HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 26 2010
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 26, 2010
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Members Present: Tom Brock
William Changose
Marcus Devine
J. T. Ferstl
Dan Harpool
Troy Laha
Bill Rector
Billy Rouse
Jeff Yates
Members Absent: Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Open Position
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the July 15, 2010 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
AUGUST 26, 2010
4:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z-5392-B Cloverdale Middle School Parking Expansion and
Improvements – Conditional Use Permit
6300 Hinkson Road
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. G-23-421 “O” Street/Davis Avenue – Right-of-Way Abandonment
Adjacent to 1600 N. Fillmore Street
2. LU10-19-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning
District at the north side of Kanis Road, just east of
Rahling Road from Residential High Density and
Park/Open Space to Office, Commercial and Park/Open
Space.
2.1 Z-8576 Rezoning from R-2 and AF to O-2, C-3 and PR
North side of Kanis Road, 400 feet east of Edswood
Road
3. G-25-208 Lewis Street Name Change to Bishop Warren Drive
Lewis Street; from West 12th Street to Charles Bussey
Avenue
4. Z-8130-A Arkansas Baptist College – Revised POD
1811 West 16th Street and 1604 Wolfe Street
5. Z-8575 Holy Souls Catholic Church – Conditional Use Permit
5323 "H” Street and 824 N. Harrison Street
6. Z-8577 Sonic/Geyer Springs – Conditional Use Permit
8100 Geyer Springs Road
7. Z-8578 Sonic/University – Colonel Glenn Conditional Use
Permit
Southwest corner of S. University Avenue and Colonel
Glenn Road
Agenda, Page Two
II. NEW BUSINESS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
8. Z-8579 Deloney Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
8001 Mabelvale Cut-Off Road
9. Z-8580 Arkansas Baptist College Student Lounge – Conditional
Use Permit
1515 Martin Luther King Drive
10. LU10-09-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630/Boyle Park
District changing Various Areas from Residential Low
Density, Public Institutional, Park/Open Space,
Suburban Office, Commercial, Industrial to Residential
Low Density, Public Institutional, Suburban Office,
Mixed Use and Light Industrial.
11. Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments
12. 2010 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
13. LU10-01- A Land Use Plan Amendment in the areas surrounding
the Little Rock National Airport and Port to ‘clean-up’
the Plan for this vicinity from Residential, Commercial,
Industrial and Agricultural to Industrial, Light Industrial,
Commercial and Mixed Use.
14. A-320 Cooper Orbit Road Annexation, north of Cooper Orbit
Road, near Glisten Lane
3yNd
CD
'1
I
Ta.1 �I
-
Yf- �.��F�JF
y
i•�ti 0M SYWONI Mlua
z:
SIP
O'
--
EfkStAT£5
.
zo asa�ir�+a �
�fj_�CC ,pp
QQONS
yr
ARCH 5T
,r
x
I`: CdAIB 7raldd
ri
A .A115a3AMNnS
_ _ ,• wrFr
4eS`J'NI L3135 w•* •�
W t•
cn
f$ll
1S Idd1SSESSIW N
OH103IHV r
;
4®
Yf J
a -
o can 'moss
�i3Ib15tl3
I wr
m
p
.
+
� rte.• r..�,,...� t
{rce
�, 8
�
30OW 41n
'�
`
iZ �..�•..r.
m
J.
��f17i �
�
ba a� yx
p l
�
•
�
m
—
c3 +
ry�
Pa 1Wlµ'315"l C4
�a wvnli• ins �1,
9
on
�• � r .� � w Q,O o
AVMHDIH
'7
r••
a
aas�lavds
0 9J0 3ry
r7
h
a-
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-5392-B
NAME: Cloverdale Middle School Parking
Lot Expansion and Improvements
LOCATION: 6300 Hinkson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: LRSD/Peters and Associates
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for an
expansion of new parking spaces and improvements
to existing parking on this R-2 zoned public school
site.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located south of West 83rd Street, north of Hinkson Road,
approximately one block west of Geyer Springs Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has been a part of this neighborhood many years, predating
the area’s annexation into the City. If done appropriately, the addition of
more on-site parking should not affect the school’s continued compatibility
with the neighborhood. The campus is located at the eastern edge of the
residential neighborhood, where uses transition to the commercial Geyer
Springs corridor. Other institutional uses in the immediate vicinity include
churches located to the north and east, a charter school located one block
to the east and a day care to the east.
Notice of the public hearing was sent to owners of properties located
within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be
identified and the SWLR United for Progress and Cloverdale
Neighborhood Associations.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site contains a total of approximately 111 on-site parking spaces
spread over the campus. An 18-space lot is located on the north side of
the building with access off of W. 83rd Street. A 10-space lot is located
east of the school with access off of Holland Lane, a private street. A total
of 32 spaces are located in the area in front of the school with access off
of Holland Land and Hinkson Road. Parking lots located on the west part
of the school property (adjacent to the cafeteria and where the elementary
school was previously located) contain a total of 48 spaces.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5392-B
2
The District is proposing to construct 9 additional spaces east of the
school, off of Holland Lane. Two smaller parking lots containing a total of
22 spaces are proposed to be constructed at the northeast corner of the
campus, with access off of Holland Lane. The parking lot within the
circular drive in front of the school is proposed to be enlarged by the
addition of 55 new spaces. Once the construction of new spaces and
renovation of some of the existing spaces is complete, the site will contain
187 on-site parking spaces, a net gain of 76 spaces.
Parking standards for a middle school are 1 space per classroom and
1 space for each teacher, employee and administrator. The school
contains 52 classrooms, with 66 teachers and 26 other employees. Based
on these numbers, the campus should contain 144 on-site parking spaces.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinances is required.
The proposed site plan does not provide the 36± foot street buffer required
on both the West 83rd Street and Hinkson Road perimeters. Additionally,
the proposed parking lot on the West 83rd Street perimeter does not
provide the minimum 9-foot wide landscape strip required by the
Landscape Ordinance.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. West 83rd Street and Hinkson Road are classified as commercial
streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. Repair any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalks.
3. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. The proposed parking lot at the northeast corner of the site does not
comply with driveway spacing requirements.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comments received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comments received.
AT&T (SBC): No comments received.
Water: NO OBJECTIONS.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5392-B
3
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. The nearest route is
located on Geyer Springs Road, to the east.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 24, 2010)
Ernie Peters was present representing the application. Staff presented the item
and noted additional information was needed regarding potential signage, site
lighting and fencing. Staff noted the site plan needed additional labeling to more
clearly show the property lines and dimensions to the proposed parking so that
staff could determine if the buffer and landscape ordinances are being complied
with. Staff also stated it was not clear what the existing right-of-way was on the
abutting streets.
Staff asked the applicant to provide the total number of classrooms, grades of
children and total number of employees and children so that a parking
requirement could be determined. Staff also asked the applicant to provide the
total number of parking spaces on site; existing now and after the proposed
expansion. Staff informed the Committee that there had been concerns voiced
by an area resident that the school was not using all of the existing parking.
Mr. Peters responded that there were 78 parking spaces on the site in close
proximity to the school and an additional 30 space located on the west side of the
campus; away from the school building. During the ensuing discussion,
Commissioner Laha suggested the school make more use of the existing parking
on site.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, July 1,
2010.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Cloverdale Magnet Middle School is located on the R-2 zoned property at 6300
Hinkson Road. The school is located on the east half of the 16± acre LRSD
property. An elementary school used to be located on the west half. The school
site contains a 52 classroom building, a detached cafeteria building,
approximately 111 parking spaces distributed around the campus and play
areas. Of the 111 spaces, approximately 60 are located in close proximity to the
building. The remainder are located on the west side of the campus, some
distance away from the building.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5392-B
4
The District is proposing to increase on-site parking from 111 spaces to 187
spaces. Based on Ordinance Standards, this school should have 144 parking
spaces. Two new parking lots are proposed at the northeast corner of the
campus. These lots will contain a total of 22 spaces. 10 new spaces are
proposed east of the building, taking access off of Holland Lane. The parking lot
in front of the school is proposed to be expanded and improved to add 55
spaces. All of the new spaces are in close proximity to the school building.
While staff is supportive of the concept of providing additional on-site parking
spaces, there are issues with this specific plan. The proposed parking lot at the
northeast corner of the campus does not provide for the required zoning buffer of
36 feet or the minimum street perimeter landscape strip of 9 feet. A landscape
strip of 7 feet is proposed along West 83rd Street. Additionally, the driveway to
this proposed parking lot does not comply with driveway spacing requirements
from 83rd Street. To construct the new parking area in front of the school, a
park-like area within the existing circular drive will be mostly removed. The
proposed new parking does not provide the required 36-foot zoning street buffer.
At its closest point, the new parking is located within 10.6 feet of the Hinkson
Road property line.
Staff believes there are options available, including placing a new parking lot
west of the school, off of West 83rd Street. It is possible access could even be
taken through an existing parking lot located north of the school. Additional area
for parking is available on the west side of the campus. This area is within
reasonable distance from the main school building and is even closer to the
cafeteria building, which is connected to the main building by a covered walkway.
Staff believes any proposed new parking should comply with the City’s buffer and
landscape ordinances. Placement of the new parking without the benefit of
appropriate buffers could potentially impact area residents and property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2010)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff informed the
Commission that, on July 13, 2010, the applicant had requested deferral of the
item. Staff recommended deferral of the item to the August 26, 2010 agenda.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5392-B
5
A motion was made to waive the Commission’s bylaws in regard to the late
deferral request. That motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent. A motion was then made to defer the item to the August 26, 2010
agenda. That motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, which addresses the issues
raised by staff. The small parking lot previously shown at the northeast corner of
the site has been eliminated; thus addressing the buffer and driveway spacing
concerns in that area. The parking lot in front of the school (fronting onto
Hinkson Road) has been modified so that the required 36-foot zoning street
buffer is provided. The revised plan was presented at the August 5, 2010
Subdivision Committee meeting. The committee determined there were no
outstanding technical issues.
UPDATED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised plan subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicants were present. There were four objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “updated staff
recommendation” above.
Ernie Peters addressed the commission and described the proposal. He said the
plan had been modified to address staff’s concerns about buffers and driveway
spacing. He said the improvements would also address drainage concerns on
the site. Mr. Peters said there would be no new driveways onto public streets. He
also described proposed sidewalk improvements on the east side of the school,
where buses pick up and drop off students.
Pam Adcock, of 6205 Hinkson Rd., spoke in opposition to the item. She stated
she had lived at that location for 17 years and most of the other neighbors were
also opposed to the school’s plans. Ms. Adcock stated there was no reason to
destroy the front of the school property by taking away green space to construct
parking. She stated there appeared to be adequate parking on the site based on
the number of vacant parking spaces she observes daily. Ms. Adcock said the
school should fit in the neighborhood and not look like an institutional site. She
said the trees indicated to be preserved would likely die when the new parking is
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5392-B
6
constructed. She asked the Commission to not allow the school to construct any
more parking lot lighting. Ms. Adcock said there were other areas on the campus
that were better for placement of new parking. She spoke of the history of the
relationship between the school and the neighborhood and said the
neighborhood had most often supported the school. She said the school was
asking for more parking than the minimum established by the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Adcock showed photographs of other areas on the campus that she felt were
better for use as parking.
Pat Gee, Vice-president of SWLRUP, spoke in opposition. She spoke of the
importance of maintaining green space and of preserving mature trees. She
questioned the cost of the project and wondered if it was an appropriate use of
tax dollars.
William Vinson, principal of the school, addressed the Commission. He said there
was a need for more parking near the front of the school, not just for the teachers
but also for parents and other visitors. He noted that the proposed parking was in
close proximity to the cafeteria and gymnasium. Mr. Vinson stated the conversion
of the school to a charter school had created the need for more parking. He said
there would only be minimum lighting on the sidewalks and ramps.
Commissioner Devine talked about the new Chenal Elementary and noted that
school had parking at the front of the building which was available for parents
and other visitors.
Commissioner Changose commented that putting the parking at the northwest
corner of the building, off of 83rd Street, would work. Mr. Vinson responded that
parking at the back of the school would not provide good access to the gym,
cafeteria and front entrance.
There was a discussion of the required number of parking spaces and the
number of spaces on the overall site.
There was a motion to approve the application, including all staff comments and
conditions. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 7 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: G-23-421
Name: “O” Street/Davis Avenue – Right-of-Way
Abandonment
Location: Adjacent to 1600 N. Fillmore Street
Owner/Applicant: Akasha Hull
Request: To abandon the twenty-five (25) foot
“O” Street/Davis Avenue right-of-way
adjacent to 1600 N. Fillmore Street
(25 feet by 139.5 feet)
Purpose: To construct a driveway and garage
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to abandon the twenty-five (25) foot “O” Street/Davis
Avenue right-of-way adjacent to Lot 5, Block 27, Mountain Park Addition (1600 N.
Fillmore Street). The abandonment is requested to construct a driveway and
garage to serve the residence at 1600 N. Fillmore Street.
STAFF REVIEW :
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way:
As noted in paragraph G., none of the utilities object to the abandonment
request. Two (2) of the utilities require part of the area be retained as a
utility easement due to existing service lines. The Public Works
Department comment is as follows:
1. Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas. A fifteen
(15) foot wide drainage easement should be established along the
southern right-of-way line.
B. Master Street Plan:
There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with this abandonment
request, as the right-of-way is not classified as a collector street or higher.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-421
2
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain:
The area of right-of-way is currently undeveloped with few trees. The area
is mostly grass-covered. There is a drainage ditch within the south half of
the right-of-way area.
D. Development Potential:
After abandonment, the adjacent property owner to the north proposes to
construct a driveway and garage to serve the residence.
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect:
Single family residences are located north, east and northwest of the
abandonment area. The Arkansas River Valley Montessori School is
located to the south at 1509 N. Pierce Street.
F. Neighborhood Position:
The Forest Park and Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the abandonment request. As of this writing, staff knows of no
objectors to the abandonment request.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
Wastewater: No objection to abandonment.
Entergy: No objection to abandonment.
Centerpoint Energy: No objection to abandonment.
AT&T (SBC): No objection to abandonment. Retain south ten (10) feet of
the area of abandonment as an easement.
Water: No objection to abandonment. Retain area as easement or replat
an easement of seven and one-half (7.5) feet from the centerline of the
existing main.
H. Reversionary Rights:
This 25 foot wide (north half) section of “O” Street/Davis Avenue right-of-
way was platted with the Mountain Park Addition to the north. The south
half of the right-of-way was apparently never dedicated with development
of the property to the south. Therefore, once abandoned, the right-of-way
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-421
3
will revert to the owner of Lot 5, Block 27, Mountain Park Addition (1600
N. Fillmore Street). According to an abstract company, there are no
recorded reversionary rights for this right-of-way.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues:
Abandoning this right-of-way will have no adverse impact on the public
welfare and safety. The Little Rock Fire Department has reviewed and
approved the abandonment request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
Akasha Hull was present, representing the application. Staff described the
proposed right-of-way abandonment, noting that the applicant had submitted all
required documentation.
