HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 20 2003LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 20,2003
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
Members Present:Judith Faust
Gary Langlais
Norm Floyd
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Bob I owry
Mizan Rahman
Rohn Muse
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen,Jr.
Robert Stebbins
Members Absent:Bill Rector
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the January g,2003 and January 23,2003
Meetings of the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
FEBRUARY 20,2003
4:00 P.M.
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Z-5459-A Forest Park Elementary School —Conditional Use Permit
1600 N.Tyler Street
B.LU03-11-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment from Single Family to Office in the
1800 Block of Aldersgate Road
C.Z-7337 Rezoning from R-2 to 0-3
Northeast corner of Aldersgate Road and West 18 Street
D.LU03-06-01 A Land Use Plan in the 1-30,East Little Rock and Port Districts
bounded by1-30,Fourche Creek and Arkansas River changing the
area to Low Density Residential,Public Institutional,Park Open
Space,Commercial,Mixed Use Urban,Service Trades District,
Light Industrial and Industrial.
E.Z-7295 Little Rock Montessori School —Conditional Use Permit
16,600 Block of Forest Lane,south side
F.Breshears Short-form PCD (Z-6481-B),located on the northwest corner of
Woodlawn and Tyler Streets.
G.Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Z-6178-G),located at 9222 Stagecoach
Road.
H.A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-24-01)in the Sweet Home Planning District
east of the intersection of Trust and Sanders Streets from Single Family and Low
Density Residential to Multi Family.
H.1.Fruit of the Spirit Short-form PD-R (Z-7353),located between Sanders Street
and Grey Street near the intersection of Trust Street.
65'treet West Neighborhood Action Plan
J,Brimer Subdivision Replat (S-289-A),located on the south side of Mabelvale
Cut-off and north of Brimmer Street near the intersection of Mabelvale Cut-off,
University and Woodbridge Street
Agenda,Page Two
NEW ITEMS:
1.G-23-319 Battle Road Right-of-Way Abandonment
2.Z-4103-D Charlotte Gardens Apartments —Conditional Use Permit
1423,1501,1505,1511,1521 and 1601 Charlotte Drive
3.Z-6053-A Crystal Hill Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
18823 Crystal Valley Road
4.Z-7270-A Sonic Drive-In —Conditional Use Permit
2917 Cantrell Road
5.Z-7354 Gardner Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit
708 Fleetwood Drive
6.Z-7355 Neimeyer Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit
17916 Crystal Valley Road
7.Z-7356 Allen Temple A.M.E.Church —Conditional Use Permit
1702 South Oak Street
8.Z-7357 Shephard Day Care Center —Conditional Use Permit
7803 Preston Drive
9.G-23-320 West 35 Street and Alley Right-of-Way Abandonments
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
AR
K
A
N
S
A
S
It
e
m
s
5
TO
R
T
E
vA
L
L
E
T
VA
R
K
H
A
V
V
Cl
l
y
UR
I
S
KV
R
S
I-
6
T
O
tP
j
p
~
IT
I
S
12
T
H
TO
TH
2
~T
RO
O
S
E
I
E
L
T
UR
S
C
H
I-
T
A
O
7
UR
S
C
H
0
g
a
IJ
R
T
S
U.
I
TE
I
R
R
T
!
U3
+&
6
I
o'
o
o
o
o
/
RA
F
K
s
F
vA
L
I
E
y
Ql
y
LA
I
T
S
/
CA
T
C
H
OT
T
E
R
AR
E
I
V
8
36
6
SL
H
K
E
R
CT
PH
AL
E
X
A
H
O
E
R
TE
R
sa
m
o
s
cC
F
CH
T
C
F
F
al
TI
F
F
al
y
IA
A
T
S
l
~L
16
/
6
A'
A
I
L
R
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Re
z
-
o
n
i
n
g
Co
n
-
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Us
e
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
20
,
20
0
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
NAME:Forest Park Elementary School —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1600 N.Tyler Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District/Peters and Associates
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
addition of parking on this existing,R-2 zoned,
elementary school campus.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The campus is located within the block bounded by "0"Street,"P"Street,
Tyler Street and Polk Street;one block south of Cantrell Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The campus is located within a residential neighborhood and is
surrounded by single-family occupied,R-2 zoned properties.No
expansion of school grounds or the building are proposed.The proposed
parking expansion will not affect the school's compatibility with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest and Propsect
Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The school contains 23 classrooms and has 38 total employees;requiring
61 on-site parking spaces.There is currently no on-site parking.Utilizing
a portion of the right-of-way,the school district proposes to construct 29,
60'ngle parking spaces along "0"Street and Polk Street.Each of these
streets are one-way,local streets with very little traffic other than for that
generated by the school.Bus loading/unloading currently occurs on "0"
Street.It will be relocated to Tyler Street.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No screening and buffer issues.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Dedicate right-of-way to 5'ehind the proposed parking back-of-curb
(make it public parking),or obtain a franchise agreement for that
portion of the parking lot located within the public right-of-way (private
parking).
