused or be abusive.
12
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Chairperson Chachere pointed out that it appeared to her that it
looked like we were going to reconsider this item on the 6th of
September. Mr. Giles then asked the Chairman if it would not be
possible to make this item the first item heard on the 6th in
order to expedite the matter and provide time for discussion and
a little time -for potential modification of the text before it
has to be presented to the Board.
Ron Newman, of the Planning Staff, then injected a thought that
perhaps the Plans Committee of the Planning Commission could look
at this between now and September 6 and render a determination.
Mr. Newman felt that might shorten the process at the regular
public hearing on the 6th.
A brief discussion followed where it was determined that a
meeting would be held by the Plans Committee. The Chair then
asked staff if a motion was in order on this issue. Richard
Wood, of the Staff, responded by stating that this was an
advertised public hearing, and therefore, a motion by the
Commission for deferral would be required. A motion to defer the
item to September 6 was made. Seconded and passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
And for the record Mr. Giles asked that Mr. David Jones be
advised of the time and place of the Plans Committee so that he
might participate. At the suggestion of the Chair, Ron Newman
brought the issue of the time for a Plans Committee meeting. For
discussion he suggested the 1st of September, a Thursday. It was
decided that 12:00 noon would be appropriate on that day, and the
meeting be held in the Staff Conference Room at 723 West Markham.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, reviewed the
proposed ordinance amendment to permit rezonings with conditions.
Mr. Giles made a lengthy presentation and answered questions.
Several interested individuals, including David Jones and Ruth
Bell, then addressed the Commission. Both Ms. Bell and Mr. Jones
offered comments and indicated that they thought the ordinance
amendment was not necessary.
After a long discussion, the commission members decided that they
needed additional time to study the current draft. The issue was
deferred to the September 20, 1994 hearing. The vote was
10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position.
13
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
The item was presented by Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office.
There were several interested individuals in attendance.
Mr. Giles discussed the proposed ordinance amendment and the
reasons for the amendment. Mr.- Giles said that the Planning
Commission has recommended rezonings with conditions, but he felt
that there was not a strong ordinance basis for a conditional
rezoning. Mr. Giles went on to comment on several issues that
were raised at the September 6, 1994 hearing, including
variances, appeals and returning a rezoning to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Giles then answered some questions and continued
to explain the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Bill Putnam asked some questions about time limits.
Commissioner Brad Walker made some comments and indicated there
was no need for paragraph "C".
Other questions were asked by several commissioners.
David Jones spoke and said he still has problems with the review
process and the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jones indicated that the
ordinance has not been given adequate thought and has been rushed
through the adoption process. Mr. Jones made some additional
comments and said some of the board members still do not
understand the ordinance.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, said she was concerned with
the process and the relatively short time frame for the review.
Ms. Bell thought the appeal provision could be a problem and
questioned the legal standing of the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Bell concluded by saying that the League did not object to
the ordinance.
Comments were then offered by several of the commissioners.
Stephen Giles responded to some of the statements and said that
he could not advise the Planning Commission to accept conditions
without the ordinance amendment.
David Jones spoke again and made some additional comments.
Debbie Linn told the Commission about her lawsuit against the
City.
There was some discussion about various aspects of the issue.
A motion was then made to recommend approval of the ordinance
amendment with the deletion of paragraph "C" in Section 36-87.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent.