There being no outstanding issues associated with the abandonment request,
the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested “O” Street/Davis Avenue right-of-
way abandonment, subject to the south 15 feet of the area of abandonment
being retained as a utility and drainage easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended
by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: LU10-19-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment – Chenal Planning District
Location: North side of Kanis Road, just east of Rahling Road
Request: Residential High Density to Office and Commercial
Source: Tim Daters, for Maidie B. Shearer Revocable Trust
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Residential
High Density to Office and Commercial.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and AF Agricultural Forestry.
It is about eleven acres in size, minus the area shown as floodway. Part of this
property is vacant and part is used as an animal clinic. The land south of this
amendment site is zoned R-2 and is developed with large tract single family
residences. Part of this area is undeveloped still. To the east of this area is a
recently approved Planned Commercial Development for retail and mini
warehouses. To the west of this site is zoned C-3 and is wooded and
undeveloped. To the north is zoned Planned Office Development for a proposed
medical office complex.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
This area is shown as Residential High Density and Park/Open Space on the
Future Land Use Plan. The Park/Open Space is shown to represent the Rock
Creek floodway. To the north of this site is shown as Mixed Use. To the east
and west is shown as Commercial. The south side of Kanis is shown as
Residential High Density.
LU08-19-01 was approved by Ordinance 19,986 to change an area northwest of
this site from Residential High Density to Commercial and Neighborhood
Commercial.
LU06-19-07 was approved by Ordinance 19,722 for multiple staff updates along
Kanis Road including a change from Residential High Density to Commercial to
the west of this amendment site.
LU06-19-02 was approved by Ordinance 19,582 to change an area of
Residential High Density to Mixed Office Commercial just north of the Rock
Creek floodway.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-19-01
2
LU05-19-03 was a change to the east of this current amendment from
Residential High Density and Office to Commercial and Office. It was approved
by Ordinance 19,462.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Rahling Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is
to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers
within urbanized areas. Kanis Road is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides
connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide
short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be
limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Kanis Road
since it is a Minor Arterial. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
Class I bike routes are proposed along Rahling Road and Kanis Road. A Class I
bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of
way may be required.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is within eight blocks of a park or
open space. The Champagnolle Neighborhood Park is located to the northwest
of this property.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
ANALYSIS:
In 2006, the Board of Directors requested City staff to review the Land Use Plan
along Kanis Road from Chenal Parkway to Stewart Road. This was made as the
result of a Land Use Plan amendment just west of Chenal Parkway on the north
side of Kanis Road from Residential High Density to Commercial. Staff had been
opposed to this request in part due to concerns that it could lead to further
commercial requests along Kanis, making Kanis lined with commercial from
Chenal Parkway to at lease the alignment of the proposed West Loop. The
resulting amendment package was based on the goal of maintaining existing
zoned multifamily areas and protecting the low density single family areas to the
south of Kanis Road.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-19-01
3
This planning effort used Kanis Road as a dividing line between lower density
(rural to extra-urban development) and higher density (more traditional suburban
subdivisions) development areas. During the last four years this pattern has
held, with the north side of Kanis Road not only being more dense but also more
non-residential. The addition of a medical office campus development and
zoning for several mixed use (office/commercial) developments north of Kanis
Road has expanded the area of service and retail businesses. The amendment
site is part of the southern edge of a large office-commercial, business district for
far west Little Rock.
The south side of Kanis Road has a use pattern that is large lot residential, rural
in nature. Currently Kanis Road is a two-lane ‘county road’, but the Master Street
Plan shows it as a four-lane divided Arterial (or five-lane Arterial). This road can
be the transition from non-residential to residential uses. The Land Use Plan
shows an area of Residential High Density south of the site in question that will
continue to be the transition from this higher density business district and the low
density large lot home sites to the south. After review of the area, both use and
zoning, the proposed change to Office and Commercial will not cause any
undesirable land use conflicts in the area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Witry Court,
Champagnolle Court and Bascom Place. Staff has received no comments from
area residents. The property under review is not located in an area covered by a
City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 8 for and
0 against, 1 recusal (Yates), 1 absent and 1 vacant the consent agenda was
approved.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NO.: Z-8576
Owner: Maidie B. Shearer Revocable Trust
Applicant: Tim Daters, White-Daters and Associates
Location: North side of Kanis Road, approximately
400 feet east of Edswood Road
Area: Approximately 11.16 Acres
Request: Rezone from R-2 and AF to C-3, O-2 and PR
Purpose: Future office/commercial development
Existing Use: Partially undeveloped with single family
residence and pet boarding business
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Undeveloped property; zoned POD
South – Single family residences and undeveloped property
(across Kanis Road); zoned R-2
East – Single family residence and RV storage; zoned PCD
West – Undeveloped property; zoned C-3
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25
foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway
boundary.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Champagnolle Court,
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO: 2.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8576
2
Bascom Place and Witry Court Neighborhood Associations were notified
of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use
Plan shows Residential High Density and Park/Open Space for this
property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from AF and R-2 to C-3
and O-2. A Land Use Plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda.
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of
Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
Master Street Plan:
Rahling Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal
Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or
activity centers within urbanized areas. Kanis Road is a Minor Arterial. A
Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their
primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area.
Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic
and pedestrians on Kanis Road since it is a Minor Arterial. These streets
may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements
for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan:
Class I bike routes are proposed along Rahling Road and Kanis Road. A
Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional
paving and right-of-way may be required.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Maidie B. Shearer Revocable Trust, owner of the 11.16 acre property
located on the north side of Kanis Road, approximately 400 feet east of
Edswood Road, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single
Family District and “AF” Agriculture and Forestry District to “C-3” General
Commercial District (2.893 acres) and “O-2” Office and Institutional District
(8.265 acres). The floodway area, which runs through this property, is
proposed to be zoned “PR” Park and Recreation District, as it is shown on
the Parks Masterplan as part of a trail system. The rezoning is being
proposed for future commercial/office development.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO: 2.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8576
3
The majority of the property is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded.
The AF zoned portion contains a small single family-type structure, which
is being utilized as a pet boarding business. There is a single family
residence at the northeast corner of the overall property. A creek runs
through the property from the southeast corner to the northwest corner,
with a three (3) acre lake within the north portion of the property.
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. Undeveloped
POD zoned property is located to the north. Single family residences and
undeveloped R-2 zoned property are located across Kanis Road to the
South. PCD zoned property is located to the east, with undeveloped C-3
zoning to the west.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Residential
High Density and Park/Open Space. A Land Use Plan Amendment to
change the Residential High Density to Office and Commercial. The area
of Park/Open Space (floodway area) will remain.
Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning. Staff views the requested
rezoning as reasonable. The general area contains a mixture of zonings,
with the abutting properties to the east and west having commercial
designations. The property to the north is zoned POD. The requested
C-3 and O-2 zoning will be a continuation of the non-residential zoning
along the north side of Kanis Road, west of Chenal Parkway. Staff
believes the proposed C-3 and O-2 zoning, with the floodway being zoned
PR, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 and O-2 rezoning,
subject to the area of the property located in the regulatory floodway being
zoned PR.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recusal (Yates), 1 absent and 1 open
position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: G-25-208
Name: Lewis Street Name Change to Bishop Warren Drive
Location: Lewis Street, from West 12th Street to
Charles Bussey Avenue
Petitioner: Greater Christ Temple Pentecostal Church
Request: To rename that portion of Lewis Street, located from West
12th Street to Charles Bussey Avenue, to Bishop Warren
Drive.
Abutting Uses and Ownership:
One church (applicant) and 13 single family residences front onto and take an address from
this 8 block section of Lewis Street. Four (4) of the houses are vacant. The petition was
signed by the church and residents of eight (8) of the nine (9) remaining occupied residences.
Neighborhood Effect:
The addresses of the church and 13 residential properties will change.
Neighborhood Position:
The petition requesting the street name change was signed by the church and 8 of the 9
occupied single family residences. Notice of the public hearing was sent to all parties,
including the owners of the 4 unoccupied residences.
Staff notified the Forest Hills, Hope, Midway and Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood
Associations. As of this writing, no opposition has been voiced to staff.
Effect on Public Services:
Thirteen street signs will need to be changed at a cost of approximately $100.00 per sign for
a total cost of approximately $1,300.00.
None of the reviewing agencies have voiced opposition to the proposed name change.
Staff Analysis:
The membership of Greater Christ Temple Pentecostal Church, located at 1200 Lewis Street,
is petitioning to have the portion of Lewis Street located between West 12th Street and
Charles Bussey Avenue renamed to Bishop Warren Drive in recognition of Bishop Emeritus
Leodies Warren.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-208
2
In 1942, Bishop Warren began his pastorate at Bethlehem Temple Church in North Little
Rock. He later moved the church to 3412 West 17th Street in Little Rock and renamed it
Christ Temple Pentecostal Church. In 1980, the church purchased the property at 1200
Lewis Street and subsequently constructed the existing facilities. Bishop Warren pastored for
67 years and now serves as pastor emeritus. In 2009, Bishop Warren received a recognition
award from Governor Mike Beebe, honoring him for his outstanding humanitarian services.
The church had previously filed an application, requesting to rename West 12th Street for
Bishop Warren. That application was denied by the Planning Commission in December
2009. At the suggestion of the Planning Commission, the church pursued the current
application to rename a portion of Lewis Street.
The portion of Lewis Street to be renamed has logical beginning and ending points on both
ends at major streets, 12th and Bussey. Staff believes the intersecting streets will help to
provide a logical transition to the new street name. Staff has no knowledge about the basis
for the Lewis Street name. It is one of three streets (Lewis, Peyton, Abigail) that provide a
transition from the “tree” streets to the east and the “president” streets to the west.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to rename that portion of Lewis Street located
between West 12th Street and Charles Bussey Avenue to Bishop Warren Drive.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and
a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-8130-A
NAME: Arkansas Baptist College Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION: 1811 West 16th Street and 1604 Wolfe Street
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Baptist College
1621 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet
1510 S. Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ARCHITECT:
SCM
10411 West Markham, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 31,780 sq. ft. NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: None
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Classrooms, community center and offices for
Inner City Future Net
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: Day care, classrooms, offices and housing for Arkansas
Baptist College
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 7, 2006, the Commission voted to recommend approval of Inner City
Future Net’s planned office proposal to use the structure at 1811 West 16th Street as
administrative offices and the structure at 1604 Wolfe Street for educational activities.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130-A
2
Together the two buildings were to serve as a type of community center. Ordinance No.
19,627 was passed by the Board of Directors on January 2, 2007, establishing the Inner
City Future Net Short-form PD-O.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
Arkansas Baptist College is requesting a revision to the POD to allow the
structure at 1811 West 16th Street to be used for the College’s Kiddie Kollege
day care center and the structure at 1604 Wolfe Street to be used to house the
college’s Upward Bound program. Future uses for the 1604 Wolfe Street
structures may include faculty housing, office space or additional space for the
Kiddie Kollege.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Both 1811 West 16th and 1604 Wolfe are one-story, frame residential structures.
1604 Wolfe appears to be residential in use at this time. 1811 West 16th appears
to be occupied by a nonresidential use but there is little activity and no signage.
There is no on-site parking.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notice was sent to the owners of all properties located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Central High,
Downtown and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No Comments.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: NO OBJECTION.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130-A
3
All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water
service must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water
meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted. Fire sprinklers may be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Revised Planned Office Development to allow the continued use of
the existing structures for various activities of Arkansas Baptist College.
The uses proposed with the Planned Development are of a public – quasi-public
nature. As with all Public Institutional uses a Land Use Plan is not required.
When Staff conducts the next land use review of the area, if the development is
in place a ‘clean-up’ amendment to Public Institutional may be included for the
Commission’s consideration at that time.
Master Street Plan: Wolfe Street, Battery Street, and 16th Street are all sho9wn
as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape Issue: Proposed privacy fence to enclose the playground area is to
be constructed with the finished side facing outward.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
Robert Turner was present representing Arkansas Baptist College. Staff
presented the item and noted some additional information was required
regarding signage, parking, site lighting and dumpster location. Staff asked the
applicant to provide a maximum enrollment for the day care and to indicate
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130-A
4
where drop-off/pick-up would occur. Staff noted the site was located within the
Central High Design Overlay District and if the redevelopment costs exceed
50% of the structures’ assessed value, the overlay’s regulations would apply.
Mr. Turner responded that it was unlikely that the minor remodeling required
would exceed that threshold since the buildings had been previously remodeled
by Inner City.
Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were noted. The applicant was
advised to respond to staff issues by August 11, 2010. The Committee
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
H. ANALYSIS:
Ordinance No. 19,627, passed on January 2, 2007, approved the use of the
residential structures at 1811 West 16th and 1604 Wolfe Street for various
educational and office uses for Inner City Future Net. Arkansas Baptist College
has now acquired the property and is requesting a revision to the POD zoning to
allow the structures to be used for various activities.
1811 West 16th Street is proposed to be used for Kiddie Kollege, the College’s
day care center. The day care will have a maximum enrollment of 25 children.
Currently, there are 3 full-time and 1 part-time employees. A 6-foot wood privacy
fence will be erected in a portion of the rear yard to accommodate a playground.
Only minor renovations are required to accommodate the use. Drop-off/pick-up
will occur in the alley adjacent to the structure. Employees will utilize existing
college parking lots or on-street parking.
The structure at 1604 Wolfe Street is to be used for facility housing, office space
or additional use for the Kiddie Kollege. No changes are proposed for the site.
At both buildings, no signage, no new site lighting and no dumpster are
proposed. No on-site parking will be constructed. The only external change will
be the privacy fence behind 1811 West 16th. The applicant has reconfirmed that
no trees will be removed. Trash collection cans are located on the west side of
1811 West 16th, off of the alley. That area is screened by a privacy fence.
The site is located in the Central High Design Overlay District. It appears no
changes are being made to the site, which might violate the DOD. The overlay
parking requirement is 50% of the typical ordinance requirement. As an office
use, 1604 Wolfe Street would typically require two spaces. Only one space is
required under the overlay. The proposed day care would typically require 5
spaces. Only 2 are required under the overlay. The college is not proposing to
construct any on-site parking, desiring to maintain the existing residential
character of the site.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130-A
5
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The century old bill of
assurance for Centennial Addition is handwritten and somewhat illegible but
likely does not address use issues.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested POD subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections D, E and
F of the agenda staff report.
2. Compliance with all applicable building and fire codes for conversion of these
structures for the proposed uses.
3. Any other improvements to the buildings and properties must comply with the
Central High Design Overlay District criteria.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “staff recommendation” above.
There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-8575
NAME: Holy Souls Catholic Church – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5323 “H” Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Catholic Diocese of Arkansas/Anthony Taylor, Bishop
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
use of the Benedict House, a former convent, for
various parish activities. The property is zoned R-3.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the south side of “H” Street, between Harrison and
Tyler Streets.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property has served as a convent for over 80 years. The church is
proposing the continued use of the site for church activities. A few
changes are proposed to the site but the building will maintain its historic
character that has been a part of the community for over so many years.
Holy Souls Church and school are located across “H” Street to the north.
The Francis Allen School is located across Tyler Street to the west.