2.Vehicles backing out of the parking should not back into an
intersection.Remove or relocate the eastern most parking stalls on"0"Street and the southernmost stall on Polk.
3.There are currently no sidewalks on "0"Street and Polk Street.
Provide 5'idewalks with proposed improvements.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk on all adjacent
streets that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy,
5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
6.Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
7.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed
or existing right-of-way from Public Works Civil Engineering and Traffic
Engineering prior to construction.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,
contact Central Arkansas Water.That work would be done at the
expense of the developer.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Doug Eaton and Earnest Peters,were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
the number of classrooms,total number of employees and signage.Staff noted
that the proposed parking on "0"Street was located in the area currently used
for bus drop-off/pick-up.Mr.Eaton responded that the buses would be moved to
the Tyler Street perimeter.
Most of the discussion centered on Public Works'omments.Mike Hood,of
Public Works,commented that additional right-of-way should be dedicated to
place the entirety of the proposed new parking in the right-of-way,making it
public parking or a franchise agreement would need to be obtained for the
portion of the parking located in the right-of-way if the parking was to remain
private.Mr.Eaton responded that it was the school district's desire to keep the
parking private so that there would be control over who utilized it.In response to
a question from Commissioner Berry,Mr.Hood stated that staff was supportive
of the proposal to have parking backing out into "0"and Polk Streets because
they were local streets with very little traffic,other than that generated by the
school.In response to Public Works'omment that sidewalks were needed on
the "O"and Polk Street perimeters of the school site,Mr.Peters and Mr.Eaton
both stated that the terrain in that area made sidewalk construction very difficult.
Mr.Peters described a retaining wall that was going to be built in that area,
rendering the area unbuildable for sidewalks.There was a brief discussion of
whether right-of-way was needed for the abutting streets since,although they are
residential streets,the Master Street Plan classifies than as commercial streets
since they abut a nonresidential use.Mr.Hood stated he would discuss the
issue with Public Works Staff and the applicant.The applicant was advised to
respond to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday October 30,2002.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Forest Park Elementary School occupies the block of R-2 zoned property
bounded by "0","P",Tyler and Polk Streets.The site contains a single building
with 23 classrooms.There are no parking spaces on-site.Parallel parking
occurs along the various streets.Bus loading/unloading takes place on "0"
Street.The school district proposes to utilize a portion of the right-of-way to
construct 60'ngle parking spaces along "0"and Polk Streets.The parking will
back into the streets.The bus loading/unloading will be relocated to Tyler Street.
No other changes are proposed to the site other than for new,4 foot chain-link
fencing to be installed in front of the parking spaces.Some of the fencing may
be located on top of a retaining wall.
On November 1,2002,the applicant submitted written responses to staff issues
raised at Subdivision Committee.No new site plan was submitted.Issues
remaining to be resolved are right-of-way dedication,franchising the parking and
3
Feb ru a ry 20,2003
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
providing sidewalks on "0"and Polk Street.It appears the district concurs with
dedicating the required right-of-way,if the parking spaces can be franchised for
use by the school.Staff is supportive of this action.The applicant has indicated
a desire to have the sidewalk requirement waived.Staff does not support that
request.
Staff does support the overall conditional use permit to allow the angled parking.
The streets around the school are all one-way,local streets that generate little
traffic beyond that created by the school itself.Allowing the angled parking
should not have a detrimental effect on the traffic pattern in the area,Relocating
the bus drop-off/pick-up to Tyler Street will allow the buses to turn either east or
west on "0"Street;more evenly dispersing the bus traffic away from the school.
No new signage,site lighting or building expansion is proposed.No changes are
proposed to the school programs or classes on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6
of this report.
Staff recommends that the Commission support a franchise to allow use of the"0"and Polk Street rights-of-way for the proposed parking.
Staff does not support a waiver of the requirement to construct sidewalks along
the "0"and Polk Street perimeters.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There was one objector present.One letter and a
petition had been received.The letter and petition offered an alternative plan for
the proposed parking along Polk Street.Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant was requesting deferral of the item in order to meet with the concerned
neighbors.The request for deferral was received two days prior to the meeting.
Antonio Mesa,of 1612 N.Polk Street,asked if the Commission had received his
letter and alternate plan.Chairman Lowry responded that the letter and plan had
been received and the item would be deferred to allow the applicant an
opportunity to meet with the neighbors.There was no further discussion.A
motion was made to waive the Bylaws and accept the late request for deferral,
The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recusing
(Lowry).
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 9,
2003 meeting.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recusing (Lowry).
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 9,2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the application be deferred to the February 20,2003 agenda.
