pc_03 08 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 8, 1994
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the January 25, 1994 meeting.
The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were approved
as submitted by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Diane Chachere
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Joe Hirsch Selz
Ramsay Ball
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
Jerilyn Nicholson
Brad Walker
One Open Position
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
MARCH 8, 1994
DEFERRED ITEM•
A. Z-5791 3620 Asher Avenue R-3 to C-3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Forest Hills Rezoning R-4 to R-3
2. Pankey Study
3. Chenal Square Preliminary Plat (5-1008) - east of
Chenal/Markham Intersection
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
4. John Barrow Study
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5791
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Lynton Egbosimba
Lynton Egbosimba
3620 Asher Avenue (South Maple
and Asher)
Rezone from R-3 to C-3
Eating Place
0.17 acres
Vacant Residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family, zoned R-3
South - Commercial, zoned I-2
East - Single -Family, zoned R-3
West - Vacant and Commercial, zoned R-3, C-1 and C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question, the northeast corner of Maple and
Asher, is occupied by a residential structure, and the owner
would like to open an eating place. To accomplish the
proposed plan, the site must be rezoned to a commercial
district and the request is to reclassify the corner from
R-3 to C-3. There is one single story residence on the lot
and one accessory building. The property has 58 feet of
frontage on Asher and an average depth of 145 feet.
Zoning is R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-3, C-1, C-3, C-4 and I-2. The
zoning pattern on the north side of Asher is very fragmented
and includes all the previously mentioned districts. On the
south side of Asher, the zoning is more uniformed with R-3,
0-3, C-3 and I-2. The most recent commercial rezoning was
to C-1 for a small lot, directly across Maple. Land use is
made up of residential, commercial, industrial, schools,
churches and a Salvation Army store and facility. There are
also some vacant buildings and lots found in the
neighborhood. Along Asher Avenue, the land use pattern is
mixed and ranges from single family to warehousing.
The proposed C-3 rezoning for an eating establishment does
raise some issues and concerns. First of all, an eating
place requires one off-street parking space per 100 square
feet of floor area, and because of the size of the lot, it
is questionable whether the parking can be provided.
Another possible problem with the parking is the site's
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5791 (Cont.)
topography and how parking areas can be designed to work on
the property. What this issue points to is the need for a
site plan to see if the lot can accommodate the use.
Secondly, the lot is part of a block that is still
residential, and a site plan would be helpful to ensure that
the adjacent single family residences will not impacted by
the development. Because of these concerns, it is
recommended that the site be reclassified to either C-1 or a
PCD for the eating establishment. In the C-1 district, an
eating place is a conditional use and the review process
requires a site plan. C-3 is inappropriate for the
location, and the adopted plan suggests a site plan approach
for any nonresidential use of the site.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site in question is located in the I-630 District. The
plan recommends Mixed use. Since the request only includes
commercial uses, a Planned Commercial Development is
recommended. Alternatively, a "C-1" zone would be
appropriate since office and residential uses are allowed by
right.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Asher Avenue has a right-of-way standard of 35 feet from the
centerline, and the existing right-of-way is deficient.
Dedication of a 5 foot strip along Asher Avenue is required.
Also, dedication of a small triangular piece of right-of-way
is needed for Maple Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of either C-1 or a PCD for the
property, and not the requested C-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994)
The applicant, Lynton Egbosimba, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Egbosimba spoke and said the
property is at the corner of Asher and Maple. Mr. Egbosimba
went on to say that he owns a small grocery store across Maple
and the two lots north of the store, which could be used for
parking. He then discussed the property and said that there
was more than enough area for parking. Mr. Egbosimba also
made some comments about the location of entrances and what
would work the best on the lot.
2
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5791 (Cont.)
At this point, the discussion turned to staff's
recommendation of C-1. Mr. Egbosimba said that C-1 would
not meet his needs and he was not willing to amend the
application to C-1. He told the Commission that he felt
C-3 was a reasonable request.
There were some comments made about C-1 and C-3. It was
pointed out that the C-1 district allows eating places as a
conditional use and not by -right.
There was some additional discussion and Mr. Egbosimba was
asked why he was not willing to accept C-1. Mr. Egbosimba
said that he thought the site could handle the parking and
C-3 was an appropriate zoning for the corner.
There were some questions about the parking requirements and
staff responded to them. Staff also voiced some concerns
about the proposed use and then discussed some possible
problems with a commercial development on the property.
Discussion continued about various issues, including the
possibility of deferring the item. Mr. Egbosimba said he
was willing to consider a deferral, but he still desired C-3
because it would allow him more opportunities to serve the
neighborhood. Mr. Egbosimba then responded to comments made
by the Commission.