14
1 ORDINANCE NO.t,
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO PERMIT REZONING OF A
4 PARCEL TO A SPECIFIC ZONING
5 CLASSIFICATION SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
6 CONDITIONS; NAMING THE
7 CLASSIFICATION; DECLARING AN
8 EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTTER PURPOSES.
9
10 WHEREAS, Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-401 (Michie 1987) grants
11 cities broad authority to adopt and enforce plans for the
12 coordinated and harmonious development of the municipality; and
13 WHEREAS, pursuant to this grant of authority the City has
14 adopted land use plans, established a planning commission, and
15 created various zoning classifications; and
16 WHEREAS, pursuant to Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §36-460
17 (1988) the City, in an attempt to harmonize competing interests,
18 has provided for planned unit developments to achieve
19 compatibility between proposed developments and the surrounding
20 area; and
21 WHEREAS, planned unit developments are appropriate where
22 a proposed use does not necessarily warrant a general rezoning,
23 but the use may be compatible with the surrounding area when it
24 is tied to a specific site plan; and
25 WHEREAS, there are instances in which a developer cannot
26 commit to the specific requirements of a planned unit
27 development application, but a general rezoning request is
28 inappropriate at the location; and
29 WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board, in appropriate
30 cases, to permit a rezoning subject to certain additional
31 conditions as to use, bulk, area, access and density in a manner
32 not otherwise provided for in the zoning classification; and
33 WHEREAS, this intent needs to be specifically articulated
34 as a part of the zoning and planning jurisdiction of the City.
35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
36 DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
], 6
2 Section 1. Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark., Rev.
3 Code (1988) is hereby amended to delete subsection (d) of
4 §36-85 and to add the following new sections:
5 Sec. 36-86. Dedications.
6
The board of directors may require as a condition
7 of rezoning the reasonable dedication of land for
public street and floodway purposes, based upon the
8
current land use or master plan elements in effect
9
10 at the time of the rezoning. Dedication of land
11 shall only be required for a proper public purpose
12 upon a finding by the city that the required
13 dedication is reasonably related in nature and
14 extent to the impact of the proposed development.
15 Sec. 36-87. Rezoning with conditions.
16 (a) All applications for amendment (rezoning) shall
17 specify a general zoning district without
18 limitation or condition except as provided in
19 applications for planned unit developments.
20 (b) The city may require conditions deemed
21 necessary to protect and promote the health, safety
22 and welfare of the community. In appropriate cases,
23 as determined by concerns about the impact of a
24 rezoning request upon the harmonious development of
25 the neighborhood, and after public hearing, a
26 rezoning may be conditioned upon the applicants
27 request and subject to the recommendation of the
28 planning commission. Issues concerning permissible
29 uses, bulk, area, access and density (including the
30 number of buildings on the site) may be more
31 specific or more limited than the provisions
32 allowed in the requested zoning classification only
33 upon the following circumstances:
34 (1) The applicant and others have had an
35
36 -2-
1
2
opportunity to be heard by the planning
3
commission on the subject of a general
4
rezoning.
5
(2) At the applicant's request the planning
6
commission has determined that a limit on
7
permissible uses, bulk, area, access and
8
density is essential to,maintain a harmonious
9
development within the surrounding area;
10
(3) The rezoning still allows a considerable
11
number of permitted uses and it is not so
12
limited as to change the essential character
13
of the zoning classification;
14
(4) The ordinance granting the conditional
15
rezoning directs that it be filed in the real
16
estate records of the Pulaski County Circuit
17
Clerk so that all subsequent purchasers of the
18
property are on notice that the zoning
19
classification is limited to the extent
provided in the ordinance;
20
21
(5) The ordinance granting the rezoning
22
application amends the official zoning map to
23
reflect that the rezoning is a general zoning
classification with conditions, e.g., C-3 WITH
24
CONDITIONS.
25
(c) Prior to adoption of the ordinance, the board
26
27
of directors shall review the recommendations of
28
the planning commission and shall accept, reject,
29
modify with at least equally restrictive conditions
30
requested by the applicant, or return the
31
application to the planning commission for further
-
32
review.
33
(a) No condition attached to a rezoning
34
classification shall be subject to a variance from
35
36
-3-
1
2 the board of zoning adjustment.
3 (e) The filing of an appeal by the applicant to
4
challenge any condition in a rezoning application
5 shall suspend the effective date of the rezoning
6 during which time the property shall remain
7
classified in the current zoning district. All
8 permits which may have been issued by the city in
9 reliance on the rezoning with conditions may be
revoked.
10
11 (f) The violation of a condition shall be
12 punishable as provided in LRC §1-9. In addition,
13
the city may revoke the entire rezoning approval.