Staff supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent,the Commission voted to waive
their bylaws and accept the deferral request being less than five (5)working days
prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 20,2003 agenda.A motion to that
effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
The application was deferred.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has met with neighborhood residents.The site plan has been
modified slightly.The northern group of 6 spaces along Polk Street has been
broken into two groups of 3 spaces,separated by a landscaped island.The
issue of sidewalk construction along "0"and Polk Streets remains unresolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There was one objector present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval,subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above;with one change,staff
recommended approval of the requested waiver of the requirement to construct
sidewalks along the "0"and Polk Street perimeters.
Mike Hood,of Public Works,stated the applicant had met with the City's traffic
engineer and the engineer was now satisfied that it was reasonable to support
the sidewalk waiver request,based on traffic and pedestrian circulation around
the site.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County,stated the League
was concerned about the issue of sidewalks and was opposed to any waiver of
the sidewalk requirement around school sites.
Doug Eaton,Director of Facilities and Engineering for the Little Rock School
District,stated the issue of child safety was a primary concern of the District,I-le
stated the school site was small and any loss of property for sidewalks or
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
expanded parking would negatively impact play areas.Mr.Eaton stated very few
children actually walked to the school.He noted several parents did park 1 to 2
blocks away and walked their children the remaining distance to the campus.
Mr.Eaton stated the proposed parking was designed to save trees and the play
area.He stated he felt that traffic around the site would be safer by the school
providing some area to get cars off of the street.
Commission Faust asked if there were any other sidewalks in the adjacent
neighborhood.During the ensuing discussion,it was agreed that there are no
sidewalks in the area around the school.
A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit as recommended by
staff,including the sidewalk waiver.The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes,1 no,1 absent and 1 abstaining (Lowry).
6
February 2u,2003
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:LU03-11-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —l-430 Planning District
Location:Aldersgate Rd.at 18th St.
Receueat:Single Family tc Office
Source:Matthew Finley,Finley 8 Company
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment in the I-430 Planning District is for a change from
Single Family to Office.The Office category represents services provided directly
to consumers (e.g.,legal,financial,medical)as well as general offices,which
support more basic economic activities.The applicant wishes to develop the
property for office uses.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 1.94+
acres in size.The land to the north,east,and south is zoned R-2 Single Family
and is occupied by houses.Further to the north is a vacant fifty-foot strip of land
zoned OS Open Space between the R-2 zoned houses to the north of the
applicant's property and the land zoned 0-2 Office and Institutional,occupied by
two office buildings.One lot to the northeast is zoned R-7A for a manufactured
home.The land to the west across Aldersgate Road is zoned Planned Office
Development for two office buildings.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 4,2002 a change was made from Office to Commercial on John
Barrow Road north of Kanis Road about 1 mile northeast of the study area to
reflect existing conditions.
On September 4,2001 a change was made from Park/Open Space to Multi-
Family at 24 Street and Junior Deputy Road about V.of a mile to the southeast
of the applicant's property to accommodate new multi-family residential
development.
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Single Family and Commercial to
Park/Open Space on Birchwood Drive about 1 mile northwest of the application
area to reflect existing conditions.
On March 6,2001 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 1911
John Barrow Road about 1 mile east of the application area to accommodate a
proposed office development.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-11-01
On September 19,2000 a change was made from Single Family to Office at
2109 John Barrow Road about 1 mile east of the study area to accommodate a
proposed office development.
The applicant's property is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.
All of the land to the north,east,and south is shown as Single Family while the
land to the west across Aldersgate Road is shown as Suburban Office.About a
block north of the applicant's property,north of the neighboring residences,the
land is shown as Suburban Office.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Aldersgate Road is a two-lane street with open drainage and is shown as a
Collector Street on the Master Street Plan and would require improvements in
order to conform to design standards.West 18 and Perry Streets are
residential streets with open drainage that need improvements to conform to
design standards for standard residential streets.There are no bikeways shown
in the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the
applicant's property lies in a service deficit area.Adequate park facilities would
need to be developed in order to meet any new demands created by
development on the applicant's property.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in an area covered by the John Barrow
Neighborhood Area Plan.The business and commercial development goal
contains the objectives of attracting job-generating businesses to the area and
encouragement of land assembly guidelines for construction of new business
and commercial facilities.
ANALYSIS:
This application would place an intense use in an area,which is surrounded on
three sides by less intense uses.Although the area shown as Single Family
contains vacant pieces of property,new housing is being constructed in this
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-11-01
neighborhood.The Plan has tried to keep the non-residential uses west of
Aldersgate Road.Even when allowing these non-residential uses,they were to
be designed such that residential could be a viable option on the east side of
Aldersgate.The Office use along Kanis Road includes an open space strip as a
boundary or barrier to further non-residential use along the east side of
Aldersgate Road.This amendment would extend non-residential use in a
residential area that is currently buffered from more intense land uses.