There was a long discussion about C-1 versus C-3 and
deferring the issue. After some additional comments,
Mr. Egbosimba agreed to a deferral.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 8, 1994
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MARCH 8, 1994)
The applicant, Lynton Egbosimba, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Egbosimba made some brief
comments and then amended the application to C-1.
There was some limited discussion on the item and staff
responded to some questions.
A motion was made to recommend approval
request to C-1. The motion passed by a
0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
3
of the amended
vote of 8 ayes,
March 8, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1
Owner: C. D. Hunnicutt, Matthew
Lee, Ray Vandiver,
Rejoice Randazha
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Location: 800 Washington, 805 Monroe,
4405 Maryland and 814 Elm
Recruest: Rezone from R-4 to R-3
Purpose: Single -Family
Size: 0.6± acres
Existing Use: Single -Family and Vacant
STAFF ANALYSIS•
This is the continuation of the Forest Hills Neighborhood
reclassification. As the result of work completed in the
12th Street Study, the area was recommended for single
family development. However, half of the area was zoned R-4
Duplex. The Neighborhood Association requested that the
City staff review their area for possible rezoning to a
reduced classification. As a result of work conducted by
staff, a rezoning request was presented to the Commission
last spring. The Commission and Board of Directors approved
the reclassification and most of the area was zoned to R-3
Single Family.
At the time of the original request, staff had been unable
to contact almost two dozen owners. This was a high
percentage of those owners in the affected area. The staff
agreed to attempt to contact these owners again in about six
months. This contact was attempted and about a half dozen
owners were reached. For these owners four have given their
permission to rezone their property.
Therefore, staff now brings these four sites to the
Commission for rezoning to single family, to further
encourage the stabilization of the Forest Hills
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
January 25, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994)
Staff recommended the item be placed on the Consent Agenda.
The item was approved unanimously (8-0) as part of the
Consent Agenda.
2
March 8, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.• 2
TITLE: Pankey Plan
REQUEST: Development Plan for
Pankey CDBG Area
SOURCE: Community Development
Block Grant Committee
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the City's Community Development Block Grant
Program, a neighborhood study for the Pankey area was
funded. This study was to produce a development plan for
Pankey that the City and private citizens could use as a
guide in making development and investment plans.
At today's meeting representatives from the consultant (The
Donaghey Project) will present the plan which they together
with the Neighborhood and City staff have developed. Items
to be covered are the survey and analysis of the area, goals
and objectives, plan alternatives developed, recommendations
for residential or commercial projects, public facilities,
and implementation of these strategies for redevelopment and
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994)
Ron Newman, Planning Manager, stated staff was recommending
the issue be deferred for six weeks to allow time for
further neighborhood meetings. Tim Polk, Assistant Director
of Neighborhoods and Planning, began the presentation with a
history of Pankey. Mr. Polk went on to state that this was
a cooperative effort between the City, Donaghey and the
residents of Pankey.
George Wittenberg, III - Director of the Donaghey Project -
indicated Donaghey was glad to be part of the Pankey Plan.
This is what the Donaghey Project wants to do, to be in that
middle position to facilitate planning activities bringing
together staff and residents to produce a workable plan.
This presentation, today, is just to provide information, no
action is requested. Mrs. Nelson and Barbara Douglas went
on to discuss how the neighborhood got to this point.
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued
Belver Nelson wished to make a brief statement, the plan can
be used as a basis to work from, even though it can be
amended later.
Barbara Douglas, Chairperson of the Pankey Improvement
Corporation, stated that the community along with Planning
staff, the Donaghey Project and Attorney George Ivory has
designed a plan to provide for future growth. All segments
of the community were involved. A CDC (Community
Development Corporation) was formed to develop the plan.
Ms. Douglas reviewed the sections included in the Plan. A
proposal for a community center has reviewed in detail
(programs) and what activities would occur at each site.
Ms. Douglas hoped that with this plan, we can see a future
for Pankey not just look back.
Commissioner Oleson asked about Ms. Nelsons statement about
amending the plan. There was discussion about timing of
changes and the extent of changes.
Mr. Jim Mercado stated that the previous presentation gave
background and executive summary has been distributed to each
commissioner. At this time, Mr. Mercado reviewed the
recommendations. The development plan should be used as a
guide. The first recommendation is to organize the community
such as the CDC is attempting. The second recommendation is
a community center, reviewed by Ms. Douglas earlier. The
third recommendation is for housing rehab, elderly and infill
single family. This recommendation would be accomplished in
phases. No recommendation for changes to the land use plan
or zoning are proposed. The fourth recommendation is for
infrastructure - signage, landscape, and bus shelter. An
action plan to accomplish these recommendations is included
as a section of the plan. There was discussion about the
community center/bus stop proposal and tool storage proposal.