14
Section 2. This ordinance shall apply to all
15 rezoning ordinances adopted by the board of directors,
16 regardless of the date of passage, provided the steps set
17 forth in this ordinance have been followed.
18 Section 3. Severability. In the event any title,
19 subtitle, section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
20 subparagraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of
21 this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or
22 unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall
23 not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance which
24 shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so
25 declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not
26 originally a part of this ordinance.
27 Section 4. Repealer. All ordinances or parts of
28 ordinances in conflict with the provisions provided herein
29 are hereby expressly repealed to the extent of the
conflict.
30
31
Section 5. Emergency Clause. It has been determined
32
by the Board of Directors that the proper and orderly
rezoning of certain parcels is appropriate only if the
33
34 general uses and other development standards granted as a
35
36 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0j
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
matter of right by the zoning classification are otherwise
limited to certain specific uses and development standards
which are compatible with a particular location; further,
it has been determined that neither a general rezoning nor
the use of the planned unit development is appropriate in
certain instances, and that an ordinance of this nature is
necessary to assure that the. development under
consideration proceeds. in a timely manner with minimum
adverse impact on the surrounding area. An emergency is,
therefore, declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in
full force and effect from and after the date of its
passage.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
we 3264104 9=0
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
A
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
-5-
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -4343-H
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ranch Properties, Inc. and FCC
Tract D Partnership
Ranch Properties, Inc. by
Ed Willis
Hwy. 10 at Ranch Blvd. and
Patrick Country Road
Rezone from 0-2 and C-2 to 0-2
and C-2
Office and Commercial
54.3 acres
vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - vacant and Office, zoned MF -12, MF -18, C-3 & PCD
South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned 0-2 and C-2
West - Vacant and Church, zoned R-2, 0-2 and C-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The areas in question, a total of 54 acres, are part of The
Ranch development, and the request is to rezone two
different sites from 0-2 and C-2 to 0-2 and C-2. At this
time, the office area is west of Ranch Blvd. and the
primary commercial site is east of Ranch Blvd. This
proposed rezoning would reverse the office and commercial
areas and create a large commercial site to the west of
Ranch Blvd., at the corner of Hwy. 10 and Patrick Country
Road. The proposal is to rezone 19.8 acres from C-2 to 0-2
and 34 acres from 0-2 to C-2. The Ranch is situated on the
north side of Hwy. 10, between North Katillus and Patrick
Country Road. All the land area involved with the request
is currently undeveloped.
Zoning along this portion of Hwy. 10 is R-2, MF -18, 0-2, C-
2, C-3, POD and PCD. The nonresidential zoning is found on
both sides of Hwy. 10 and extends several hundred feet back
from Hwy. 10. The most recent reclassifications have been
to PCD or POD. Land uses found in the area include single
family, office commercial, an animal clinic and a school.
Even with all the zoning activity in the area, there are
still some nonconforming uses. A percentage of the land is
vacant.
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -4343-H (Cont.
In 1984 an application was filed to rezone 148 acres of the
Johnson Ranch property, now The Ranch, to MF -12, MF -18, 0-2
and C-2. At that time, the land was outside the city limits
and staff indicated that annexation was a major issue
because of a Board of Directors resolution. In 1980 the
Board adopted a resolution establishing an "official
annexation boundary, line" and stated that the City would
discourage voluntary annexations beyond the line until 1990.
The Ranch area was west of the annexation line and staff
felt that the Board first needed to resolve the annexation
issue before the rezoning request could be addressed. Also,
none of the planning studies for Hwy. 10 had looked at The
Ranch and staff asked that the item be deferred to allow for
adequate time to consider some major policy issues. The
property was eventually annexed and rezoned to the requested
classifications with the addition of a 50 foot OS strip
adjacent to Hwy. 10.
when the Highway 10 District Plan was finally adopted in
1986, The Ranch property was identified as a PUD. In the
plan text, reference was made to the C-2 tract as a full-
scale community shopping site. In 1989 the City adopted the
Northwest Extraterritorial Plan in conjunction with the
City's intent to control zoning beyond the city limits. The
plan included the Hwy. 10 corridor and recognized the multi-
family, office and commercial zoning lines for The Ranch.