In addition,this amendment area is located in an area of revitalizing single-family
development.The property in question is located in the Hicks Interurban
Addition,a neighborhood that has seen an increase in building permit activity
within the past five years.Thirteen building permits for new single-family houses
have been issued for the neighborhood within the past five years.Four of those
permits were issued in 2001,while five were issued during 2002.The trend of
increasing building permits for single family housing east of Aldersgate Road
indicates that this neighborhood is a growing and viable single-family residential
area.This amendment would introduce a use that is incompatible with the
current trend of single-family residential development in the area.
NE I G H BORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Campus Place
Property Owners Association,Kensington Place Property Owners Association,
Pennbrook/Clover Hill Place Property Owners Association,Twin Lakes "A"
Neighborhood Association,Twin Lakes "B"Special Improvement District,Twin
Lakes "B"Prop.Owners Association,Westbrook Neighborhood Association,
Birchwood Neighborhood Association,and John Barrow Neighborhood
Association.Staff has received has not received any comments from area
residents or Neighborhood Associations at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change not appropriate.This amendment would introduce a
non-residential use in an area of increasing single-family residential
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 9,2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the February 20,
2003 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to pass the by-laws
waiver for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
That motion was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes,and 1 absent.A
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-11-01
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Upon further review,the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include
area to the north between the applicant's property and the area currently shown
as Suburban Office.With this change,the entirety of the Single Family between
Aldersgate Road and Perry Street north of W.18 Street would be changed to
Suburban Office.The applicant's property has remained undeveloped while the
new residential development has occurred south of W.18 Street.The
development that has occurred in the area neighboring the applicant's property,
developed with non-residential uses.This expansion and change would
establish W.18 Street as a boundary between the non-residential and
residential uses located on the east side of Aldersgate Road.A change to
Suburban Office would also afford protection of the integrity of neighboring
Single Family uses through the use of Planned Zoning Districts,which would limit
the impact of new office development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change to Suburban Office is appropriate with the expansion
of the study area and establishing W.18"Street as a boundary between non-
residential and residential uses.Suburban Office would also allow non-
residential development to take place within the context of Planned Zoning
Districts.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval.A motion was made
to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes
and 1 absent.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-7337
Owner:Charles T.Meyer III and Caroline Meyer Finley
Applicant:Finley and Company Real Estate Services
Location:Northeast corner of Aldersgate Road and West 18 Street
Request:Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Size:Approximately 2.0 acres
Purpose:Future office development
Existing Use:Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single family residences;zoned R-2 and R-7A
South —Single family residences;zoned R-2 (across West 18 Street)
East —Single family residences and vacant lots;zoned R-2
(across Perry Street)
West —Office park;zoned POD (across Aldersgate Road)
A.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Traffic impact studies may be required with future commercial
development on Aldersgate Road.
B.PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The property is located on a CATA Bus Route 43 (part-time route).
Feb rua ry 20,2003
ITEM NO.:C Cont.F I LE NO.:Z-7337
C.PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within
300 feet who could be identified,and the John Barrow,Twin Lakes "A",
Twin Lakes "B"and Twin Lakes (POA)Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the rezoning request.
D.LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the 1-430 Planning District.The Land Use Plan
shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for an
0-3 General Office rezoning for a proposed office development.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Office is a separate item on
this agenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow
Neighborhood Area Plan.The business and commercial development
goal contains the objectives of attracting job-generating businesses to the
area and encouragement of land assembly guidelines for construction of
new business and commercial facilities.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Commission is to rezone approximately 2.0 acres
(Lots 1-6 and 19-24,Block 16,Hicks Interurban Addition)from "R-2"
Single Family District to "0-3"General Office District.The applicant
proposes to rezone the property for future office development.The
property is currently undeveloped and tree-covered,and designated as
Single Family on the City's Future Land Use Plan.A land use plan
amendment from Single Family to Office is a separate item on this
agenda (Item 3).
Staff does not support the proposed rezoning.Staff feels that the
proposed rezoning to 0-3 will not be compatible with the single family
properties to the north,south and east.Staff views the POD zoned
property to the west (Suburban Office on the Land Use Plan)as a buffer
between Interstate 430 and this area of single family residential.
Additionally,when the property further north (along the south side of Kanis
Road)was zoned 0-2,an OS zoned buffer strip was required along the
south boundary line of the 0-2 zoning to serve as a dividing line between
the office uses and the single family property to the south,and protect the
integrity of this single family area.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7337
During the past two (2)years,several building permits for new homes
have been issued within the R-2 zoned area between Aldersgate Road
and Junior Deputy Road,south of the 0-2 zoned area along the south
side of Kanis Road.Staff feels that allowing non-residential zoning within
this area would be a detriment to an area which appears ripe for new
single family in-fill development.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 9,2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the application be deferred to the February 20,2003 agenda.
Staff supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent,the Commission voted to waive
their bylaws and accept the deferral request being less than five (5)working days
prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 20,2003 agenda.A motion to that
effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
The application was deferred.