Single-family residences make up most of the neighborhood around the
site, including to the south and east.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest Resident
Association were notified of the proposal. The applicants attended an
HRA meeting and hosted a second neighborhood meeting to discuss the
proposal.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site has no real on-site parking. None is proposed. As an extension
of the church, parking will be provided on the church campus, to the north.
The Hillcrest Overlay permits on-street parking to fulfill parking
requirements at the rate of one space for every 10 feet of street frontage.
The site has 120± feet of frontage on Tyler Street, allowing 12 spaces. No
parking is permitted on the “H” Street frontage.
A drop-off lane is proposed to be constructed off of “H” Street and the
alley. The alley will be improved from the drop-off lane to “H” Street.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8575
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
The zoning buffer ordinance requires a nine (9) foot wide land use buffer
along the southern property line next to the residentially zoned property.
Seventy percent (70%) of this area must remain undisturbed.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can
be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
Street trees are both highly encouraged and appreciated.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan
specifies that Tyler Street for the frontage of this property must meet
commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to thirty (30) feet
from centerline.
2. “H” Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
A dedication of right-of-way thirty (30) feet from centerline will be
required.
3. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Tyler Street and “H” Street.
4. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of “H” Street and Harrison Street.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: NO OBJECTION.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8575
3
All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request
for water service must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the
water meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
At the time of Subdivision Committee review, the application included both 5323
“H” Street and 824 N. Harrison. The application was subsequently amended to
remove the 824 N. Harrison property.
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding dumpster location, site lighting, signage and
building height. The applicant was asked to provide additional details on the
proposed uses and the square footage of the buildings.
Staff noted the site was located in the Hillcrest Design Overlay District and the
plan would be reviewed for compliance with the district standards.
Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were noted.
The applicant commented that the proposal would be discussed at the August
Hillcrest Residents Association meeting and a second neighborhood meeting
would also be held.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission after advising the
applicant to respond to staff issues by August 11, 2010.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
When the application was initially filed, it included the properties at 5323 “H”
Street and 824 N. Harrison Street. The application was subsequently amended
to remove the 824 N. Harrison site.
Our Lady of the Holy Souls Catholic Church is requesting a conditional use
permit to allow for use of the former convent building, the Benedict House,
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8575
4
located at 5323 “H” Street for various church related activities. The Benedict
House is a brick structure containing two-floors and a basement. Total square
footage is 7,710 square feet. A two-story, 750 square foot addition is proposed
to be constructed onto the building’s east side for a new elevator and to provide
an accessible entrance. A drop-off lane will be constructed. A parking pad for a
scout trailer will be placed at the rear of the site as will a small storage building
that is currently located on the main church campus.
The interior of the building will be remodeled. The building exterior will be
cleared and new energy efficient windows will be installed. Site lighting will
consist of under canopy lighting at the building’s entrances, wall-mounted
security lighting with full cut-offs on the buildings and a possible pole-mounted
fixture at the drop-off driveway. All lighting will comply with the Hillcrest Design
Overlay District criteria. A six foot tall wood privacy fence will enclose the rear
yard. The fence has been pulled back so that it does not extend past the building
on the Tyler Street perimeter. New landscaping will be installed at the drop-off
driveway. No dumpster will be located on the site. Trash is gathered and taken
to an existing dumpster on the Holy Souls campus. The new addition will not
exceed the existing building height of 30’9”. The addition exceeds ordinance
required setbacks for the zoning district. Signage will consist only of a wall sign
above the front entrance indicating “Benedict House”. No ground mounted signs
are proposed.
The applicant has submitted the following information regarding the specific uses
proposed for the site:
a) Basement Level: Scout Center. Meeting rooms and storage for Holy
Souls sponsored Cub, Girl, and Boy Scout troops and Venture Crew.
Generally scout activities take place between 3:30 and 6:00 PM on
most days of the school week, except Wednesday. Venture Crew
meetings may extend to as late as 8:00 PM. Weekend use of the
facility by the scouts is generally related to off-site activities.
b) First Floor: Parish Meeting Rooms. This area is intended to meet the
parish’s need for general meeting space to accommodate both parish
and neighborhood organizations that share the limited space currently
available. These groups include the following (approx. meeting times
noted):
CYM (6:00 – 8:00 PM)
Scouts (3:30 – 8:00 PM)
Church Committees (Noon Hour or early evening)
Scripture Study (7:00 – 9:00 PM)
Stephen Ministry (6:30 – 9:00 PM)
Senior’s Group (10:00 AM – 2:00 PM)
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8575
5
School Committees (Noon Hour or early evening)
Altar Society (7:00 – 9:00 PM)
Knights of Columbus (6:30 – 10:00 PM)
Hillcrest Residents Association (6:00 – 8:00 PM)
Neighborhood Watch (6:00 – 8:00 PM)
c) Second Floor: Catholic Youth Ministry (CYM): Youth activity center for
Jr. High and Sr. High school aged young adults. Will consistent of
meeting spaces, activity areas and game room. CYM meets on
Wednesday evenings beginning around 6:00 PM with most activities
ending by 8:00 PM. During the school year the facility may be kept
open later to accommodate post-football game activities or dances
(held at Allen Center across “H” Street from building), but is typically
closed by 10:00 PM on these occasions. Overnight group “lock-ins” for
Sr. High students and chaperones are scheduled periodically during
the school year, but as the lock-in name implies, the students remain in
the facility throughout the night.
The replacement cost for the building is $1,172,000 and the anticipated
development cost is $750,000. Those numbers trigger compliance with the
Hillcrest DOD. Staff believes the site plan complies with the DOD.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The bill of assurance is
handwritten and somewhat illegible but likely does not address use issues. The
applicant responded to the issues raised at Subdivision Committee as noted in
the analysis above. Staff believes the continued use of the Benedict House for
church related activities, as proposed, is an appropriate use for the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the
agenda staff report.
2. All new improvements must comply with the Hillcrest Design Overlay District
criteria.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “staff recommendation”
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8575
6
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 open position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8577
NAME: Sonic/Geyer Springs – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 8100 Geyer Springs Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Tommy Lasiter under contract to D. L. Rogers Co./
Ron Tabor, Joe White
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an eating place with drive in service on
this C-3 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the west side of Geyer Springs Road, between
Mitchell Drive and Nova Lane.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located on the intensely developed Geyer Springs commercial
corridor. The area is characterized by a wide variety of commercial uses,
including other fast food restaurants and automobile related uses. The
proposed use is compatible with uses in the area.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for Progress,
Cloverdale and Windamere Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the request. SWLR United for Progress voted at their August 2010
meeting to support the application.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site is from Geyer Springs Road. Traffic Engineering has
approved the modified plan to allow two driveways; one entry only and
one exit only. A third driveway will provide access from the site, through
the properties to the south to Nova Lane. A cross access easement will
be executed to allow this driveway. The site contains covered and
uncovered parking stalls and a drive up pick up lane and window.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8577
2
The zoning street buffer requires a nine (9) foot wide street buffer along
Geyer Springs Road. Currently, the street landscape buffer strip is
deficient.
The landscape ordinance requires a nine (9) foot wide perimeter
landscape strip around the site’s entirety. Currently, the site is deficient
along all the perimeters of the site. A variance must be obtained from the
City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Interior islands must be a minimum of seven foot six inches (7’6”) in width
and a minimum of three hundred (300) square foot in area to qualify
towards the landscape ordinance. These islands are also to be evenly
distributed throughout the site.
The dumpster pad is currently located within the landscape strip; relocate
out of the landscape perimeter.
A small amount of building landscaping will be required.
Street trees are both highly encouraged and appreciated.
An automatic irrigation system is required.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Geyer Springs Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way forty-five (45) feet from centerline
will be required. The plan must be modified to show the centerline of
the right-of-way.
2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan
specifies that Frenchman’s Lane for the frontage of this property must
meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to thirty (30)
feet from centerline. Revise the plan to show the centerline of the
right-of-way of Frenchman’s Lane.
3. The proposed driveway from the south closest to Geyer Springs Road
must be closed due to the short distance from Geyer Springs Road.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8577
3
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met.
A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If
additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the
Developer’s expense.
Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to
Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after
additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures
for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by
the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock
Fire Department is required.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the
water meter.
A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced
pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the
domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first
point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon
installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be
completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of
Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW’s
Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually
thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you
would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted. Fire hydrant may be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8577
4
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding fencing, signage and building setbacks. It
was noted that portions of the canopies extend across platted building lines but
do meet the zoning setbacks. The applicant was advised to indicate a masonry
or wood wall opposite the order board to provide sound deflection.
Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were discussed. Staff noted the
proposed driveway did not comply with ordinance standards. The plan also
indicated two driveways entering the property to the south. Staff commented that
the cross driveway nearest the street could not be permitted.
Discussion focused on the applicant’s proposal to create a cross access
easement through the property to the south, to provide access to Nova Lane, and
a proposal to create a shared parking arrangement with the property to the south.
Staff expressed concerns that creating the additional parking spaces for the Taco
Bell site would result in the loss of a required landscape strip. The applicant
stated they would review some options and bring a revised plan to staff.
The applicants were advised to respond to staff issues by August 11, 2010. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Sonic is proposing to construct a new drive-in restaurant on the C-3 zoned
property located at 8100 Geyer Springs Road. The applicants continued to work
with staff to address the issues raised at Subdivision Committee. A revised plan
has been submitted that staff supports.
The development includes an 1,806 square foot building, covered drive-in stalls,
a small area of outdoor dining and a drive-thru lane. A wrought iron enclosed
playground area will be located at the rear of the site. Two driveways will provide
access from Geyer Springs Road. The two driveways have been located and
designed to satisfy traffic engineering requirements. An existing access driveway
off the rear of the site onto Frenchman’s Lane will be closed. A cross access
easement is to be executed with the property owners to the south, allowing
access from this site to Nova Lane where a traffic signal at Geyer Springs Road
exists. As part of the proposal, a portion of this property will be placed in a
parking easement to allow the Taco Bell located adjacent to the south to be able
to create some angled parking spaces. Staff had initial concerns that the new
Taco Bell spaces would result in the loss of landscaping. The applicant has
addressed those concerns by providing the required width of perimeter
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8577
5
landscaping to satisfy both the Sonic and Taco Bell requirements. The southern
half of the perimeter landscape strip will be placed in a landscape easement to
assure that it is perpetually maintained as landscaping for the Taco Bell
perimeter.
Days and hours are proposed as 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., 7 days a week. All site
lighting will be low level and directional, directed away from adjacent properties.
An automatic irrigation system to water landscape areas will be provided.
A 6-foot tall wood fence will be placed along the western edge of the site
opposite the order board to satisfy the requirement for a sound deflector. The
setbacks for the building itself exceed ordinance requirements. Portions of two of
the drive in stall canopies extend over the platted building line along Geyer
Springs. Even so, they still meet the Zoning Ordinance required setbacks for C-3
property. A signage plan has been submitted which seems to imply a desire to
have wall signs without direct street frontage. Staff will support signage that
complies with ordinance standards; one ground sign and wall signage on the
building façade facing the street.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The bills of assurance for
the three subdivisions within which the property lies are either expired or have
language stating use of the property shall conform to the applicable zoning
ordinances of the City of Little Rock.
If the CUP is approved, the applicant will have to complete a one-lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line for the canopies. Proof of a cross
access easement through the two adjacent properties must be provided prior to a
building permit being issued. Documentation regarding the landscape and
parking easement along the shared Sonic/Taco Bell perimeter must be provided
in conjunction with the building permit submittal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
2. Signage must comply with that allowed in the C-3 commercial district.
3. Proof of a cross access easement across the properties to the south to reach
Nova Lane must be submitted prior to a building permit being issues.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8577
6
4. Appropriate documentation creating the perpetual landscape and parking
easement must be provided prior to a building permit being issued.
5. A one-lot replat must be completed reflecting the change in the front building
line for the drive-in stall canopies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
Chairman Jeff Yates recused on this item.
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “staff recommendation”
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Yates).
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-8578
NAME: Sonic/University – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Southwest corner of University Avenue and Colonel
Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: David Elrod under contract to D. L. Rogers/
Ron Tabor, Joe White
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an eating place with drive in service on
this C-3 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located at the southwest corner of S. University Avenue and
Colonel Glenn Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located within the area of the Asher-Colonel Glenn-
University intersection. Most properties in the area are zoned and
occupied as commercial. Two multifamily developments are located
across Colonel Glenn to the north. The proposed use is compatible with
zoning and uses in the area.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for Progress,
Westwood, Curran Conway, College Terrace Neighborhood Associations
and the University District were notified of this request. SWLR United for
Progress voted to approve the application.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be from driveways onto Colonel Glenn, University
and from within the commercial development via access easements
between the lots. A total of 53 parking spaces are provided as is a drive
up window. The driveway off of Colonel Glenn has been modified to
address public works concerns.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8578
2
The landscape ordinance requires a nine (9) foot wide perimeter
landscape strip around the site’s entirety. Currently, the area is deficient
along the northern, western and northeasterly perimeters of the site. A
variance must be obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
The site plan reflects a “Landscape Easement” along the northern
perimeter of the site; however, a driveway is located within this easement
area; revise.
An additional interior island is needed along both aisles of parking.
Interior islands must be a minimum of seven foot six inches (7’6”) in width
and a minimum of three hundred (300) square foot in area to qualify
towards the landscape ordinance. These islands are also to be evenly
distributed throughout the site.
Street trees are both highly encouraged and appreciated.
An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered
Landscape Architect.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. The driveway on Colonel Glenn Road is to close to the Colonel Glenn
Road. The minimum distance is seventy-five (75) feet from the back of
curb to the center of the driveway. The driveway could remain at the
proposed location and the driveway be striped as one way into the
Sonic from Colonel Glenn Road. For additional information, contact
Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering at 379-1816.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8578
3
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met.
A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If
additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the
Developer’s expense.
Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to
Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after
additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures
for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by
the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock
Fire Department is required.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the
water meter.
A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced
pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the
domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first
point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon
installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be
completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of
Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW’s
Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually
thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you
would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8578
4
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding signage, fencing and building setbacks. Staff
requested additional information on two areas indicated as “patio areas”. Staff
noted a masonry or wood wall was required opposite the order board to provide
sound deflection.
Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were discussed. It was noted
that the minimum landscape strip was not being provided on the site’s western
perimeter and along the northeast corner of the site. Staff noted a portion of the
driveway nearest Colonel Glenn Road was intruding into an area labeled as a
landscape easement.
The applicants stated they would work with staff to resolve any issues. The
Committee directed the applicants and respond to staff issues by August 11,
2010. The item was forwarded to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicants met with staff
to resolve the various site plan issues. A revised site plan was submitted to staff,
which addressed the Public Works and landscape concerns.
Sonic is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a drive-in restaurant on the C-3 zoned lot located at the
southwest corner of Colonel Glenn and S. University. The development includes
an 1,806 square foot building, parking, covered stalls and a drive-through pick up
window. Additionally, the site will contain a playground area, a sand volley ball
court and an area of outdoor seating. Those three areas will be enclosed by a
wrought iron fence. This type of Sonic development is a new concept for the
Little Rock area and is aimed at families with children as well as the students
attending nearby UALR.