Over the years, the developers of The Ranch have made
numerous changes to the zoning configuration within the
development. The reclassifications have included increasing
the density on a multi -family site and a PCD for the Leisure
Arts facility. One thing that has not been altered is the
orientation of the commercial and office areas. The
commercial area has always been east of Ranch Blvd., the
major entry way into The Ranch. All the land use plans have
shown the commercial area east of Ranch Blvd., including the
current one, the Pinnacle District Plan.
With this request, the applicant has stated that a proposed
four way intersection has been shifted from Ranch Blvd. to a
new location, approximately 900 feet to the west, and the
new intersection is justification for reconfiguring the
zoning. (Originally, Chenal Parkway was suppose to
intersect Hwy. 10 at Ranch Blvd. and create a major
intersection.) The new street will connect Chenal Parkway
to Hwy. 10 and The Ranch development will continue the new
alignment north of Hwy. 10. The developers of The Ranch
feel that the primary commercial zoning should be relocated
to the new four-way intersection.
It is the staff's position that this rezoning proposal is a
significant departure from the original rezoning and
V)
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -4343-H (Cont.)
reorients the commercial acreage away from a cohesive
development to a linear (strip) land use configuration. The
commercial node concept for Hwy. 10 will be tested if this
rezoning is granted because it will create several small
nodes and a fragmented land use pattern. This type
development usually creates a number of small tracts with
numerous commercial uses and a lot of problems. With the
existing zoning, the potential exists for a sizable
commercial site being developed under an unified site plan,
more of a shopping center approach. Other factors and
issues that the staff considered during its review of the
request included:
• The proposed rezonings do not conform to the
adopted plan.
• The new intersection is not adequate
justification for such a major zoning change.
• The possibility of creating a minimum of 5
commercial intersections
• Increasing the amount of commercial land along
Hwy. 10
• The possibility of "stripping out" Hwy. 10, a
scenic corridor
This proposal represents a major shift in the City's
land use policy for Hwy. 10, and staff is opposed to
requested rezonings.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Pinnacle District. The adopted land use
plan recommends the current zoning. There is no
justification to increase the amount of commercial in this
location.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Hwy. 10 and
Patrick Country Road. The Master Street Plan standards
are:
Hwy. 10 - 55 feet from the centerline
Patrick Country Road - 30 feet from centerline
3
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO • 1 Z -4343-H (Cont.)
2. Property will be subject to the Boundary Street
Ordinance prior to issuance of building permits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 0-2 and C-2 rezonings.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
Ed Willis, the applicant, was present, and requested that
the item be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Willis then
made some comments about why the rezoning request was filed
and explained the reasons for wanting to shift the
commercial area to the west of Ranch Blvd. Mr. Willis also
discussed the staff's concerns and analysis of the proposed
rezoning.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda to withdraw the
request without prejudice. As part of the Consent Agenda,
the Planning Commission voted to withdraw the rezoning
without prejudice. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw provision
requiring written notice for a withdrawal.)
4
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -5258-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Peak Development
Patrick M. McGetrick
West Markham (west of Bowman
Road)
Rezone from C-2 to C-3
Commercial
3.13 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned R-2
South - Commercial and Office, zoned C-3
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Vacant, zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone 3.1 acres on West Markham from C-2
to C-3. The site is situated on the north side of West
Markham and approximately 1,000 feet west of Bowman Road.
The acreage is heavily wooded and there are two utility
easements crossing the tract. The property has
approximately 442 feet of frontage along West Markham.
Zoning in the area is R-2, R-5, MF -12, 0-3, C-1, C-2, C-3,
I-2 and PCD. The south side of West Markham, from Bowman to
the Chenal Parkway, is zoned C-3 as is the property directly
to the west. C-3 is the predominate commercial zoning
district in the area. Land use is very similar to the
existing zoning and includes residential, commercial, office
and an AP&L facility. The commercial uses encompass the
full range of activities, from eating establishments to
large retail users. The acreage to the east and north is
existing park land and an area to the northwest is
identified as proposed park land on the Master Parks Plan.