STAFF UPDATE:
In response to concerns raised by staff,the applicant has revised the rezoning
application.The application is proposed to be revised as follows:
1.Rezoning from R-2 to 0-2 (Office and Institutional District)
2.The maximum building height will be two (2)stories.
The 0-2 zoning district is a site plan review district and will require Planning
Commission review and approval for any development.Staff feels that a low-
level office development with adequate buffers will work at this location.
REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-2 zoning,subject to the
maximum building height not exceeding two (2)stories.
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7337
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had revised the application as follows:
1.Rezoning from R-2 to 0-2
2.The maximum building height will be two (2)stories.
Staff noted support of the revised application.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval as revised by the applicant and recommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The revised application was approved.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —l-30,East LR and Port
Planning Districts
Location:Bounded by Arkansas River,l-30 and Fourche Creek
Receuest:Single Family,Low Density Residential,Multifamily,
Public/Institutional,Park/Open Space,Commercial,Light
Industrial,Industrial,Mixed Use and Mixed Commercial industrial
TO Low Density Residential,Public Institutional,Park/Open
Space,Commercial,Light Industrial,Industrial,Service Trades
District and Mixed Use Urban
Source:City of Little Rock
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the 1-30,East Little Rock,and Port Planning
Districts to reflect the proposals of the 'East of I-30 Report'ade by the Mayor in
July 2002.The new use pattern would be 'Public'or the airport infrastructure,
surrounded by Light Industrial for 'airport related'r other industrial uses.Mixed
Use Urban is expanded to the east from McLean to Bond,for urban pedestrian-
oriented mixed-use developments.The Hanger Hill and East Little Rock
Neighborhoods are encouraged to be come a more dense residential
development with Low Density Residential.Finally office and support industrial
uses are encouraged with the Service Trades District at Roosevelt Road and
I-30.(Map M)
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
A review of the existing zoning and land use pattern will be presented from east
to west within the area of the amendment.Between (east of)the airport and
Fourche Creek there is a large area of 'R2',Single Family,which is generally
used as single family.The homes along Fourche Dam Pike generally date to
pre-annexation and many have a rural feel.Along Roosevelt Road a row of
single-family homes is in a more urban subdivision style.Between these two
residential neighborhoods,there is an industrial development,zoned 'l1',
Industrial Park.
As one proceeds west,the airport is mostly zoned '12',Light Industrial.To the
airport's south is an area of 'l2'nd 'C4',Open Display Commercial.The uses in
this area are predominately airport related —car rental companies,hotel,parking
facilities,etc.North of the airport is an area predominately 'R3',Single Family
with small areas (a few lots)zoned commercial (C3,General Commercial).The
use pattern is similar to the zoning,single-family homes with a scattering of small
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
businesses and churches.There is also a larger 'public homes'ultifamily
development in this area.This complex is zoned Single Family (R3)and is made
up of one-story structures,which could be considered attached single family.
Southwest of the airport along Roosevelt Road one first comes upon a small
'industrial park'ype development of warehouse distribution type uses.The area
is zoned '12'.North of Roosevelt Road there are several cemeteries zoned 'R2'.
There is a commercial shopping center at the northwest corner of Confederate
Boulevard and Roosevelt Road,which is zoned 'C3'.The middle school west of
the shopping center is zoned 'R4',duplex.
Directly west of the airport is an area used and zoned for industrial.A small area
(one by five blocks)is zoned 'R3'nd is homes,but totally surrounded by
Industrial use and zoning (12 and 13,Heavy Industrial).To the north of this
neighborhood is a larger industrial area zoned '13'.The Hanger Hill
neighborhood is further to the west along 1-30 and is an eight by three or so
block single family and duplex area zoned 'R4'.
To the northwest of the airport is first a small single-family area (3 by 3 blocks)of
homes zoned 'R3'.Two large industrial zoned (13)businesses (one vacant)are
north and west of the residential area.A second small single-family area (3 by 3
blocks)zoned 'R4's along the river as one proceeds in a northwest direction.
West of this area is an industrial use area,zoned '13'.While adjacent to 1-30,
one finds the Presidential Park zoned 'PR',Park and Recreation,and a small
area (3 by 3 blocks)of 'UU',Urban Use,which is currently vacant and small
industrial uses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
July 17,2001 —Several City owned properties were changed to Park/Open
Space.Three of these were within or very near the amendment area.The first
was from Low Density Residential at 8'"and Rock.The second was at Richlane
and Heather from Single Family.The third was at the north end of Beauregard
and Longstreet Drives.All three are City Park and Recreation Department
owned property.
March 7,2000 —The City modified the Land Use Plan for downtown as a result
of a special study.Mixed Use Urban (MXU)was introduced.Most ofdowntown
was changed to 'MXU'rom Office,Commercial,Mixed Office Commercial,and
Multifamily.Areas east of 1-30 and north of 9 Street were changed from
Industrial to 'MXU'.An area between 6 and 9 Streets,west of College was
changed from Transition to Low Density Residential.