Mr. Polk indicated the plan is unique due to the large
amount of citizen input. This is the first of many plans to
come before the Commission. It is important that
neighborhood organizations understand the zoning and
development process. There was additional discussion about
the housing recommendation.
A motion was made to defer the issue to six weeks,
April 19, 1994. By unanimous vote (9-0) the issue was
deferred.
2
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: 5-1004
NAME: CHENAL SQUARE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, east of the
Markham Street intersection
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Mr. Don Woodbury Mr. Joe White
DWC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, L.C. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC.
14850 Montfort Dr., Suite 255 401 S. Victory St.
Dallas, TX 75240 Little Rock, AR 72201
(214) 960-1550 374-1666
AREA: 9.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Master Street Plan
requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way and construct an
additional traffic lane on Chenal Parkway
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to develop a commercial subdivision on a
9.13 -acre tract witch has 1065± feet of frontage on Chenal
Parkway and 690± feet on W. Markham St. Five lots are proposed:
one primary site involving 5.1 acres is proposed with frontages
on both Chenal Parkway and on W. Markham St.; two lots, one being
1.13 acres and the other 0.66 acres, are proposed to have
frontage exclusively on Chenal Parkway; one 1.25 acres lot is to
face W. Markham St.; and one lot which is 0.8 acres is located at
the corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. The applicant
proposes to construct the required sidewalks on both boundary
streets, but seeks a waiver from the Master Street Plan
requirements to dedicate additional right-of-way and construct an
additional traffic lane on Chenal Parkway.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a
preliminary plat for a 5 -lot commercial subdivision on a
9.13 acres tract located on the north side of Chenal
Parkway, just east of the W. Markham St. intersection. The
subdivision is proposed to contain one 5.1 acre building
site for an anchor store, and has frontages on both Chenal
Parkway and on W. Markham St. Two peripheral lots,
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1004
Parkway and on W. Markham St. Two peripheral lots,
containing 1.13 acres and 0.66 acres, are proposed to have
frontage on Chenal Parkway. One lot, with 1.25 acres, is
located at the northeast corner of the tract and faces north
onto W. Markham St. The fifth lot, which has 0.8 acres, is
at the corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St.
A waiver from the Board of Directors is proposed to be
sought for relief from the Master Street Plan standard which
will require dedication of right-of-way and construction of
an additional traffic lane along the Chenal Parkway frontage
of the tract.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The West
Markham Street right-of-way alignment which existed prior to
Chenal Parkway being developed lies on the site; this right-
of-way was abandoned, but a utility easement remains. The
site has approximately 1065 feet of frontage on Chenal
Parkway and 690 feet on West Markham Street. The Arkansas
Power & Light service center abuts the site to the east.
The existing zoning of the site is C-3, with C-3 zoning on
sites to the north and east. A C-2 site lies to the
southwest across Chenal Parkway.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering Office indicates that the existing
Master Street Plan standards will require dedication of 10
additional feet of right-of-way along the Chenal Parkway
frontage of the plat, plus will require construction of an
additional traffic lane for Chenal Parkway. On both Chenal
Parkway and on West Markham Street, a sidewalk is to be
built. The applicant should especially be certain to
coordinate the design of access points to the site from
Chenal Parkway with Traffic Engineering. The Stormwater
Detention and Excavation Ordinances will be applicable.
Water Works reports that there is a 20" water main in the
old Markham Street right-of-way that will have to be
protected. Water main extensions will be required.
Domestic service is not allowed off the 20" main. On site
fire service may be required for Lot 3.
Wastewater reports that there is an existing 10" sewer main
which crosses the property. No permanent structure may be
built over the existing Wastewater Utility easement. The
existing easement must be maintained at its present
location, or the developer of the property must relocate the
sewer main to match any new easement alignment.
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1004
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot
easements along the east property line of Lot 3 abutting the
AP&L property.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The plat locates access easements along lot lines for shared
driveways from both Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street.
Along West Markham Street, three such access points are
designated. Three within the 690 foot frontage of West
Markham Street. does not meet the separation requirements of
the Subdivision and Master Street Plan regulations. At
least one of the access points needs to be eliminated, and
the 300 foot minimum separation requirement should be met.
A preliminary Bill of Assurance will need to be submitted.
E. ANALYSIS•
The site is zoned C-3, and the design of the proposed lots
exceeds the minimum area and lot width requirements for lots
in this zoning district. Other than the concern expressed
about the location of access points from Chenal Parkway and
West Markham Street, there are no issues to be resolved.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to compliance with Engineering comments or obtaining the
required waivers from the Board of Directors.