Some of the land is still undeveloped.
In 1989 an application was filed to rezone the property to
C-3. The site was identified for commercial use, however,
the City felt that a minimal level of site plan review was
needed and the request was amended to C-2. The primary
factor was that the zoning on the north side of West Markham
was residential, primarily multi -family. Also, there was
some concern with protecting the "parkway" environment.
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -5258-A (Cont.)
Since the 1989 rezoning, circumstances have changed in the
area and West Markham can now be classified a commercial
"strip." The property to the west is C-3 and this site is
somewhat removed from the existing residential development.
It is the staff opinion that there would be no,public gain
from a C-2 site plan review and a C-3 reclassification is
appropriate for the property. The uses are basically the
same in the two districts and the rezoning will not have an
impact on the adjoining park land. The land's commercial
development potential will not change through this rezoning
action. There is no plan issue because the adopted plan
shows the site for commercial use and C-3 is the appropriate
classification for the land use designation.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted
land use plan recommends commercial. There is no land use
issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
This property is in the floodplain and a development permit
must be completed before any land alteration is permitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. There was a brief discussion about the C-3
request.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning. The vote was
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z -5552-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Don Thompson
Patrick M. McGetrick
Mabelvale West Road (at Nash
Lane)
Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Industrial
9.9 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, Single -Family and Church, zoned R-2 & 0-3
South - Railroad Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 and I-2
East - Vacant and Industrial, zoned I-2
West - Vacant, zoned 0-3, C-3, I-2 and OS
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone the 9.9 acres
from R-2 to I-2 for an unspecified industrial user. The
property is situated south of where Nash Lane intersects
Mabelvale West Road and just west of an area that is
referred to as the "Town of Mabelvale..° Several hundred
feet to the west is the location of the future South Loop
and beyond the South Loop alignment is Mabelvale Junior
High. The entire site is vacant and a portion of the
acreage is in the floodway. The southern boundary abuts a
100 foot railroad right-of-way and the property has 635 feet
of frontage on Mabelvale West.
Zoning in the area is R-2, 0-1, 0-3, C-3, I-2 and OS, with
the site abutting I-2 and OS zoned land. Other nearby
nonresidential zoning is 0-3 and C-3. The R-2 areas are
found primarily to the north and to the east. The existing
land use pattern is single family, commercial, industrial,
churches, a post office facility and junior high school. A
number of the uses are nonconforming. A high percentage of
the immediate vicinity is still undeveloped, including some
of the 0-3, C-3 and I-2 sites.
In 1992 a rezoning application was filed for the same
property and the request was to reclassify the property to
C-3 and I-2. (During the hearing process, the request was
amended to include OS for the floodway.) The proposed
rezoning was supported by the staff and endorsed by the
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO • 3 Z -5552-B (Cont.)
Planning Commission. The rezoning proposal was then
withdrawn prior to the Board of Directors acting on the
request. A year later, a similar request was filed and it
was withdrawn before the Planning Commission's hearing.
On the Geyer Springs West plan, the property in question is
recommended for -"mixed office and commercial.' At one-time,
the land use plan for the area identified the site as part
of a light industrial area. Because of the South Loop
intersection, the plan was amended from Industrial to MOC.
After a thorough review of the I-2 request and the existing
conditions, it appears that an industrial reclassification
for the 9.9 acres is a reasonable option. To the north of
the site, there is an established residential area and this
rezoning action needs to be sensitive to the neighborhood
and its livibility. To ensure a minimal impact on the
residences, staff recommends I-1 for the property rather
than the requested I-2. I-1 is a site plan review district
and gives the neighborhood another level of review and some
added protection. An industrial reclassification should not
create any problems for the surrounding properties south of
Mabelvale West Road.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted
land use plan recommends Mixed Office Commercial (MOC).