April 20,1999 —The area south of Roosevelt,between 1-30 and Confederate
was changed from Industrial to Light Industrial on the west and to Mixed Use on
the east.Two areas were changed from Mixed Commercial Industrial to
Commercial.One was the northwest corner of Confederate Boulevard and
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.F I LE NO.:LU03-06-01
Roosevelt Road the other was the northeast corner of I-30 and Roosevelt Road.
This was to more accurately reflect the existing and probable future land use
pattern for the area.
September 1,1998,an area was changed from Single Family to Industrial,
between 16 and 17 Streets and Boyce and Fletcher Streets.This was as a
result of a request to reclassify the property for redevelopment.
The Land Use Plan for the area under amendment is as follows (from east to
west).There are two Single Family areas east of the airport,divided by an area
shown for industrial.Proceeding west,a large area of industrial use is shown for
the airport and surrounding industrial businesses.This industrial use continues
west to the old Rock Island rail tracks.
Near the airport there are a couple of other uses shown.South of the airport is
an area of Mixed Commercial Industrial and north of the airport is an area of
Single Family with numerous Public Institutional use areas shown throughout the
single-family area.In addition,several multifamily use areas are shown in this
residential neighborhood.One is a Public Housing development,the others are
small areas used as transition from the Industrial further to the west.
Along the western boundary of the amendment area,starting in the south,is a
Light Industrial use area with a strip of Commercial use shown along its north.A
large area of Public Institutional use is shown for several schools and
cemeteries.A Single Family use area is shown to the north,with Commercial
and Low Density Residential use transitioning to Mixed Use Urban.Along the
River and Fourche Creek are Park Open Space areas.(Map L)
MASTER STREET PLAN:
There is a Master Street Plan Amendment accompanying this amendment.The
proposal is to have reduced design standards for some of the arterials through
and in the area.See accompanying Master Street Plan Amendment for
additional information.
PARKS:
There are four existing City parks within the amendment area.In addition there
are several parks adjacent or close to the amendment area.The Parks and
Recreation Master Plan recommends:an open space —park along the Arkansas
River through this area (the River Trail),an open space —park along Fourche
Creek through this area (the Earth Trail);an open space —park connections
between the two trails in the western section of the amendment area;and that in
all cases a park —open space area be within eight blocks of an development.
The Plan's basis is the City as a Park or "A City in a Park".However to achieve
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan's 8 block goal will require some
partnerships with others such as schools and churches,
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
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.
ANALYSIS:
This amendment package is the next step in a process started by the Mayor'
report to the Board on the area east of l-30.In the "East of 1-30"report
significant changes in use were proposed.These changes were based on
changing conditions in and around the area.Input and guidance was obtained
from representatives of some of the neighborhoods within the area.This report
was made to the Board of Directors in July of 2002 after several months of work
by City Staff.After that meeting the implementation steps call for the City'
Plans to be modified to allow the plan's proposals to occur.A package of
changes was developed and presented at two meetings within the area.Both
property owners and residents were invited to these meeting.Over 2800 notices
were sent to invite individuals to two meetings in early November 2002.
Approximately a hundred thirty households and properties have made contact
with the City about the proposed changes.
The area under amendment is one where change has begun from two distinct
sources.In the eastern section of the amendment area,Little Rock National
Airport has been a source of change.The airport has continued to grow and
make improvements over the last couple of decades.Much of the recent growth
has been for runway extensions and safety improvements.The airport has
developed a long term as well as short and midterm plans for the facility and
surrounding area.
The City believes that the Land Use Plan should recognize the long-term plan of
the airport.To this end,significant changes are proposed to the City Land Use
Plan.The first (Map A)is to recognize the actual infrastructure of the airport
(runways,taxiways,terminal,etc)as Public Institutional rather than Industrial on
the Plan.This should provide a more accurate understanding of the actual use
of the land.
The other change in this area is to recognize the long-term plan (20 plus year)
that the areas surrounding the airport be industrial in nature.This involves four
areas.The area east of the airport (Map B)is shown as Industrial and Single
Family currently.With the airport's plans to build an eastern taxiway along the
east runway,this area becomes more attractive for airport related industrial uses,
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
which might take direct access to the new taxiway.(This could be a good
location for the freight related uses at the airport.)The recommendation is for
Light Industrial use.(Note:This is an area where some residents have
indicated opposition to changing the plan.)
The second change is to the south (Map A).It is currently Industrial and the
change proposed is to Light Industrial.It has access to the taxiway system with
one existing industrial use.The third area (Map C)is to the west and northwest
of the airport.The southern portion is shown for Industrial and has industrial and
airport related uses in existence.The northern portion is currently shown for
Single Family use.Though there are homes there now,with the improvements
underway to the adjacent runway and taxiway direct access will become
possible.This makes the area desirable for airport related industrial use.The
recommendation is for Light Industrial for this area.