Days and hours of operation are proposed as 6:00 a.m. to1:00 a.m., 7 days a
week. The building meets all required setbacks with the exception of one corner
of one of the canopies, which extends over a 40 foot platted building. The
canopy does meet the C-3 zoning requirements. The plan was revised to
provide landscaping areas that meet, and in most cases, exceed the Ordinance
requirements. All site lighting will be low level and directional, aimed away from
adjacent properties. An automatic irrigation system will be installed to water
landscape areas. A signage plan has been submitted which appears to indicate
wall signs without direct street frontage. Staff will support signage that complies
with commercial district standards; appropriate ground signage and wall signs on
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8578
5
the facades facing the two streets. The driveway off of Colonel Glenn Road has
been modified to address traffic engineering concerns.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The bill of assurance for
A.G.C. addition provided by the applicant does not address use issues. If the
CUP is approved, the applicant will have to complete a one-lot replat reflecting
the change in the building line to accommodate the canopy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
2. Signage must comply with that allowed in the C-3 zoning district.
3. A masonry or wood wall must be placed opposite the order board to provide
sound deflection.
4. A one lot replat must be completed to reflect the change in the building line to
accommodate the canopy encroachment.
5. Proof of cross access easements must be provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
Chairman Jeff Yates recused on this item.
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “staff recommendation”
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Yates).
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-8579
NAME: Deloney Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 8001 Mabelvale Cut-Off
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronnie and Rita Deloney
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
use of this existing residential structure as a day
care center for up to 20 children. The property is
zoned R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Mabelvale Cut-Off, between
Chicot Road and Legion Hut Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area of mixed uses and zoning. The PCD
zoned property adjacent to the west is occupied by an automobile repair
business. Service Master Cleaning Company is adjacent to the east. A
nonconforming contractor’s yard is located across the street to the north.
An adult day care center (also owned by the applicant) is located to the
south. Most all other properties in the area are occupied by a variety of
residential uses. The property is located on an arterial street. The City’s
Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Use for the area, supporting
nonresidential uses.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for Progress,
Chicot, Rob Roy Way, West Baseline and Legion Hut Neighborhood
Associations were notified of this request. SWLR United for Progress
voted to not oppose this application.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The day care center will have a maximum enrollment of 20 children with 3
employees, requiring 5 parking spaces. The site contains a typical, 2-car
wide driveway and carport. Additionally, a gravel driveway west of the
house provides access to the property directly behind this site. That rear
property contains a commercial building which houses an adult day care
center. There is sufficient parking on this rear property to meet the needs
of both the adult day care and proposed children’s day care. Both
properties are owned by this applicant. The driveway will be widened
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8579
2
slightly adjacent to the house to provide an appropriate drop-off/pick-up
area.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Due to the amount of traffic on Mabelvale Cut-off Road, backing a
vehicle onto Mabelvale Cut-off Road from this property is considered
unsafe. The proposed 10 x 10 foot vehicle turn around pad is
insufficient and does not provide for adequate vehicle maneuvering.
The driveway should be extended to the gravel road on the west to
provide access to Mabelvale Cut-off Road.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: NO OBJECTION.
All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request
for water service must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the
water meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted. Fire sprinklers may be
required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8579
3
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the application and noted little
additional information was needed. Staff suggested using the existing gravel
driveway that provides access to the rear of the property. Staff recommended
widening the driveway to provide a drop-off/pick-up space next to the building.
The applicants agreed to that proposal. During the discussion, the applicants
stated one sign would be placed on the property to accommodate both the adult
and children’s day cares. The sign will not exceed 6 feet in height and 16 square
feet in area.
With the applicants accepting staff’s suggestion regarding the parking and drop-
off, Public Works staff stated they were satisfied.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property located at 8001 Mabelvale Cut-Off is occupied by a
one-story, brick and frame, single-family residential structure. The property has
a 2-car wide driveway accessing a double carport. The applicants are requesting
approval of a conditional use permit to allow the house to be used as a day care
center with a maximum enrollment of 20 children. The childcare center will have
2 full-time and 1 part-time employees. Days and hours of operation are Monday
through Friday, 6:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. The existing, fenced rear yard will be used
for playground area.
The property is located on an arterial street in an area of mixed zoning and uses.
The applicants also operate an existing adult day care center in a commercial
building located on the lot directly behind this property. Access to the adult day
care center is via a gravel driveway off of Mabelvale Cut-Off that runs just west of
and adjacent to this property. Parking for the childcare center will take place on
the existing parking lot adjacent to the adult day care building. The driveway will
be widened slightly to provide a drop-off/pick-up area adjacent to the childcare
center. Signage will consist of a single ground-mounted sign that will serve both
day cares. The sign will have a maximum area of 16 square feet (4’ X 4’) and a
maximum height of 6 feet.
The bill of assurance for the two lot Perry Acres Subdivision may still be active
and includes the following statement:
“No lot shall be used except for residential purposes.”
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8579
4
However, Lot 2 was previously rezoned to PCD for an automobile repair
business.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues. The proposed childcare
center appears to be an appropriate use for the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
2. Compliance will all applicable fire and building codes for the conversion of this
residential structure into a childcare center.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “staff recommendation”
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 open position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-8580
NAME: Arkansas Baptist College Student Lounge –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1515 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Arkansas Baptist College
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a student lounge to serve Arkansas
Baptist College on this R-3 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of Dr. Martin Luther King Drive,
between West 15th and West 16th Streets.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located within the larger Arkansas Baptist College campus
area. Although outside of the main campus body, this property and
several others along MLK are being used or are proposed to be used for
the college. Parking will be on existing campus parking lots. Uses in the
general area are varied and include residential, commercial and the
college. Staff believes the proposed use is appropriate for the site.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Central High, Downtown
and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
Commission meeting.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed use of the property is a student lounge building to serve the
students at the college. Parking is already provided for the students who
will then walk to the student lounge. No parking is proposed on this site.
Staff supports a parking variance to not require on-site parking for this lot.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinances
requirements.
Street trees are both highly encouraged and appreciated.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8580
2
Screening is required on the north and south property lines, from the front
setback line to the rear property line.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Dr. Martin Luther King Drive is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a collector street. A dedication of right-of-way thirty (30) feet from
centerline will be required. Revise plan to show the centerline of the
right-of-way.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: NO OBJECTION.
All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request
for water service must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the
water meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 2010)
Robert Turner was present representing the College. Staff presented the item
and noted additional information was needed regarding signage, fencing, site
lighting, typical hours of usage and building materials. Staff asked if there would
be any outside use area.
Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were noted.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8580
3
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by August 11, 2010. The
Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item
to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Arkansas Baptist College is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to
allow for construction of a student lounge building on the vacant, R-3 zoned lot
located at 1515 Martin Luther King Drive.
The building will be one-story in height and will comply with the required zoning
setbacks. The building will have a prefinished painted metal exterior. The front
of the building and ¼ of the way down the sides will have a stone and EIFS finish
similar to other buildings on the campus. Signage will consist of a ground sign
and wall signage on the building’s façade facing the street. A six-foot tall wood
privacy fence will be erected on the north and south property lines, from the front
setback line to the rear property line. The front yard will be landscaped. Two
post-top pedestrian light fixtures on 14-foot tall poles will be placed on either side
of the entry plaza in the front yard. Lighting will comply with dark sky regulations.
The interior of the building is basically one large room with separate restrooms, a
janitor’s closet and storage room. Amenities will include a television, wireless
internet access, vending machines and various seating configurations. The
lounge will also be used as a small assembly area for student meetings or group
sessions. The College does not currently have a formal student lounge area and
this facility will help to meet that need. Parking will be provided at existing
parking lots on the campus. No on-site parking is needed since the lounge is to
serve the students who are already on the campus. Hours of usage are
proposed as 10:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. No outside use area is
proposed. No dumpster is proposed.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The applicant provided
responses to the questions raised at Subdivision Committee and noted in the
analysis above. The century-old bill of assurance for Centennial Addition is
handwritten and illegible but likely does not address use issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8580
4
2. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in the office-institutional zones.
3. All uses are to remain within the enclosed building.
Staff recommends approval of a parking variance to allow no on-site parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The applicants were present. There was one objector present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “staff
recommendation” above.
Billy Owens, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice-president of Arkansas
Baptist College, spoke on behalf of the application. He stated the school’s
enrollment had grown to about 1,100 students and there was a need for a
student lounge . Mr. Owens stated the College did not desire to create any
problems for the neighborhood. He said the building would be used only during
specified hours and would be insulated for sound. Mr. Owens stated the Campus’
security officers would assure there were no problems.
Bobbie Singleton, of 1515 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive, spoke of concerns she
had. She stated she was not opposed to the expansion of the College but she
was opposed to having the student lounge so close to her home. She voiced
concerns about trash, noise and traffic. She asked if a screening fence would be
placed between her property and the student lounge site.
Billy Owens responded that the College had staff that went out every morning to
pick up trash on the ABC campus.
Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, stated a six (6) foot tall, wood privacy fence
would be erected along the north and south property lines of the student lounge
property. He stated the fence would be constructed in “good neighbor” fashion;
with the finished side facing out.
In response to a question from Commissioner Devine, Mr. Owens stated the
College was committed to work with the neighbors and to be a good neighbor.
He said they would meet with Ms. Singleton to address her concerns.
A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff comments and
conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 open position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: LU10-09-02
NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment – I-630 & Boyle Park Planning Districts
LOCATION: 12th Street to Fourche Creek, Rock Creek to Washington
REQUEST: From Residential Low Density, Public Institutional, Park/Open
Space, Suburban Office, Commercial and Industrial to Residential
Low Density, Public Institutional, Suburban Office, Mixed Use and
Light Industrial
SOURCE: City Staff and University District
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment package in the I-630 and Boyle Park Planning
Districts from Residential Low Density, Suburban Office, Commercial, Industrial,
Public Institutional, and Park/Open Space to Residential Low Density, Suburban
Office, Light Industrial, Public Institutional, and Mixed Use. Residential Low
Density represents single-family houses, including patio and cluster homes at a
density of no more than 6 units per acre. Suburban Office represents low
intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density
residential. Public Institutional represents public and quasi-public facilities that
provide a variety of services to the community. Mixed Use represents a mixture
of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. Light Industrial represents
like warehouse, distribution or storage uses or industrial in a ‘park-like’ setting.
The application is requested to modify the City Land Use Plan to be more
consistent with the recently developed and accepted University District
Revitalization Plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenue and Asher Avenue-Colonel Glenn Road are Principal Arterials
on the Master Street Plan. 12th Street, Fair Park Boulevard and 36th Street are
Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan. Cleveland, Boyle Park Road, 19th
Street, 28th Street, 29th Street, 32nd Street and Bryant Street are Collectors. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to move vehicles and goods through and
within the area –long distances. The primary function of a Minor Arterial is to
move vehicles and goods within the area – short distances. The primary function
of a Collector is to move vehicles and goods from local streets to the arterial
network. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to sites.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-09-02
2
BICYCLE PLAN:
There are Class I Bike routes shown along Rock Creek through Boyle Park to
Mabelvale Pike and along the north branch of Fourche Creek from Mabelvale
Pike east and along Coleman Creek through the UALR campus. 28th Street from
University to Fair Park Boulevard and 29th Street from Fair Park Boulevard east
are shown as Class II Bike Routes. Class II Bike routes are shown on 12th Street
and Fair Park Boulevard through the amendment area as well as the Boyle Park
Road from Boyle Park to University Avenue and 32nd Street through the UALR
campus. A Class I route is a separate right-of-way and pavement for the use of
bicycles. A Class II route is within the street right-of-way and provides a
minimum four-foot lane for the sole use of bicycles. A Class III route is within the
street right-of-way and the bicycles and motor vehicles share the travel lane.
PARKS PLAN:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this entire area is within eight-blocks of a
park or open space. Boyle Park, First Tee (Stephens Youth Golf), University, Oak
Forest and Curran Conway Park are within the area. There are also several
elementary and middle schools in the area with play-ground facilities.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is no city recognized historic district within the area of the amendments.
ANALYSIS:
At the May 28, 2009 meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission the
University District Partnership Revitalization Plan was presented. The
Commission unanimous approved a resolution of support at that meeting. The
University District Partnership Steering Committee had worked for over a year
with residents, property owners, interested groups and a consultant team to
develop the revitalization plan. As part of the document produced with this effort
and presented to the Commission in May of 2009, there was included
recommendations for the future development of the study area.
The future land use plan recommendation in the University District Revitalization
Plan is slightly different in a few areas from the City of Little Rock Future Land
Use Plan. Staff reviewed the differences between the two documents in the fall
of 2009. A map illustrating the areas of difference was created. Staff and
representatives of the University District met to discuss the differences and a
‘package’ of land use changes was developed in January 2010.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-09-02
3
Ownership of the tracts where changes were suggested was identified and the
owners were notified in mid-June of a meeting June 29, 2010 to review the
amendment package. Just fewer than 100 notices were mailed for this meeting.
There were approximately a dozen phone contacts and a few emails. All these
contacts were informational except for one property owner who felt the southwest
corner of University Avenue and Colonel Glenn Road should have the same
designation as the other corners of that intersection. At the meeting on
June 29th, approximately half-dozen individuals attended. All the comments
and questions were informational, though one owner who is zoned I-3 Heavy
Industrial implied they would prefer remaining Industrial.
Staff and representatives of the University Partnership met in early July to
discuss the comments received and agreed to a final package of changes to
present to the Little Rock Planning Commission. A letter was sent to ninety
property owners notifying them of this hearing and that their property was part of
the package of changes.
Staff believes the changes are generally minor in nature with many allowing the
property owners additional future use options. From the meeting and contacts
there does not appear to be any opposition to the ‘package’ of changes. To
more easily understand the changes they will be reviewed by seven areas.
Starting with the area in the northwest – Cleveland and 12th Streets. There are
two changes proposed. The amending Public Institutional to Suburban Office for
the area east of Cleveland between 12th Street and Northmoor Drive. This is an
office building and parking lot, zoned O-3 General Office. The other change is
from Suburban Office to Residential Low Density along Charlotte Drive south of
Northmoor Drive. This land is zoned O-3 General Office but has two residential
developments of duplexes and some vacant land. Theses changes reflect the
current and likely future uses of the land.
The next area is along the east side of University Avenue from Look to past 16th
Street. The Land Use Plan shows Park/Open Space for the Coleman Creek
drainage shed. However, the area is zoned C-3 General Commercial and has
commercial and office buildings located on it. The change would be from
Park/Open Space to Commercial. This change reflects the current and likely
future use of the land.
The City block bounded by 29th and 30th Streets, between Harrison and Tyler is
shown for Public Institutional Use. The proposed change is to Residential Low
Density. The current zoning is R-3 Single-Family and there are single-family
homes on the lots. Since the City normally does not show areas for Public
Institutional use until the use is either approved via zoning or built, this area
would not normally be shown for Public Institutional use. The next area
proposed for a change is along the south side of 32nd Street between Irving and
Monica Drives. The change would be from Residential Low Density to Public
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-09-02
4
Institutional. There is a Methodist Church on this land, thus the current and
future likely use of the land is as a church – Public Institutional.