There is a small stable residential pocket to the northeast
of the site. The City does not wish to encourage
development along Mabelvale West which would be a
destabilizing influence. Because of the South Loop
Mabelvale West intersection, the plan was amended to MOC
from Industrial. However, South Loop and Mabelvale West
will be grade separated and not a traditional intersection.
Further, the commercial stripping of Mabelvale west is not
recommended. A light industrial use with careful review
could prove to be a good neighbor for the residential to the
northeast. The plan should be amended to Light Industrial.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Mabelvale
West. The Master Street Plan standard is 45 feet from
the centerline.
2. This property is in the floodplain/floodway of Nash
Creek and beyond the limits of study of tributary. A
detailed study and development permits will be required
before any land alteration is permitted. Dedication of
the floodway is also required.
2
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z -5552-B (Cont.)
3. The property will be subject to the Boundary Street
Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of I-1 and OS for the floodway
area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
The applicant, Pat McGetrick, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. McGetrick spoke and amended the
request to I-1 and OS for the floodway. He also indicated
that the owner did not have any problems with the I-1 site
plan review.
Debbie Linn, 10124 Darris, then spoke and opposed the
proposed rezoning. Ms. Linn told the Commission that she
has a lawsuit against the city because of a flooding problem
and proceeded to discuss the court action. Ms. Linn felt
that there should be no additional rezonings in the
neighborhood until the flooding situation was resolved and
continued to discuss her lawsuit.
Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, spoke and asked
Debbie Linn to address the rezoning matter and not to
lawsuit.
Debbie Linn continued by discussing a Corps of Engineers'
letter and that a restudy of the floodplain needs to be done
because the existing maps were wrong. Ms. Linn felt that a
rezoning should not be approved until the problems with the
maps were corrected.
There was a long discussion about various issues.
Debbie Linn spoke again and said she was opposed to any
building or rezoning because of the flooding problems.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended
application to I-1 and OS for the floodway. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and
1 abstention (J. McDaniel).
M
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5875
Owner: Eleanor N. Riley
Applicant: John P. Matthews, Jr.
Location: 5101 "A" Street
Request: Rezone from R-3 to 0-3
Purpose: Office
Size: 0.13 acres
Existing Use: Single -Family (vacant)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family, zoned R-3
South - Commercial, zoned C-3
East - Office, zoned 0-3
West - Parking, zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
5101 "A" Street, the southwest corner of "A°1 and Van Buren,
is zoned R-3, and the request is to rezone the lot to 0-3.
At this time, the staff is unaware of any specific user for
the site. The lot is currently occupied by a small single
family residence and has a width of 44 feet and a depth of
134 feet.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-1,
0-3, C-3, C-4 PRD and PCD. The property under consideration
abuts C-3 on the west and the south. Directly across Van
Buren, the southeast corner is zoned 0-3. Land use is just
as fragmented as the existing zoning pattern and includes
single family, multi -family, office and commercial. Also
found in the area is a significant public use area, the War
Memorial complex. The State Department of Health and other
state operations are also located south of West Markham.
The single family neighborhoods are situated to the north of
"A" Street and a majority of the commercial uses have West
Markham frontage. The PCD at the southwest corner of "B"
and Van Buren is an office use.
An office reclassification of 5101 "A" is compatible with
the neighborhood and will not affect any of the surrounding
properties. The proposed 0-3 rezoning conforms to the
adopted heights -Hillcrest plan and there are no outstanding
issues. (The approval of this rezoning action does not
endorse any site plan for the property.)
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5875 (Cont.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Heights -Hillcrest District. The adopted
land use plan recommends Office. There is no land use
issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Van Buren.
The Master Street Plan Standard is 35 feet from the
centerline.
2. This property will be subject to boundary street
improvements prior to issuance of a building permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
The applicant, John Matthews, was present. There were two
objectors in attendance. Mr. Matthews spoke and said the
lot would be redeveloped by utilizing the existing
structure. He said the plan was to remodel the interior and
maintain the exterior appearance of the small residence.