The fourth change (Map D)is north of the airport.Currently an industrial use
exists in the southern portion of the area,which is shown as Industrial.A larger
area of Single Family and Multifamily is shown north of 10'treet.With the
extensions of the two western runways and accompanying taxiways,this area is
now more desirable for airport related industrial use.The recommendation is for
Light Industrial for this area.
The Security —Boyce area,(Map D)a one block by six block Single Family area,
surrounded by Industrial is proposed to be shown as industrial.This is a small
area of single-family homes,which has experienced some loss of residential
area over the last several years.(NOTE:This is an area where some residents
have indicated opposition to changing the plan.)To the south is an area of
Industrial,the actual use pattern is closer to Light Industrial.The proposal is to
change the area south of 22"'treet between Bond and Confederate Boulevard
(Map E)to Light Industrial use.
The second source of change affects the western quarter of the amendment
area.The forces of change are:the growth of downtown,the Presidential Park,
Heifer international Headquarters complex and strengthening of some of the
historic central Little Rock neighborhoods.The major area of change (Map E)is
generally from 9'treet to the Arkansas River and I-30 to Bond Street.In this
area Mixed Use-Urban is proposed to expand east and north.To the east,the
use is currently industrial with an industrial classification.With the new
developments underway,the nature of this area is expected to change from its
historic industrial to more of a mixed pattern with many urban pedestrian
features.To allow this to occur,the plan must be changed.
To the south a Commercial and Low Density Residential area (Map F)is
proposed for this Mixed Use Urban classification.Again the purpose is to allow
more flexibility in use and hopefully encourage a more urban-pedestrian type of
development.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
The Hanger Hill (to the south —Map G)and "East Little Rock"(to the east —Map
H)neighborhoods are both shown as Single Family currently.In both cases the
proposal is for Low Density Residential.This would allow density to increase
from a maximum of 6 units to a maximum of 10 units.This is a minor
densification of the areas.The City would like to see these areas remain
predominately resident but allow for more flexible in housing types (to add
attached,zero-lot line,etc.)(NOTE:In the "East Little Rock"neighborhood there
was some concern about the change).
The Roosevelt Road area,from 1-30 to Confederate Boulevard (Map I)in the
southwest corner on the amendment area is proposed for a minor change.
South of Roosevelt the change would be from Light Industrial and Mixed Use to
Service Trades District.This is not a major change since the new use is still
designed to support industrial uses.To the north of Roosevelt Road the area
changes to Service Trades and Public Institutional removing the Commercial and
Single Family currently shown.These two use areas were small (about a city
block each)and the proposed changes indicate the general use pattern for the
area.
The final change is actual a series of changes along the Arkansas River (Maps J
8 K)to Park/Open Space from various uses.This change more accurately
reflects the probable future development along the river.It also reflects the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan —River Trail.
NE I G H BOR HOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:East Little Rock,
Hanger Hill,East Roosevelt and Community Outreach.These associations,
property owners and residents were notified of meetings in early November 2000
to discuss this issue.Approximately 130 households and businesses
responded.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Upon further review,Staff recommends approval of the new land use
configuration with one change.That change is at 1-30 and Roosevelt Road
(Map I),The plan should show some commercial at this location to capture
highway related commercial uses (service stations,food and lodging).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 9,2003)
Walter Malone,of Planning Staff,indicated he would review the plan changes by
sketch map.Mr.Malone first reminded the Commission the source of the land
use changes —the East of I-30 Study.The changes are based on two forces:in
6
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
the East the Airport Master Plan and in the West the strengthening of
neighborhoods and redevelopment of the Downtown area (Presidential Library,
Heifer International,River Market,etc.).After reviewing areas "A","B","C"and
"D",Planning Director Jim Lawson stated for the record that the proposed
changes were not zoning changes and that the actual use change likely would
not occur for some time.Further no one is planning on purchasing property for
this purpose at this time and anyone currently living in a single family home could
continue to do so for some time to come.Mr.Malone stated this was true for all
the areas in question,the zoning was not changed and the plan change only
changes the way staff will review rezoning requests by property owners in the
area.
Mr.Malone proceeded to review the areas "E","F","G"and "H".For area "I",
Staff is recommending Commercial use rather than the Service Trades District
proposed at the Roosevelt Road/l-30 interchange.Finally,Maps J and K show
changes to Open Space along the River to conform with the Parks Master Plan.
Commissioner Faust questioned the desirability of changing all the
neighborhoods around the airport since there are no immediate plans to act by
the Airport.Commissioner Floyd raised similar concerns and issues.There was
discussion about this and whether deferral to reconsider some or all the areas
should be considered.