A large area from 36th Street to University Avenue along both sides of Colonel
Glenn Road is proposed to change from Commercial to Mixed Use. Most of this
land is currently zoned C-3 General Commercial, with one tract of C-4 Open
Display Commercial on the north side and three larger areas of C-4 along the
south side. Most of the uses are retail commercial in nature, however there is a
church and some office uses as well. The University District Revitalization Plan
recommends this area for Mixed Use. This is to encourage some residential and
more office to locate in the area, partially to help make the over all area more
densely populated to help support the areas already zoned for commercial use.
Mixed Use allows commercial, office or residential use or any mix of the three
uses as long as the Planned Zoning District process is used for re-classifications.
Since the area is already zoned commercial (C-3 or C-4) a rezoning to a different
commercial classification is not likely. A development that included a mix or is
designed similar to that suggested in the University District Revitalization Plan is
likely to require a Planned Zoning District.
Along the north side of Asher Avenue between University Avenue and Fair Park
Boulevard two areas are shown changing to Public Institutional. The first is from
University Avenue to Coleman Creek and is from Commercial to Public
Institutional. This is a commercial center and out parcels. UALR currently owns
over 95 percent of this land and has converted some of the center to University
uses. The area is currently zoned C-3 General Commercial. The second area is
along the west side of Fair Park Boulevard north of Asher Avenue. It is currently
zoned I-2 Light Industrial and shown on the Plan for Industrial use. UALR has
purchased this land and removed the previous uses. The Campus Plan for
UALR shows both these areas as part of the campus for UALR.
The final areas are south of Asher Avenue either side of Mabelvale Pike. There
is a small area southwest of 33rd Street and Polk currently zoned I-2 Light
Industrial and used as a warehouse distribution. The change would be from
Industrial to Light Industrial for this two-block plus area on the Land Use Plan. A
larger area east of Mabelvale Pike south of Asher Avenue shown for Industrial is
also proposed for Light Industrial on the Land Use Plan. This area is zoned I-2
Light Industrial and has several warehouse distribution and trucking uses as well
as small vehicle repair uses. The current and likely future use of these areas is
Light Industrial.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-09-02
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
Walter Malone of the Planning Staff reviewed the proposed changes in the
amendment package. A motion was made to approve the proposed Land Use
Plan changes by a vote of 9 for and 0 against (1 absent, 1 vacant) the item was
approved.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS
ȱ
The staff of the City Attorney’s office and the Department of Planning and Development
have reviewed the Planning Commission’s bylaws and have proposed several changes.
The bylaws require the proposed amendments to be presented in writing to the Planning
Commission at a regular meeting and to be placed on the agenda of a subsequent regular
meeting for action. The proposed amendments were presented in writing at the July 1,
2010 regular meeting. The specific proposed changes are as follow:
(1) Article IV. MEETINGS, Section A. Regular Meetings, Subsection 4.b:
4. Notices:
b. To Affected Parties - Notice to affected parties shall be provided as specified
in paragraphs (1) through (6) below. Relative to paragraphs (2) through (6),
requiring supplemental notice to neighboring property owners, the mailing of
notice to the names and addresses that an applicant has obtained from an abstract
company shall be considered adequate notice. If an applicant fails to provide the
supplemental notice required herein, the Planning Commission shall defer action
on such application until supplemental notice has been adequately provided,
except as provided in these Bylaws at Article V.E.8.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: The new language does not require a deferral for
the applicant’s failure to provide the supplemental notices when, under the
circumstances, withdrawal is appropriate, such as the voluntary withdrawal by an
applicant and the repeated failure of the applicant to attend hearings, provide requested
information, or to provide required notice.
(2) Article IV. MEETINGS, Section A. Regular Meetings, Subsection 4.b.(7):
4. Notices
b.
(7) All properties involved in rezoning, conditional use permit, tower use permit,
zoning site plan review, subdivision site plan review, special use permit, land
alteration appeal or variance or Planned Unit Development applications shall be
posted with a sign as follows:
1. Sites less than one acre in area - a sign 11" x 17";
2. Sites one acre to 10 acres in area - a sign 22" x 34";
3. Sites larger than 10 acres in area - a sign 4' x 4'.
These signs shall be provided by the Staff to applicants at the cost
specified by the fee ordinance, Ordinance No. 18,622 (December 18,
2001) or any subsequent amendment thereto. These signs shall be posted
on the site at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting date. The signs are
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS
2
to remain posted on the property through the date of the Planning
Commission hearing. Staff shall visually verify that the required sign has
been posted on the property.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: The current citation is to a superseded ordinance.
(3) Article IV, Section A.4.B.(8):
(8) Notice of Amended Rezoning Applications - If an application for rezoning is
amended to a more restrictive zoning classification by the applicant or the
Commission at a Commission meeting, the Commission may, by majority vote of
the members present at the meeting, waive the requirements for supplemental
notice of the more restrictive zoning change to property owners within two
hundred (200) feet of the tract, waive posting of a notice on the property, and
waive the filing fee.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: The Commission is not able to waive legal
notice, which is a statutory requirement. In addition, if an applicant decides to seek a less
restrictive zoning classification, a new application would have to be filed and all usual
requirements met.
(4) Article V, Section E.6:
6. Zoning Calendar - All items that require Planning Commission review shall be
considered only at a regular and scheduled meeting date. Applications
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission that require
Board of Directors action will be forwarded by the Secretary to the Board
of Directors for consideration. Applications that require Board of
Directors approval and that are recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission will not be automatically referred to the Board of Directors,.
All applicants will be notified of the procedure for appeal. Other persons
who desire to appeal a decision shall be notified of the proper procedure
upon request.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: This is only a clarification of current procedure.
(5) Article V, Section E.7.b of the Bylaws states:
b. Reconsideration - Except for cause and with the unanimous consent of all
members present at a meeting, no matter on which final action has
previously been taken shall be reopened for further consideration
or action. If consideration is granted by the Commission, the case
will be rescheduled for a subsequent regular meeting, a new
application will be made (new fees, legal ad, and adjacent property
owners re-notified so that they may have an opportunity to hear
any new evidence and to be heard).
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: Because legal notice must be provided, it may be
impossible from an administrative standpoint to reconsider a matter at the next regular
meeting if the meeting occurs only two weeks later.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS
3
(6) Article V, Section E.7.c of the Bylaws states:
Reapplication - No identical or substantially identical application concerning a specific
parcel or parcels of land that has been denied by the Planning
Commission or Board of Directors may be made for a period of
one (1) year.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: The current language provides for a one-year
period between identical or substantially identical applications regarding the same
property when redistricting is sought, but this change makes clear that the same one-year
period will apply to all applications before the Commission.
(7) Article V, Section E.8 of the Bylaws states:
Art. V. E. 8. Withdrawals - All withdrawals shall be governed by the following:
a. No application that has been docketed for public hearing and
advertised for such hearing shall be withdrawn, except as follows:
1. An application may be withdrawn with a written request from
the applicant of record at least five (5) working days prior to
the public hearing.
2. A motion must be made for the Commission to authorize
withdrawal of an application. The same matter shall not be
resubmitted for a period of one (1) year, unless the
Commission authorizes the withdrawal without prejudice, in
which case a new application for the same or substantially
same matter may be filed at any time.
3. An application may be withdrawn without prejudice by the
Commission if neither the applicant nor the applicant’s
representative attends a second or subsequent meeting
scheduled to hear the application, if the meeting was scheduled
following a deferral for such failure of attendance at a previous
scheduled meeting.
4. The Commission may also vote to withdraw an application
when:
(a) The applicant fails, for each of three (3) meetings in
which the applicant’s matter was docketed and advertised,
to properly provide all notice as required to be provided by
the applicant, or
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS
4
(b) The applicant repeatedly fails to provide information
requested by Staff, the Subdivision Committee, or the
Planning Commission.
b. An applicant may withdraw his or her application, without
prejudice to re-filing the matter as a new application and without a
vote of the Commission, at any time prior to the final preparation
of the legal advertisement for the public hearing of the application.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: The subsection on withdrawals clarifies and adds
to the circumstances under which a withdrawal may be authorized. The applicant’s
failure to provide the required notice for 3 meetings at which the matter was docketed
and advertised, the applicant’s repeated failure to attend scheduled meetings to hear the
application, and the applicants repeated failure to provide requested information are
circumstances under which the Commission can vote to withdraw the application without
prejudice.
(8) Article V, Section E.12.d of the Bylaws states:
12. Dissent - If a member of the Little Rock Planning Commission wishes to
dissent from a majority opinion of the Commission, he or she shall
communicate a written minority opinion to the following:
a. All Members of the Planning Commission
b. The Secretary of the Planning Commission
c. The City Attorney
d. The Mayor and Members of the Board of Directors.
REASON FOR THE CHANGE: The change clarifies that the Mayor is also to
receive a copy of any dissenting opinion.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The proposed bylaw amendments were presented. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent
and 1 open position.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 12 2010 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PACKAGE
SUBJECT: Planning Commission approval of a Proposed Ordinance
Amendment package for 2010.
STAFF REPORT:
The subjects in this proposal have been accumulated by staff during the past
years. If the Commission accepts this material as the 2010 work program for
ordinance amendments, staff will distribute the material to contact persons.
Comments received will be forwarded to the Plans Committee for inclusion in the
discussion.
Once the Plans Committee completes its review, the completed package will be
returned to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 3, 2010)
The proposed amendment package was presented to the Commission. There
was no further discussion. The commission voted to accept the proposed
package and to send it to the Plans Committee by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
On June 14, 2010, copies of the proposed amendments were mailed to
263 persons and organizations, including all neighborhood associations and
coalitions and a contact list of development and design professionals. Staff
received two responses. The amendment package was discussed at the June
23 and July 7 Plans Committee meetings. After final review by the Committee,
the amendment package has been forwarded to the Commission for action.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment package.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
Staff presented each of the proposed ordinance amendments. There were no
questions and no further discussion or comments. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and recommended for approval by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 open position.
2010
ZONING – SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
2010
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
DRAFT 3 DATE August 26, 2010
Subject Priority
Page in Text
A. Incorrect definition of surveyor in Section 31-2.
4
B. Incorrect title for surveyor in Section 31-91.
5
C. Incorrect title for surveyor in Section 31-117(c).
7
D. Incorrect title for surveyor in Section 31-118.
8
E. Incorrect title for surveyor in Section 31-380(4)(b).
10
F. Incorrect title for surveyor in Section 31-405.
11
G. Incorrect title for surveyor in Section 36-2.
12
H. Proposed change to allowable size of real estate signs in
residential zones.
14
I. Lack of notification procedure for Special Use Permits that
are appealed to Board of Directors.
15
J. Lack of minimum lot area for single family lots in AF
zoning district.
17
K. Typographical error in Section 36-389(f)(2).
18
L. Conflict regarding minimum lot area for zero lot line lots
and provision that no lot many be more than 3 times as
deep as it is wide.
19
Page 2
2010
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
DRAFT 3 DATE August 26, 2010
Subject Priority
Page in Text
M. Clarification of sign code to prohibit signs on right-of-way
other than for trail-blazing signs to public facilities.
20
N. Confusion caused by inclusion of “modular home” within
definition of manufactured home.
22
O. Amending C-3, C-4 and UU districts to specify that private
clubs are permitted only as C.U.P.’s in those districts.
23
P. Correction to purpose and intent of Design Overlay
Districts.
24
Q. Correcting ambiguity in sign code definition of “roof sign”.
25
R. Lack of notification procedure for zoning site plan
applications that are appealed to the Board of Directors.
26
S. Lack of notification procedure for PUD’s and PD’s that are
appealed to the Board of Directors.
27
T. Proposal to permit electric fences in Industrial Districts.
28
U. Create definition for special event centers and specify that
the use is permitted as a conditional use only in C-2, C-3
and UU districts.
30
Page 3
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect definition of surveyor in SOURCE: Troy Laha
Section 31-2
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Surveyor means a land surveyor registered in the State.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
The definition is not consistent with the State’s definition.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend definition in Section 31-2 to read as follows:
Surveyor means a professional surveyor registered in the State.
Page 4
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect title for surveyor in SOURCE:
Section 31-91. “Certificate of Preliminary
Surveying accuracy”.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY SURVEYING ACCURACY
I, , hereby certify that this plat correctly represents a boundary survey
made or verified by me that all surveying requirements of the State of Arkansas and City of Little Rock
Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been complied with and filed for record as required.
Date of Execution Name
Registered Professional
Land Surveyor
N o .
Arkansas
STAFF REPORT: ( )
The title for surveyor is incorrect.
Page 5
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 31-91. “Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy” to read:
I, , hereby certify that this plat correctly represents a boundary survey
made or verified by me that all surveying requirements of the State of Arkansas and City of Little Rock
Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been complied with and filed for record as required.
Date of Execution Name
Professional Surveyor
N o .
Arkansas
Page 6
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect title for surveyor in SOURCE: Troy Laha
Section 31-117.(c)
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
(c) Copies of all survey calculations and field notes shall be submitted for review when requested. When
errors are suspected, the planning commission may cause a surveyor to check the final plat for
correctness. Certification of approval of water supply and sanitary sewage disposal by the appropriate
agency, when not connected to the municipal system, shall be submitted.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
Title for surveyor needs to be changed to remain consistent.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 31-117.(c) to read as follows:
(c) Copies of all survey calculations and filed notes shall be submitted for review when requested. When
errors are suspected, the planning commission may cause a professional surveyor to check the final plat
for correctness. Certification of approval of water supply and sanitary sewage disposal by the
appropriate agency, when not connected to the municipal system, shall be submitted.
Page 7
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect title for surveyor in SOURCE: Troy Laha
Section 31-118 “Certificate of Surveying
Accuracy”.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYING ACCURACY
I, , hereby certify that this plat correctly represents a boundary survey
made or verified by me, all monuments required actually exist and are correctly shown hereon and that
all surveying requirements of the Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been complied.
Date of Execution Name
Registered Professional
Land Surveyor
No.
Arkansas
STAFF REPORT: ( )
Title for surveyor needs to be changed to remain consistent.
Page 8
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 31-118 “Certificate of Surveying Accuracy” to read as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYING ACCURACY
I, , hereby certify that this plat correctly represents a boundary survey
made or verified by me, that all monuments required actually exist and are correctly shown hereon and
that all surveying requirements of the Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been fulfilled.
Date of Execution Name
Professional Surveyor
No.
Arkansas
Page 9
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect title for surveyor in SOURCE: Troy Laha
Section 31-380 (4)(b) “Monumentation
Requirements”.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
b. Registration number of the surveyor in charge.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
Title of surveyor needs to be changed to remain consistent.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 31-380(4)(b) to read as follows:
b. Registration number of the professional surveyor in charge.