Paul Crawford had filled out a registration card but had to
leave before the item was discussed. Ruth Bell spoke for
Mr. Crawford and asked the Commission to consider the letter
Mr. Crawford had submitted and the concerns of the Hillcrest
Residents Association.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, was concerned with an
intense office use allowed in 0-3 and the possible impact on
the existing residences. Ms. Bell suggested a POD or 0-1 as
a more appropriate reclassification for the lot.
John Matthews made some additional comments and said 0-1
would be acceptable and amended the request.
The Planning Commission then voted on the amended 0-1
rezoning. The 0-1 was recommend for approval by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5876
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Shirley Dowdy Wrye
Shirley Dowdy Wrye
1807, 1813 and 2021 Sanford Dr.
Rezone from R-2 to R-5
Multifamily
0.99 acres (total)
Multifamily (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2
South - Multifamily, zoned R-2
East - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2 & R-5
West - Multifamily, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The three properties in question, 1807, 1813 and 2021
Sanford Drive, are nonconforming multifamily uses, zoned
R-2. Two of the lots have four units each and the third
site, 2021 Sanford, has eight units. (There are a total of
four platted lots involved with this requests 2021 is two
lots.) The owner would like to do away with the
nonconforming status, and the request is to rezone each
address to R-5. There is one building on each property and
all three have off-street parking. (Sanford Drive was an
"island" and the street was annexed to the city after the
multifamily units were constructed.)
Zoning in the area is R-2, R-5 and MF -24. The majority of
the multifamily zoning is located on Reservoir Road and
includes several large apartment developments. Along
Sanford Drive, there are 33 multifamily lots, and a total of
nine are zoned R-5. The surrounding land use is either
single family or multifamily. There is also one church in
the immediate vicinity.
Because of the existing land use pattern found on Sanford
Drive, a R-5 reclassification is appropriate for the three
sites. The rezoning will only change the nonconforming
standing of the properties and nothing else. There is no
plan issue because several months ago the land use plan was
amended to show Sanford Drive as part of a multifamily area.
And finally, some of the existing single family lots were
platted and developed after Sanford Drive was annexed.
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5876 (Cont.)
Therefore, the proposed rezoning should not have an impact
on nearby neighborhoods.
(In the R-5 district, there is a "lot area per family"
requirement which limits the number of units permitted on a
tract of land. For 1807 and 1813 Sanford, 10,000 to 11,000
square feet, the maximum is five units. The third location,
2021, has a total of 21,000 square feet and the ordinance
would allow up to 10 units. The "lot area" provision
requires 2,000 square feet of land area for lots ranging
from 10,000 square feet to one acre.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the West Little Rock District. The adopted
land use plan recommends multifamily. There is no land use
issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the R-5 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda. Before the vote,
there was some discussion about rezoning two or three lots
at a time instead of the entire street or the remaining R-2
lots at one time.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the R-5. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
2
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5877
Owner: Don Thompson
Applicant: Patrick M. McGetrick
Location: Train Station Drive
Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-1
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 0.26 acres
Existing Use: Vacant building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family, zoned R-2
South - Industrial and Railroad Tracks, zoned R-2 k I-2
East - Single -Family, zoned R-2
West - Industrial, zoned I-2
STAFF ANALYS I S
The property in question is situated on Train Station Drive,
in the "Town of Mabelvale", and the request is to rezone the
site to C-1. No specific user has been identified by the
applicant. Train Station Drive is the old alignment of
Mabelvale West Road which has been reconstructed to the
north. The site is two 50 foot lots, and currently there is
a vacant nonresidential building on the land. A portion of
one of the platted lots extends into the right-of-way for
Train Station Drive.
Zoning in the area is R-2, 0-1, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2 and OS.
The nonresidential zoning is found throughout the
neighborhood and there is not a well-defined pattern to the
existing zoning. The only consistency to the zoning is the
I-2 because the industrial properties abut the railroad
right-of-way. Land use includes single family, commercial,
industrial and a church. There are a number of
nonconforming uses in the area and a high percentage of the
land is vacant. A number of the nonresidentially zoned
tracts are undeveloped, including the C-3 at the end of
Mabelvale Main and the 0-3 at the northwest corner of
Mabelvale West and Nash Lane.