STAFF UPDATE
The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting for which this
item is scheduled to be heard will be published and distributed
prior to the date of the subdivision committee meeting at which
the item will be reviewed. A report of the subdivision
committee's findings will be made to the Commission at the
March 8, 1994 hearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994)
The applicant's engineer, Mr. Joe White, and representatives of
the applicant were present. Mr. White reported that the
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1004
improvements required by the Master Street Plan for West Markham
Street would be provided by the applicant, these to include
providing an additional traffic lane. The dedication of
right-of-way and providing an additional lane for Chenal Parkway
would be taken to the Board of Directors for a waiver. Staff
reported that the Board is taking up a discussion of the
imposition of such requirements along Chenal Parkway, and that
the Board would be setting an overall policy for right-of-way
dedication and construction of the additional traffic lane for
all developments along Chenal. The applicant indicated that the
current plans which had been submitted reflected all required
changes following the staff reviews. With these reports, the
Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public
hearing.
PLANNING.COMMISSION ACTIONS: (MARCH 8, 1994)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda for
approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda
8 ayes, no nays, no abstentions, 2 absent, and 1
4
approval. It was
with the vote of
open position.
March 8, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4
TITLE: John Barrow Neighborhood
Area
REQUEST: Development Plan for John
Barrow Neighborhood Area
SOURCE: Community Development
Block Grant Committee
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the City's Community Development Block Grant
Program, a neighborhood study for the John Barrow
Neighborhoods area was funded. This study was to produce a
development plan for the John Barrow Area that the City and
private citizens could use as a guide in making development
and investment plans.
At today's meeting City Staff will present a status report
on the plan; which together with the Neighborhood, City
staff will develop. Items to be covered are the survey and
analysis of the area, goals and objectives, plan
alternatives developed, recommendations for residential or
commercial projects, public facilities, and implementation
of these strategies for redevelopment and development.
No action required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994)
Tim Polk, Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
said the residents of this area believe that their area has
been ignored. The City wanted to use a similarly process to
that used in Pankey. However, the area included in the
study is much larger. The residents consider their area to
be larger than that of the City's CDBG area. Staff agreed
to use the neighborhood's defined area since the impacts are
areawide. On the Steering Committee there are nine
residents, based on geographic representation. Mr. Polk
proceeded by giving a history of the John Barrow area.
The CDBG program has been the main why to get infrastructure
improvements in the area. Staff is trying to show the
neighborhood that there are other sources or ways to address
the problems. In addition, the City identifies this area is
an affordable housing area which makes it important.
March 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued)
Staff is taking the lead in the John Barrow Study.
Consultants will be used to assist due to lack of manpower
or expertise. With the assistance of UALR, the survey was
conducted. Staff has also reviewed existing conditions in
John Barrow. As an illustration Mr. Polk reviewed a map
showing structural condition for one of the sectors in the
John Barrow area. These findings are presented to the
Steering Committee at their twice monthly meetings.
Currently, the committee is working on goals.
Mr. Polk reviewed some of the concerns identified in the
survey of 3,000 households (14 percent response rate). He
noted that bells did go off when Staff saw the negative
feelings of the neighborhood. Information from the survey
has been forwarded to the Police Department and Fighting
Back. A copy of the survey summary will be provided to each
commissioner.
There was discussion about who the steering committee people
were and how they become steering committee members. There
was also discussion about activities discovered in the
existing condition review. In response to a question, there
was discussion about the Alert Center and its success and
future.
K,
in
cr
0
W
cc
W
F—
Z
0
U)
U)
0
Z
Z
J
CL
W-
F -
z
W
In
W
Z:
rA �
e
I
f
I
F-
Z2icrg
z
W
�coC)
j
m=
-�
W
<
U¢
W
WLLJ
J
J_
=
O
JOY
z
p=
J
W
Cf)
J
O
w
J
F=-
z
0O
LLI
-J
mCcLUcn
z
Z
0
O
3--U)3:
1
N
¢
W
Y
J
W-
F -
z
W
In
W
Z:
rA �
I
f
I
F-
Z2icrg
z
W
�coC)
j
m=
-�
W
<
U¢
W
WLLJ
J
J_
=
O
JOY
z
p=
J
W
Cf)
J
O
w
J
F=-
z
0O
LLI
-J
mCcLUcn
z
Z
0
O
3--U)3:
1
N
¢
W
Y
J
W-
F -
z
W
In
W
Z:
rA �
l�
March 8, 1994
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
Ase
rz�� "Jetary