Page 10
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect title for surveyor in SOURCE: Troy Laha
Section 31-405 “Monuments”
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec. 31-405. Monuments
All permanent boundary, lot and street centerline control monuments shall be set in accordance with
section 31-380 of this chapter and shall be indicated on all plats. Removal of any monument by anyone
not under the direct supervision of a Registered Land Surveyor registered under the laws of the state is
prohibited. (Code 1961, § 37-34(i); Ord. No. 15,929, § 1(q), 9-4-90)
STAFF REPORT: ( )
Title for surveyor needs to be changed to remain consistent.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 31-405 to read as follows:
All permanent boundary, lot and street centerline control monuments shall be set in accordance with
section 31-380 of this chapter and shall be indicated on all plats. Removal of any monument by anyone
not under the direct supervision of a Professional Surveyor registered under the laws of the state is
prohibited. (Code 1961, § 37-34(i); Ord. No. 15,929, § 1(q), 9-4-90)
Page 11
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Incorrect title for surveyor in SOURCE: Staff
Section 36-2 definitions of plan; plan, final;
plan, preliminary; plat; plat, final and plat,
preliminary
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Plan means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all elements of a development
proposal including, but not limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural elements and
landscaping. A plan is prepared by a registered land surveyor, architect or engineer, appropriately
certified.
Plan, final means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all elements of a development
proposal including, but not limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural elements,
landscaping. A final plan is prepared by a registered land surveyor, architect or engineer. A final plan
further contains proper certification for accuracy and deletes natural land features. Natural land features
and elements illustrated on a preliminary plat are replaced in the final plan by structural elements such as
walls, ditches and other drainage facilities intended to alter land forms.
Plan, preliminary means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all elements of a
development proposal including, but not limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural
elements, landscaping. A preliminary plan is prepared by a registered land surveyor, architect or
engineer. A preliminary plan further includes all development phase lines providing construction stages,
topography, drainage and other natural land features.
Plat means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related to a development of land and
certified as to accuracy by a land surveyor or engineer.
Plan, final means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related to development of land
certified as to accuracy by a land surveyor or civil engineer, illustrating details necessary, conveying
ownership, dedication, etc. However, no information as to physical features or use is reflected. A final
plat is prepared in a form suitable for recording.
Plan, preliminary means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related to a development of
land certified as to accuracy by a land surveyor or civil engineer, illustrating the details as necessary to
establish a development format with physical land features and usage.
Page 12
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
STAFF REPORT: ( )
In each of these definitions, the title of surveyor needs to be changed to remain consistent.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend each definition in Section 36-2 to read as follows:
Plan means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all elements of a development
proposal including, but not limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural elements and
landscaping. A plan is prepared by a professional surveyor, architect or engineer, appropriately certified.
Plan, final means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all elements of a development
proposal including, but not limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural elements,
landscaping. A final plan is prepared by a professional surveyor, architect or engineer. A final plan
further contains proper certification for accuracy and deletes natural land features. Natural land features
and elements illustrated on a preliminary plat are replaced in the final plan by structural elements such as
walls, ditches and other drainage facilities intended to alter land forms.
Plan, preliminary means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all elements of a
development proposal including, but not limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural
elements, landscaping. A preliminary plan is prepared by a professional surveyor, architect or engineer.
A preliminary plan further includes all development phase lines providing construction stages,
topography, drainage and other natural land features.
Plat means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related to a development of land and
certified as to accuracy by a professional surveyor or engineer.
Plat, final means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related to development of land
certified as to accuracy by a professional surveyor or civil engineer, illustrating details necessary,
conveying ownership, dedication, etc. However, no information as to physical features or use is
reflected. A final plat is prepared in a form suitable for recording.
Plat, preliminary means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related to a development of
land certified as to accuracy by a professional surveyor or civil engineer, illustrating the details as
necessary to establish a development format with physical land features and usage.
Page 13
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Complaint received concerning SOURCE: Citizen
oversized real estate sales sign on residential
lot.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 36-550.(3); signs permitted in all zones.
(3) One (1) nonilluminated real estate sign per lot or premises, not to exceed thirty-two (32) square feet
in sign area. Such signs must be removed fourteen (14) days following sale, rental or lease.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
A complaint was received regarding what was perceived to be an overlarge sales sign on a residential
lot.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-550.(3) to read as follows:
(3) One (1) nonilluminated real estate sign per lot or premises, not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in
sign area on residential one and two family zoned properties and thirty-two (32) square feet in all
other zones. Such signs must be removed fourteen (14) days following sale, rental or lease of the
property.
Page 14
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Lack of notification requirement SOURCE: Staff
on special use permit applications that are
appealed to the Board of Directors; Section
36-54.(b).
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
(b) Application procedure. The property owner or an authorized agent shall apply for a special use
permit under the guidelines provided by the city department designated by the city manager. A public
hearing on the special use permit will be held by the planning commission which shall have final
authority. The planning commission shall consider, but shall not be bound by, the lawful provisions of a
valid bill of assurance for the subdivision within which the subject property is located when determining
the appropriateness of the proposed special use. Appeals from the action of the planning commission
shall be filed with the board of directors. The content of the appeal filing shall consist of: (1) a cover
letter addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth the request; (2) a copy of the planning
commission application indicating the action and properly executed by the staff. This filing shall occur
within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the planning commission. No activity which requires said
permit shall be conducted prior to the planning commission approval.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
There is no ordinance requirement for notification of special use permit applications that are appealed to
the Board of Directors.
Page 15
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-54.(b) to read as follows:
(b) Application procedure. The property owner or an authorized agent shall apply for a special use
permit under the guidelines provided by the city department designated by the city manager. A public
hearing on the special use permit will be held by the planning commission which shall have final
authority. The planning commission shall consider, but shall not be bound by, the lawful provisions of a
valid bill of assurance for the subdivision within which the subject property is located when determining
the appropriateness of the proposed special use. Appeals from the action of the planning commission
shall be filed with the board of directors. The content of the appeal filing shall consist of: (1) a cover
letter addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth the request; (2) a copy of the planning
commission application indicating the action and properly executed by the staff. This filing shall occur
within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the planning commission. Certified mail notice of appeal
hearing shall be provided by the appellant not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing and
the affidavit and other supporting evidence of notice shall be filed not less than five (5) days prior to the
date of review. This notice shall be given to all record parties in interest whether for or against the
request. The cost of this notice shall be borne by the appellant. No activity which requires said permit
shall be conducted prior to the planning commission approval.
Page 16
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Lack of minimum lot area for single SOURCE: Staff
family lots in AF Agriculture and Forestry zoning
district.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
There is not current ordinance language.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
There is no current ordinance language establishing a minimum lot area for single family lots in the AF
Agriculture and Forestry Zoning District.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-338.(f) to add a new subsection (5) to read as follows:
(5) Lot area regulations. There shall be a minimum lot area of seven thousand (7,000) square feet. In
addition, there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than seventy (70) feet and a minimum lot
depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet.
Page 17
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Typographical error in Section SOURCE: Staff
36-389(f)(2); parking requirements in Midtown
Overlay.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
(2) Parking requirements. Parking requirements within the district shall be at least fifty (50) percent of
that required by article VIII. The maximum allowed parking shall be the minimum standard established in
article VII.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
This is a minor typographical error incorrectly referencing Article VII; should be Article VIII.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-389.(f)(2) to read as follows:
(2) Parking requirements. Parking requirements within the district shall be at least fifty (50) percent of
that required by article VIII. The maximum allowed parking shall be the minimum standard established in
article VIII.
Page 18
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Conflict regarding minimum lot SOURCE: Staff
area for zero lot line lots and the provision that
no lot be more than 3 times as deep as it is
wide; Section 31-232.(b).
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
(b) No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide, except lots approved
under paragraph (g) of this section. No lot except lots designated for townhouse use shall average less
than one hundred (100) feet in depth. Lot width shall be measured at the building line except in the case
of a lot abutting a cul-de-sac where the average width of the lot shall be used.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
Zero lot line lots are permitted in R-2 and R-3 and PRD’s. The Code specifies that such lots may have a
minimum width of 35 feet but must have a minimum lot area of 4,000 square feet. Section 31-232(b)
states no lot may be more than 3 times as deep as it is wide except if it backs up to a railroad or freeway.
Zero lot line lots meeting the minimum standard for width and depth should also be listed as an exception
to the 3/1 depth/width rule.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
(b) No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide, except lots approved under
paragraph (g) of this section or zero lot line lots in the R-2, R-3, PRD and PD-R zoning districts. No lot
except lots designated for townhouse use shall average less than one hundred (100) feet in depth. Lot
width shall be measured at the building line except in the case of a lot abutting a cul-de-sac where the
average width of the lot shall be used.
Page 19
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Clarification of sign code to prohibit SOURCE: Traffic Engineer
signs in the public right-of-way other than for
trail blazing directional signs to a public facility;
Section 36-560.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec. 36-560. Signs prohibited in city right-of-way or on city property.
No sign shall be erected upon any city right-of-way, or upon city property, unless:
(1) a. The sign provides directions to a specific location; or
b. The sign identifies a specific location such as the name of a neighborhood, or the
identification of a structure, and
(2) a. The city has expressly enacted a franchise for the placement of the sign; or
b. The sign is located on public property under lease to a specific person, or entity, and that
person or entity is granted authority in the lease agreement to permit the placement of
such a sign.
Any sign placed, erected, or found in the city right-of-way, or upon city property, in violation of this
provision shall be subject to immediate removal by the city. (Ord. No. 18,767, § 2, 10-15-02)
STAFF REPORT: ( )
The City discourages the placement of signs in the public right-of-way but recognizes the value,
particularly to tourists, of having some directional or trail-blazing signage to public facilities and buildings.
Page 20
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Sec. 36-560. Signs prohibited in city right-of-way or on city property.
No sign shall be erected upon any city right-of-way, or upon city property, unless:
(1) a. The sign provides directions to a specific public location or public facility; or
b. The sign identifies a specific public location such as the name of a neighborhood, or the
identification of a public structure, and
(2) a. The city has expressly enacted a franchise for the placement of the sign; or
b. The sign is located on public property under lease to a specific person, or entity, and that
person or entity is granted authority in the lease agreement to permit the placement of such
a sign.
Any sign placed, erected, or found in the city right-of-way, or upon city property, in violation of this
provision shall be subject to immediate removal by the city. (Ord. No. 18,767, § 2, 10-15-02)
Page 21
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Confusion caused by inclusion of SOURCE: Staff/Planning Commission
term “modular home” within definition
manufactured home; Section 36-3.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Within definition of “manufactured home” is the following statement:
This definition shall be deemed to include modular homes that are factory assembled.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
As a result of staff research and planning commission concurrence, it was determined that modular
homes, which are inspected in the same manner as site-built homes, should not be included within the
definition of manufactured homes.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-3 to remove the above sentence from the definition of manufactured home.
Page 22
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Proliferation of and enforcement SOURCE: Staff
difficulties associated with private clubs.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Private club with dining or bar service mean a group of people associated or formally organized for a
common purpose, interest or pleasure. Facilities include dining or bar accommodations, none of which
are available except to members or their guests.
These uses are permitted by right in C-2, C-3 and UU.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
There have been concerns raised by staff, citizens or other City Enforcement agencies concerning the
proliferation of and impact caused by private clubs. These clubs stay open past the hours of other
establishments and can potentially have a negative impact on area businesses and residents. Staff
believes the additional level of scrutiny afforded by the conditional use permit review process is
appropriate.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend the C-2, C-3 and UU zoning districts to specify that private clubs are permitted in those districts
only as a conditional use; Sections 36-300, 36-301 and 36-342.1.
Page 23
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Conflict in purpose and intent SOURCE: Staff
language for Design Overlay Districts.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec. 36-342. DOD design overlay district.
(a) Purpose and intent. One purpose of the design overlay district is to provide enhanced design
standards to protect and enhance the unique natural scenic beauty or features of a particular corridor
while providing for development opportunities. Design overlay districts may also be used to protect or
facilitate a particular design theme established through a certain architectural style or period.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
The current language in the “purpose and intent” section of the Code for design overlay districts speaks
only to allowing DOD corridors. It needs to be broadened to encompass more than corridors.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-342 to read as follows:
(a) Purpose and intent. One purpose of the design overlay district is to provide enhanced design
standards to protect and enhance the unique natural scenic beauty or features of a particular corridor or
area while providing for development opportunities. Design overlay districts may also be used to protect
or facilitate a particular design theme established through a certain architectural style or period.
Page 24
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Ambiguity in definition of “roof sign”, SOURCE: Board of Adjustment
Section 36-530.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec. 36-530
Roof sign means any sign erected over or on the roof of a building.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
The Board of Adjustment recently found the ordinance definition of “roof sign” to be ambiguous and
recommended that the definition be changed.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend roof sign definition in Section 36-530 to read:
Roof sign means a sign which is mounted on the roof of a building or which is attached to a building and
which extends above or higher than the top edge of the exterior wall or parapet of a flat-roofed building,
above or higher than the eave line of a building with a hip, gambrel or gable roof or above or higher than
the deck line of a building with a mansard roof.
Page 25
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Lack of notification requirement for SOURCE: Staff
zoning site plan applications that are appealed
to the Board of Directors; Section 36-134.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec. 36-134. Appeals.
Appeals from the action of the planning commission shall be filed with the board of directors. The
content of the appeal filing shall consist of: (1) A cover letter addressed to the mayor and board of
directors setting forth the request; (2) a copy of the planning commission application indicating the action
and properly executed by the staff. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by
the planning commission. No activity which requires said permit shall be conducted prior to the planning
commission approval.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
There is no ordinance requirement for notification of zoning site plan applications that are appealed to the
Board of Directors.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-134. to read as follows:
Sec. 36-134. Appeals.
Appeals from the action of the planning commission shall be filed with the board of directors. The
content of the appeal filing shall consist of: (1) A cover letter addressed to the mayor and board of
directors setting forth the request; (2) a copy of the planning commission application indicating the action
and properly executed by the staff. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by
the planning commission. Certified notice of appeal hearing shall be provided by the appellant not less
than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing and the affidavit and other supporting evidence of
notice shall be filed not less than five (5) days prior to the date of review. This notice shall be given to all
record parties in interest whether for or against the request. The cost of this notice shall be borne by the
appellant. No activity which requires said permit shall be conducted prior to the planning commission
approval.
Page 26
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Lack of notification requirement for SOURCE: Staff
PUD's or PD’s that are appealed to the Board of
Directors; Section 36-454.(c); paragraph six (6).
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Appeals from the action of the planning commission shall be filed with the city clerk. The content of the
appeal filing shall consist of (1) a cover letter addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth
the request; (2) a copy of the application indicating the planning commission action and properly
executed by the staff. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action of the planning
commission.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
There is no ordinance requirement for notification of PUD’s or PD’s that are appealed to the Board of
Directors.
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Amend Section 36-454(c) paragraph 6 to read as follows:
Appeals from the action of the planning commission shall be filed with the city clerk. The content of the
appeal filing shall consist of (1) a cover letter addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth
the request; (2) a copy of the application indicating the planning commission action and properly
executed by the staff. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action of the planning
commission. Certified mail notice of appeal hearing shall be provided by the appellant not less than ten
(10) days prior to the date of the hearing and the affidavit and other supporting evidence of notice shall
be filed not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the review. This notice shall be given to all
record parties in interest whether for or against the request. The cost of this notice shall be borne by
the appellant.