The adopted plan, Geyer Springs West, recommends
neighborhood commercial for the site under consideration.
Therefore, the requested C-1 conforms to the plan and is the
appropriate classification because it is the neighborhood
commercial district. A C-1 reclassification should not have
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5877 (Cont.)
an impact on the surrounding properties and reinforces the
land use concept for the area.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted
land use plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial. There is
no land use issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-1 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
The applicant, Pat McGetrick, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. There was a brief discussion about
the proposed C-1 reclassification.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-1 rezoning.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and
1 abstention.
PA
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5878
NAME: Fletcher Branch Library -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5805 "H" Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Central Arkansas Library System by
Bobby Roberts
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a new building for
the Fletcher Branch Library on this
R-3 zoned property. The existing
building is to be razed and a
parking lot constructed in its
place. The parking lot property is
zoned O-3.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The existing library is located at the southeast corner of
"H" Street and Buchanan Street, two blocks east of
University Avenue. The proposed new building is to be
located directly behind the existing library, on the
southwest corner of "H" Street and Pierce Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The library has existed at this location for many years.
The property is located at the edge of a large residential
neighborhood. Other uses in the area include a school and a
variety of office uses.
The library's entrance and parking lot are oriented away
from the residential neighborhood.
With attention given to screening the adjacent residential
properties, this new building should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The new 13,000 square foot library requires 33 on-site
parking spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 45 spaces
including 2 handicapped spaces.
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5878
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
Attention must be given to screening the residences adjacent
to the south of the proposed library and parking lot.
5. City Engineer Comments
Close the alley where adjacent to
Stormwater detention as well as a
are required prior to issuance of
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
library property.
grading and drainage plan
a building permit.
The Central Arkansas Library System proposes to construct a
new building to replace the existing Fletcher Branch
Library. This is to be accomplished by removing the three
residential structures located on the east half of the block
directly behind the existing library. The new building will
be constructed on this R-3 zoned property. Once the new
building is finished, the existing building will be removed
and the parking lot expanded in its place.
The new parking lot and building entrance are oriented
toward the north and west, away from the residential
neighborhood.
The Fletcher Branch Library has been an important part of
this neighborhood for many years and should continue as such
once this new structure is complete.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and compliance with
the City Engineer Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Rick Redden was present representing the applicant. Staff
presented the item and noted the Landscape and City Engineer
Comments.
P)
September 20, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5878
A brief discussion then followed concerning the proposed dumpster
location and its impact on the residence adjacent to the south.
The applicant was advised to increase the screening to 8 feet and
to provide additional landscape materials to help buffer this
area. The applicant was also told to provide the hours for trash
collection, with an emphasis on limiting the hours to an
appropriate time considering the proximity of the adjacent
residence.
The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
Rick Redden and Bobby Roberts were present representing the
Central Arkansas Library System. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that a revised site plan had been submitted which placed
additional screening around the dumpster, including an 8 foot
tall fence and additional landscaping. The hours for the pickup
of the dumpster have been set as between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, asked about lighting of
the parking lot.
Mr. Redden responded that the lighting would be low-level (161)
and directional, aimed away from adjacent residences.
After a brief discussion, the item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
.
0
0
W
CC
W
0
Z
0
Fn-
cn
0
z
z
Z
J
z
I
W
Q
111111101
INNININEEM
IIIIIIIINNI
MENINININ
MENNENINNINIIIIIMENNIMI,1101011111IMMINININMENIIIIII
MENNEN
MININEIRM
EMMINIM
IIIIIIIIEN
IQ
Q)
ZE
PMM
co
Q
<P
z
W
cn
cn
I
LU
�I
MENINININ
MENNENINNINIIIIIMENNIMI,1101011111IMMINININMENIIIIII
IQ
Q)
ZE
PMM
co
Q
<P
z
W
cn
cn
I
LU
�I
September 20, 1994
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Date i�/ - `/ ('
Chairman