Page 27
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Proposal to permit electric fences SOURCE: Citizen, Industry
in Industrial Districts for properties with approved
areas of outdoor storage or display.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec. 36-516(d)
(d) [Use of materials intended to inflict injury.] For purposes of this section the use of barbed,
concertina wire or other types of wire specifically designed to inflict injury upon human contact is
prohibited except when used at the top of fences at least six (6) feet above grade enclosing business or
manufacturing premises. When such wire is used, it shall not extend outside the vertical plane of the
enclosed property. Electrically charged fences are prohibited.
STAFF REPORT: ( )
Staff has been approached on more than one occasion by individuals wishing to erect electric fences to
protect areas of outdoor storage. The proposed language would permit the use of a type of electric
fence that has proven to be safe and effective. Numerous cities across the country have adopted the
proposed text. The City’s building codes officials, police department and fire department have reviewed
the proposed amendment and have no objectors.
Page 28
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
SUGGESTED TEXT: ( )
Delete Section 36-516(d) in its entirety and replace it with the following text:
(d) Security fencing
(1) Barbed and Razor Wire Fences
For purposes of this section the use of barbed, concertina wire or other types of wire
specifically designed to inflict injury upon human contact is prohibited except when used
at the top of fences at least six (6) feet above grade enclosing business or manufacturing
premises. When such wire is used, it shall not extend outside the vertical plan of the
enclosed property.
(2) Electric Fences
No electric fence shall be installed, operated or maintained except as provided in this
subsection.
(a) Electric fences shall be constructed, maintained and operated in conformance with
the specifications set forth in International Electrotechnical Commission Standard
60335-2-76.
(b) The electric charge produced by the fence upon contact shall not exceed energizer
characteristics set forth in paragraph 22.108 and depicted in Figure 102 of International
Electrotechnical Commission Standard No. 60335-2-76.
(c) Electric fences shall be completely surrounded on the side facing the property exterior
by a non-electrified fence or wall that is not less than six feet in height and at least six
inches from the electric fence.
(d) Electric fences may be installed, operated or maintained only on industrial zoned
properties with approved areas of outdoor storage or display.
(e) Electric fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read “Warning – Electric
Fence” or similar terms and which are posted at intervals of not more than 50 feet with at
least one sign on each exterior perimeter side of the fence.
(f) Each electric fence must have a switch or other approved device on the outside in the
gate area to disarm the entire electric fence (for Police and Fire Department access).
(g) No electric fence shall be installed until after certification from the Department of
Planning and Development that the plans for the fence meet the requirements of this
subsection and a permit is obtained for the fence.
Page 29
2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE August 26, 2010
PROBLEM: Lack of definition of special event SOURCE: Board of Directors
centers and lack of specific zoning district
placement for such uses.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
None
STAFF REPORT: ( )
In response to law enforcement and fire code problems at entities operating as special event centers, the
Board of Directors imposed a 6-month moratorium on the approval of any such uses. Staff, through the
planning commission, was directed to create a definition for the use and to develop a process for public
review as well as review by Planning, Little Rock Police Department and Little Rock Fire Department
prior to any such uses being approved.
SUGGESTED TEXT:
1. Amend Section 36-3 to create the following definition:
Special event center means any privately owned property, building or portion of a building, the
primary purpose of which is to be rented or leased for parties, entertainment functions, conventions,
conferences, seminars, assemblies or meetings. This definition shall not include those facilities,
banquet halls or meeting facilities which are an ancillary use to a permitted use within a zoning
district.
2. Amend Sections 36-300, 36-301 and 36-342.1 (C-2, C-3 and UU) to list “special event center” as a
conditional use in those zoning districts.
Page 30
[Page 1 of 15]
ORDINANCE NO. 1
2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 31 AND 36 3
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF 4
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PROVIDING FOR 5
MODIFICATION OF VARIOUS PROCEDURES, 6
DEFINITIONS, LAND USE REGULATIONS, AND FOR 7
OTHER PURPOSES. 8
9
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Little Rock Planning Commission 10
that a regular review of the these Chapters is appropriate; and 11
12
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that several 13
modifications are appropriate at this time; and 14
15
WHEREAS, at its August 26, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 16
to recommend approval of these proposed amendments. 17
18
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF 19
DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. 20
21
SECTION 1. That various provisions of Chapters 31. and 36. of the Code of 22
Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas be amended as follows: 23
24
Subsection (a). That Chapter 31., Section 31-2. be amended to change 25
the definition of Surveyor to read as follows: 26
27
Surveyor means a professional surveyor registered in the State. 28
29
Subsection (b). That Chapter 31., Section 31-91. be amended to 30
correct the title of Professional Surveyor within the CERTIFICATE OF 31
PRELIMINARY SURVEYING ACCURACY, to then read as follows: 32
[Page 2 of 15]
CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY 1
SURVEYING ACCURACY 2
I , . , h e r e b y 3
certify that this plat correctly represents a boundary survey made or 4
verified by me that all surveying requirements of the State of Arkansas 5
and City of Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been 6
complied with and filed for record as required. 7
8
Date of Execution Name 9
Professional Surveyor 10
No. 11
Arkansas 12
13
Subsection (c). That Chapter 31., Section 31-117.(c) be amended to 14
correct the title of Professional Surveyor to then read as follows: 15
16
(c) Copies of all survey calculations and field notes shall be 17
submitted for review when requested. When errors are suspected, 18
the planning commission may cause a professional surveyor to 19
check the final plat for correctness. Certification of approval of 20
water supply and sanitary sewage disposal by the appropriate 21
agency, when not connected to the municipal system, shall be 22
submitted. 23
24
Subsection (d). That Chapter 31., Section 31-118. be amended to 25
correct the title of Professional Surveyor within the CERTIFICATE OF 26
SURVEYING ACCURACY, to then read as follows: 27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYING ACCURACY 29
I , . , h e r e b y 30
certify that this plat correctly represents a boundary survey made or 31
verified by me, all monuments required actually exist and are correctly 32
[Page 3 of 15]
shown hereon and that all surveying requirements of the Little Rock 1
Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been complied with. 2
3
Date of Execution Name 4
Professional Surveyor 5
No. 6
Arkansas 7
8
Subsection (e). That Chapter 31., Section 31-380.(a)(4)(b) be 9
amended to correct the title of Professional Surveyor to then read as follows: 10
11
b. Registration number of the professional surveyor in charge. 12
13
Subsection (f). That Chapter 31., Section 31-405. be amended to 14
correct the title of Professional Surveyor to then read as follows: 15
16
Sec. 31-405. Monuments. 17
All permanent boundary, lot and street centerline control 18
monuments shall be set in accordance with section 31-380 of this 19
chapter and shall be indicated on all plats. Removal of any monument 20
by anyone not under the direct supervision of a Professional Surveyor 21
registered under the laws of the state is prohibited. 22
(Code 1961, § 37-34(i); Ord. No. 15,929, § 1(q), 9-4-90) 23
24
Subsection (g). That Chapter 36., Section 36-2. be amended to change 25
the definitions of “Plan”; “Plan final”; “Plan, preliminary”; “Plat”; “Plat, 26
final”; and “Plat, preliminary” to correct the title of professional surveyor 27
within each definition to then read as follows: 28
29
Plan means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in detail all 30
elements of a development proposal including, but not limited to, 31
property lines, streets, easements, structural elements and landscaping. 32
[Page 4 of 15]
A plan is prepared by a professional surveyor, architect or engineer, 1
appropriately certified. 2
3
Plan, final means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates in 4
detail all elements of a development proposal including, but not 5
limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural elements and 6
landscaping. A final plan is prepared by a professional surveyor, 7
architect or engineer. A final plan further contains proper certification 8
for accuracy and deletes natural land features. Natural land features 9
and elements illustrated on a preliminary plat are replaced in the final 10
plan by structural elements such as walls, ditches and other drainage 11
facilities intended to alter land forms. 12
13
Plan, preliminary means a fully dimensioned drawing which illustrates 14
in detail all elements of a development proposal including, but not 15
limited to, property lines, streets, easements, structural elements and 16
landscaping. A preliminary plan is prepared by a professional 17
surveyor, architect or engineer. A preliminary plan further includes all 18
development phase lines providing construction stages, topography, 19
drainage and other natural land features. 20
21
Plat means an engineering drawing which provides for all data related 22
to a development of land and certified as to accuracy by a professional 23
surveyor or engineer. 24
25
Plat, final means an engineering drawing which provides for all data 26
related to development of land certified as to accuracy by a 27
professional surveyor or civil engineer, illustrating details necessary, 28
conveying ownership, dedication, etc. However, no information as to 29
physical features or use is reflected. A final plat is prepared in a form 30
suitable for recording. 31
32
[Page 5 of 15]
Plat, preliminary means an engineering drawing which provides for all 1
data related to a development of land certified as to accuracy by a 2
professional surveyor or civil engineer, illustrating the details as 3
necessary to establish a development format with physical land 4
features and usage. 5
6
Subsection (h). That Chapter 36., Section 36-550.(3) be deleted in its 7
entirety and replaced with new text to read as follows: 8
9
(3) One (1) nonilluminated real estate sign per lot or premises, not to 10
exceed sixteen (16) square feet in sign area on residential one 11
and two family zoned properties and thirty-two (32) square feet 12
in all other zones. Such signs must be removed fourteen (14) 13
days following sale, rental or lease of the property. 14
15
Subsection (i). That Chapter 36., Section 36-54.(b) be deleted in its 16
entirety and replaced with new text to read as follows: 17
18
(b) Application procedure. The property owner or an 19
authorized agent shall apply for a special use permit under the 20
guidelines provided by the city department designated by the city 21
manager. A public hearing on the special use permit will be held by 22
the planning commission which shall have final authority. The 23
planning commission shall consider, but shall not be bound by, the 24
lawful provisions of a valid bill of assurance for the subdivision within 25
which the subject property is located when determining the 26
appropriateness of the proposed special use. Appeals from the action 27
of the planning commission shall be filed with the board of directors. 28
The content of the appeal filing shall consist of: (1) a cover letter 29
addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth the request; 30
(2) a copy of the planning commission application indicating the 31
action and properly executed by the staff. This filing shall occur 32
[Page 6 of 15]
within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the planning 1
commission. Certified mail notice of appeal hearing shall be provided 2
by the appellant not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the 3
hearing and the affidavit and other supporting evidence of notice shall 4
be filed not less than five (5) days prior to the date of review. This 5
notice shall be given to all record parties in interest whether for or 6
against the request. The cost of this notice shall be borne by the 7
appellant. No activity which requires said permit shall be conducted 8
prior to final approval. 9
10
Subsection (j). That Chapter 36., Section 36-338.(f) be amended to 11
add a new subsection (5) to read as follows: 12
13
(5) Lot area regulations. There shall be a minimum lot area of 14
seven thousand (7,000) square feet. In addition, there shall be a 15
minimum lot width of not less than seventy (70) feet and a minimum 16
lot depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet. 17
18
Subsection (k). That Chapter 36., Section 36-389.(f)(2) be amended to 19
correct an incorrect article reference and to then read as follows: 20
21
(2) Parking requirements. Parking requirements within the 22
district shall be at least fifty (50) percent of that required by Article 23
VIII of this chapter. The maximum allowed parking shall be the 24
minimum standard established in Article VIII. 25
26
Subsection (l). That Chapter 36., Section 31-232.(b) be deleted in its 27
entirety and replaced with new text to read as follows: 28
29
(b) No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as 30
deep as it is wide, except lots approved under paragraph (g) of this 31
section or zero lot line lots in the R-2, R-3, PRD and PD-R zoning 32
[Page 7 of 15]
districts. No lot except lots designated for townhouse use shall 1
average less than one hundred (100) feet in depth. Lot width shall be 2
measured at the building line except in the case of a lot abutting a cul-3
de-sac where the average width of the lot shall be used. 4
5
Subsection (m). That Chapter 36., Section 36-560. be deleted in its 6
entirety and replaced with new text to read as follows: 7
8
Sec. 36-560. Signs prohibited in city right-of-way or on city 9
property. 10
11
No sign shall be erected upon any city right-of-way, or upon city 12
property, unless: 13
(1) a. The sign provides directions to a specific public location or 14
public facility; or 15
b. The sign identifies a specific public location such as the 16
name of a neighborhood, or the identification of a public 17
structure, and 18
19
(2) a. The city has expressly enacted a franchise for the placement of 20
the sign, or 21
b. The sign is located on public property under lease to a specific 22
person, or entity, and that person or entity is granted authority 23
in the lease agreement to permit the placement of such a sign. 24
Any sign placed, erected, or found in the city right-of-way, or upon city 25
property, in violation of this provision shall be subject to immediate removal by the 26
city. (Ord. No. 18,767, § 2, 10-15-02) 27
28
Subsection (n). That Chapter 36., Section 36-3. be amended to amend the 29
definition of “manufactured home” to then read as follows: 30
31
32
[Page 8 of 15]
Manufactured home means a factory-assembled detached dwelling 1
unit with the following characteristics: 2
(1) Designed for full-time occupancy and containing sleeping, 3
bath, and kitchen facilities. 4
(2) Connections for utilities systems provided on the intended 5
site. 6
(3) Designed for highway transport with wheels, chassis, tongue, 7
and other features related to transportability. 8
(4) Conformance with the minimum construction standards of 9
the federal mobile home regulations of Title VI of Public 10
Law 93-383, USC 5401. 11
12
This structural type is required to be placed upon permanent 13
foundation supports with anchorage complying with the city’s building 14
codes. This structural type is expressly prohibited in all zoning districts 15
except R-7 and R-7A where it is a use by right subject to site plan review, 16
and the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts where it is allowed by conditional use 17
permit. 18
19
Subsection (o)(1). That Chapter 36., Section 36-300.(c)(1) be amended to 20
provide for the deletion of “private club with dining or bar service”, currently listed as 21
item “fff” and the serial structuring of the remaining items accordingly. 22
23
Subsection (o)(2). That Chapter 36., Section 36-300.(c)(2) be amended to 24
provide for the alphabetical insertion of a new conditional use titled “private club with 25
dining or bar service” and the serial restructuring of the remaining items accordingly. 26
27
Subsection (o)(3). That Chapter 36., Section 36-301.(c)(1) be amended to 28
provide for the deletion of “private club with dining or bar service” currently listed as 29
item “qqq” and the serial restructuring of the remaining items accordingly. 30
31
[Page 9 of 15]
Subsection (o)(4). That Chapter 36., Section 36-301.(c)(2) be amended to 1
provide for the alphabetical insertion of a new conditional use titled “private club with 2
dining or bar service” and the serial restructuring of the remaining items accordingly. 3
4
Subsection (o)(5). That Chapter 36., Section 36-342.1.(d) be amended to 5
provide for the addition of new text and to then read as follows: 6
7
(d) Use regulations. 8
(1) Permitted uses. Unless otherwise indicated, uses permitted shall 9
include all those allowed in the residential districts, office 10
districts and commercial districts as “permitted uses”, in this 11
chapter. All uses must be inside or enclosed except areas of 12
outdoor dining as specified below: 13
14
Eating places shall be permitted to have an area of outdoor 15
dining subject to compliance with the following provisions. 16
a. The area of outdoor dining shall not be located in the public 17
right-of-way nor shall it obstruct pedestrian movement, fire 18
lanes, access to any business or areas designated for access 19
by the physically impaired. 20
b. The number of seats in the area of outdoor dining shall not 21
exceed fifty (50) percent of the number of seats within the 22
eating place. 23
c. Compliance with applicable state and county health 24
regulations. 25
d. The area of outdoor dining shall not be located between the 26
building occupied by the eating place and adjacent 27
residentially zoned properties. 28
e. This subsection shall not be deemed to permit signage or 29
structural alterations such as canopies or walls regulated 30
elsewhere in this chapter. 31
32
[Page 10 of 15]
(2) Conditional uses. Conditional uses shall include those allowed 1
in the Light Industrial “I-2” District as “permitted uses”, in this 2
chapter 36. Except that all uses must be inside or enclosed. 3
4
Other conditional uses: Commercial surface parking lot. Private 5
club with dining or bar service. 6
7
Subsection (p). That Chapter 36., Section 36-342(a) be amended to provide for 8
the addition of new text and to then read as follows: 9
10
(a) Purpose and intent. One purpose of the design overlay district is to 11
provide enhanced design standards to protect and enhance the unique natural 12
scenic beauty or features of a particular corridor or area while providing for 13
development opportunities. Design overlay districts may also be used to protect 14
or facilitate a particular design theme established through a certain architectural 15
style or period. 16
For example, the purpose of the overlay district may include: 17
(1) To promote the safe and efficient use of the arterial roadway by 18
controlling access and other traffic measures; 19
(2) To encourage the redevelopment of an area consistent with a particular 20
design theme; 21
(3) To minimize the detrimental impact of development on hillsides, 22
watercourses, and other significant natural features; 23
(4) To give special attention to landscaping, buffering, signage, lighting 24
and building setbacks in those districts identified as scenic parkway 25
corridors; 26
(5) To given special attention to the existing architectural style or to the 27
style which is planned so as to create an easily identifiable corridor in 28
those districts identified as architecturally significant. 29
30
[Page 11 of 15]
Subsection (q). That Chapter 36., Section 36-530. be amended to provide for 1
the deletion of the current definition of “Roof sign” and its replacement with new text 2
to read as follows: 3
4
Roof sign means a sign which is mounted on the roof of a building or 5
which is attached to a building and which extends above or higher than the top 6
edge of the exterior wall or parapet of a flat-roofed building, above or higher 7
than the eave line of a building with a hip, gambrel or gable roof or above or 8
higher than the deck line of a building with a mansard roof. 9
10
Subsection (r). That Chapter 36., Section 36-134. be deleted in its entirety and 11
replaced with new text to read as follows: 12
13
Sec. 36-134. Appeals. 14
Appeals from the action of the planning commission shall be filed with the 15
board of directors. The content of the appeal filing shall consist of: (1) A 16
cover letter addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth the 17
request; (2) a copy of the planning commission application indicating the action 18
and properly executed by the staff. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) 19
calendar days of the action by the planning commission. Certified notice of 20
appeal hearing shall be provided by the appellant not less than ten (10) days 21
prior to the date of the hearing and the affidavit and other supporting evidence 22
of notice shall be filed not less than five (5) days prior to the date of review. 23
This notice shall be given to all record parties in interest whether for or against 24
the request. The cost of this notice shall be borne by the appellant. No activity 25
which requires said permit shall be conducted prior to final approval. 26
27
Subsection (s). That Chapter 36., Section 36-454.(c), paragraph 6 be amended 28
to provide for the addition of new text and to then read as follows: 29
30
Appeals from the action of the planning commission shall be filed with the city 31
clerk. The content of the appeal filing shall consist of (1) a cover letter 32
[Page 12 of 15]
addressed to the mayor and board of directors setting forth the request; (2) a 1
copy of the application indicating the planning commission action and properly 2
executed by the staff. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of 3
the action of the planning commission. Certified mail notice of appeal hearing 4
shall be provided by the appellant not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of 5
the hearing and the affidavit and other supporting evidence of notice shall be 6
filed not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the review. This notice shall 7
be given to all record parties in interest whether for or against the request. The 8
cost of this notice shall be borne by the appellant. 9
10
Subsection (t). That Chapter 36., Section 36-516.(d) be deleted in its entirety 11
and replaced with new text to read as follows: 12
13
(d) Security fencing 14
(1) Barbed and Razor Wire Fences 15
For purposes of this section the use of barbed, concertina 16
wire or other types of wire specifically designed to inflict 17
injury upon human contact is prohibited except when used 18
at the top of fences at least six (6) feet above grade 19
enclosing business or manufacturing premises. When such 20
wire is used, it shall not extend outside the vertical plane of 21
the enclosed property. 22
23
(2) Electric Fences 24
No electric fence shall be installed, operated or maintained 25
except as provided in this subsection. 26
(a) Electric fences shall be constructed, maintained and 27
operated in conformance with the specifications set 28
forth in International Electrotechnical Commission 29
Standard 60335-2-76. 30
(b) The electric charge produced by the fence upon 31
contact shall not exceed energizer characteristics set 32
[Page 13 of 15]
forth in paragraph 22.108 and depicted in Figure 102 1
of International Electrotechnical Commission 2
Standard No. 60335-2-76. 3
(c) Electric fences shall be completely surrounded on the 4
side facing the property exterior by a non-electrified 5
fence or wall that is not less than six feet in height 6
and at least six inches from the electric fence. 7
(d) Electric fences may be installed, operated or 8
maintained only on industrial zoned properties with 9
approved areas of outdoor storage or display. 10
(e) Electric fences shall be clearly identified with 11
warning signs that read “Warning – Electric Fence” 12
or similar terms and which are posted at intervals of 13
not more than 50 feet with at least one sign on each 14
exterior perimeter side of the fence. 15
(f) Each electric fence must have a switch or other 16
approved device on the outside in the gate area to 17
disarm the entire electric fence (for Police and Fire 18
Department access). 19
(g) No electric fence shall be installed until after 20
certification from the Department of Planning and 21
Development that the plans for the fence meet the 22
requirements of this subsection and a permit is 23
obtained for the fence. 24
25
Subsection (u)(1). That Chapter 36., Section 36-3. be amended to provide for 26
the alphabetical insertion of a new defined use to be titled “special event center” to read 27
as follows: 28
29
30
Special event center means any privately owned property, building or 31
portion of a building, the primary purpose of which is to be rented or 32
[Page 14 of 15]
leased for parties, entertainment functions, conventions, conferences, 1
seminars, assemblies or meetings. This definition shall not include 2
those facilities, banquet halls or meeting facilities which are an 3
ancillary use to a permitted use within a zoning district. 4
5
Subsection (u)(2). That Chapter 36., Section 36-300.(c)(2) be amended to 6
provide for the alphabetical insertion of a new conditional use titled “special event 7
center” and the serial restructuring of the remaining items accordingly. 8
9
Subsection (u)(3). That Chapter 36., Section 36-301.(c)(2) be amended to 10
provide for the alphabetical insertion of a new conditional use titled “special event 11
center” and the serial restructuring of the remaining items accordingly. 12
13
Subsection (u)(4). That Chapter 36., Section 36-342.1.(d) be amended to 14
provide from the addition of new text and to then read as follows: 15
16
(2) Conditional uses. Conditional uses shall include those allowed 17
in the Light Industrial “I-2” District as “permitted uses”, in this 18
chapter 36. Except that all uses must be inside or enclosed. 19
20
Other conditional uses: Commercial surface parking lot. Private club 21
with dining or bar service. Special event center. 22
23
SECTION 2. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, 24
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid 25
or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining 26
portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so 27
declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the 28
ordinance. 29
30
[Page 15 of 15]
SECTION 3. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the 1
same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to 2
the extent of such inconsistency. 3
4
PASSED:____________________ 5
6
ATTEST: APPROVED: 7
8
9
10
C i t y C l e r k M a y o r 11
12
APPROVED AS TO FORM: 13
14
15
16
City Attorney 17
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: LU10-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment
Location: I-30, East Little Rock, Port and Port South Planning Districts
Request: Staff
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
This land use plan amendment is being proposed after a thorough review of the I-30,
East Little Rock, Port, and Port South Planning Districts. There are six areas proposed
for changes:
1. The intersection of Roosevelt Road and Confederate Boulevard from Commercial to
Mixed Use to protect surrounding school and residences from potential
redevelopment.
2. One block east of Geyer Street between East 14th and East 17th Streets from
Residential Medium Density to Industrial to reflect existing uses.
3. The proposed area for the East 9th Street expansion east of Bond Street from
Park/Open Space to Industrial and Residential Medium Density to reflect the
addition of the new roadway
4. The blocks bounded by Apperson Street, East 8th Street, Harrington Avenue and
East 11th Street and the blocks bounded by Corning Avenue, East 6th Street, Carson
Street, and East 10th Street from Residential Low Density, Residential Medium
Density and Residential High Density to Light Industrial to reflect the properties
purchased by the Little Rock Airport.
5. The northeast corner of Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road from Industrial to
Commercial to reflect current and likely future uses.
6. Approximately 1860 acres located east of Fourche Creek, South of Sloane Drive and
west of Thibault Road from Agricultural to Industrial to reflect the Little Rock Port
Authority’s future plans for expansion.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
1. This area is zoned: C-3 for a Kroger Store, a Family Dollar store and a Check
Cashers business; R-3 with Fire Station Number 13; and I-2 for a liquor store, a
church, an upholstery store and an auto parts store. The area west of this is zoned
R-4 and is used for a public school. The area north and west is zoned R-3 for a
firehouse and a cemetery. South of this area is zoned I-2 for a mixture of
businesses and residences.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-01
2
2. This area is zoned I-2 and I-3 for the old Arkla building and Ben Davis Industrial.
East of this area is zoned I-2 and I-3 for large scale industrial operations. West is
zoned R-4 for single family residences, and south is zoned R-3 for the cemetery.
3. This strip of PK/OS is zoned I-3 and is the future right of way for the Ninth Street
extension. This area is surrounded by I-3 zoning on the north, west and south sides.
To the east is zoned R-3 for single family residences.
4. This area is zoned mostly R-3 with some C-3, R-4 and I-2. All of these properties
have been cleared and purchased by the Little Rock Airport for future development.
This area is north and adjacent from a large tract of I-2 zoning for the airport. To the
north, west and east sides are zoned R-3 and are mostly vacant.
5. This area is zoned C-3 for a truck stop and I-2 for a vacant lot. C-3 is immediately
west and adjacent to this area, but the other three sides are all zoned I-2.
6. This area is currently not zoned. It is outside of the city limits, but it is within the
extraterritorial planning boundary. This area is currently used by Southwestern Bell,
Continental Express, Central Freight Trucking and other industrial uses and also for
large farm tracts.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN:
1. This area is currently shown as Commercial. The area North, West and East is
shown as Public Institutional, and the area to the South is shown as Mixed Use and
Service Trades District.
2. This area is shown as Residential Medium Density. The RM extends to the North
and West, and Industrial extends east. Public Institutional is shown to the South.
3. This area is currently shown as Park/Open Space. South and adjacent is shown as
Industrial while Residential Medium Density is shown to the North and East.
4. This area has been shown as Residential Medium Density and Residential High
Density with a special coverage to only allow rezoning at the block level or above.
The area is surrounded by Public Institutional, Light Industrial and Park/Open Space.
5. This area is shown as Industrial on the Plan and is surrounded by Industrial to the
North, East and South. To the west is shown as Commercial.
6. This area is shown as Agricultural. Agricultural is shown to the South and West,
while Industrial is shown to the North and the East.
ANALYSIS:
City Staff developed this amendment package. In an effort to update the Future Land
Use Plan for the I-30, East Little Rock, Port and Port South Planning Districts, the area
was examined. The area was reviewed for conformance with the zoning and the
existing use pattern. Building permit and land reclassification activity were examined for
signs of change within the study area. Staff reviewed the area and identified several
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-01
3
changes thought to be mostly ‘clean-up’ amendments to reflect existing zoning and/or
existing uses. This package of amendments is designed to make the Future Land Use
Plan a more suitable representation of current and likely mid-term future uses for this
area.
The change in Area 1 is from Commercial to Mixed Use. This change is thought to offer
more protection to the surrounding homes and school. The Mixed Use category would
ensure the Planned Zoning Development process would be used to review any new
zoning for appropriateness.
The change in Area 2 is from Residential Medium Density to Industrial. This area has
been used for industrial type businesses for many years. It is separated from the
neighborhood to the west by a levee and is served by a railroad spur to the east. This is
a change to recognize the existing uses.
The change in Area 3 is from Park/Open Space to Industrial and Residential Medium
Density to reflect the addition of the Ninth Street extension. The Park/Open Space was
intended to serve as a buffer between the residential and industrial uses, but staff now
feels that Ninth Street will serve that buffer.
The change in Area 4 is from Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density
to Light Industrial to reflect the properties purchased by the Little Rock Airport for future
expansion.
The change in Area 5 is a minor change from Industrial to Commercial to recognize the
existing truck stop and to change another small lot, which could be a good space for a
commercial business.
The change in Area 6 is from Agricultural to Industrial to reflect the Little Rock Port
Authority’s Future Plan. Most of the industrial land in this area is built up, so there is a
definite need for more Industrial shown on our Plan.
The Planning and Development staff began reviewing this area at the beginning of
2010. After field visits and staff discussions, letters were sent to all neighborhood
associations in the area, the airport, and the Port. We received some positive feedback
to those letters, so staff then contacted all affected property owners. Staff received
numerous phone calls in response to that letter and attended two neighborhood
meetings to help explain the proposed changes. As a result of these meetings and
discussions with the neighborhood, the proposed areas were modified to remove two
controversial changes. The remaining changes seem to have no opposition. Staff re-
notified all affected property owners of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting, but
there has been no response as of this printing.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU10-01
4
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: East Little Rock, East
Roosevelt, Apple Blossom, Hanger Hill, College Station, Hermitage, Community
Outreach and Granite Mountain. Notices were also sent to all affected property owners,
the Little Rock Airport, Little Rock Port, Little Rock Housing Authority and Director
Hendrix. Staff has received numerous comments from area residents. All are in
support, and some were neutral. The property under review is not located in an area
covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
This package of amendments is designed to make the Future Land Use Plan a more
suitable representation of current and likely mid-term future uses for this area. Staff
believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
Walter Malone of the Planning Staff reviewed the proposed changes in the amendment
package. A motion was made to approve the proposed Land Use Plan changes by a
vote of 9 for and 0 against (1 absent, 1 vacant) the item was approved.
August 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: 320
NAME: Cooper Orbit Road Annexation
REQUEST: Accept 48.3 acres plus or minus to the City
LOCATION: Along the north side of Cooper Orbit Road at Glisten Lane
SOURCE: Mark Hodge, Agent for the Property Owners
On August 10, 2010, the applicant requested that this item be deferred.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff supports the deferral of this item to October 7, 2010.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2010)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 7, 2010
Planning Commission meeting. By a vote of 9 for and 0 against (1 absent,
1 vacant) the consent agenda was approved.
LU
w
W
F-
0
m
0
cn
0
J
CL
i
5
11111111111
i
�o
0
D
5
11111111111
i
�o
0
CIL
c
09
w
co
97
Q
A
d
w
Z
August 26, 2010
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
C
Date /
Se4retiaryC)