Debby Ellis,resident of Fourche Dam Pike area,spoke against changing their
neighborhood.Ms.Ellis indicated this was a stable neighborhood and good
neighbors.Until the airport is ready to acquire the area,please allow these good
citizens to live in this neighborhood in peace.
John Gardner,member of New Hebron Baptist Church,stated that he knew that
there are going to be changes,but he was concerned about the timeframe.
A motion to defer to February 20,2003 was made by vote of 10 for and 0 against,
the item was deferred.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has worked with the Plans Committee to develop a modification for the four
existing residential neighborhoods east of Geyer Street proposed for industrial
use.All four will be shown for Single Family,Low Density Residential or
Multifamily as the existing plan proposes.However,a special overlay will be
placed on all four which states that the area ultimately will be industrial.This
conversion to industrial should be made in increments of a block or larger.
7
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
Walter Malone,of Planning Staff,reviewed the four residential areas east,west
and north of the airport.In each case the current plan is shown,except for the
close-in neighborhood near Carver which is shown for Low Density Residential
rather than Single Family.Those areas shown for acquisition for noise are
shown for either Light industrial or Open Space.In addition,a hatch will be
added to indicate that long term the areas are likely to be industrial (related to
airport).This conversion should not be lot-by-lot rather at least block-by-block.
Mr.Malone reviewed each of the four areas starting with the Fourche Dam Pike
area;north of airport area;west of Carver area and finally the Security/Boyle
area.In response to questions,Mr.Malone reviewed the commercial area at
Fourche Dam Pike and Roosevelt Road as well as locating Hanger Hill.
Something which has developed since the last meeting is the desire to place a
temporary overlay on the areas around the Presidential Park/Library and Heifer
sites.This was to be started after the plan went to Board of Directors.Chairman
Nunnley asked how this corresponded to the "Presidential District"the
Commission had previously studied.Mr.Malone reminded the Commission of
the previous work on the "Library District 1 and 2"which was almost the same
area we are now talking about for an overlay.Mr.Lawson,Director of Planning
and Development,included there is some concern on the Board about the
speculation going on in this area.There is a sense that an overlay should
quickly be put in place to assure undesirable development does not happen as
we develop the ultimate plan.Mr.Malone stated the proposal is to take this
temporary overlay to the Board at the same time as the Land Use and Master
Street Plan changes are taken.The overlay would include a two-story height
limit,design based on "UU"Urban Use zoning or use of a PZD Planned Zoning
District so that the Commission could review the development.The overlay
would be limited to 6 to 9 months.
Commissioner Muse asked about the two-story height.Mr.Malone indicated it
was selected in part to match heights to the south and east as well as to protect
potential view corridors.Where would highrises be encouraged?Mr.Malone
stated we may encourage them in this location (1-30 to College)but we need
time to review the area.The proposed overlay area is about two blocks to the
east,south and west of the Presidential/Heifer area to hold things until we have a
final ordinance.
Commissioner Faust asked if a development could still be brought in using the
Planning Zoning District process.Mr.Malone indicated that was the current
thinking.Staff does not want to have this in place any longer than necessary,
this is not a moratorium.Commissioner Faust asked if the "place holding"
Design Overlay District was part of the Commissions vote on the Land Use Plan.
Mr.Lawson indicated it was.
8
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-06-01
Chairman Nunnley asked to verify the overlay area.Mr.Malone explained the
area.There was some discussion about the area and the Heifer project.In
response to a question about a marina,Mr.Malone pointed out a proposal at the
end of 2"Street.
Delores Benedict,lives in one of the residential areas discussed earlier.She
indicated she was happy where she lived,loved her neighborhood and never
wants to leave.Ms.Benedict asked that the area not be turned into an industrial
area and did not see a need for more industrial.Commissioner Faust asked if
the area Ms.Benedict was talking about is one of the areas shown for residential
with a future industrial.Mr.Malone indicated it was.There was some discussion
between Commissioner Faust and Ms.Benedict.
Debby Ellis,resident of Fourche Dam Pike area,asked if this area (pointing to
her neighborhood)would be shown for light industrial?We all know we are in
the airports acquisition area.She indicated there was a place shown for "light
industrial"where homes currently sit.Mr.Malone responded,yes those areas
shown for acquisition due to noise control were not shown for residential use,
There was discussion about changing land use and impacts on existing use,
zoning,values etc.
Commissioner Mazan moved the approval of the Plan changes as modified
including the Design Overlay District proposal (with Heifer ownership).By a vote
of 10 for 0 against (Commissioner Rector absent)the item was approved.
9
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-7295
NAME:Chenal Valley Montessori School —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:16,600 Block of Forest Lane,south side
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock Paper Company/Dorothy Moffett
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of a Montessori School campus on this
undeveloped,R-2 zoned 5 acre tract.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Forest Lane,midway between
Taylor Loop Road and Katillus Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area that is quickly developing with new
single family homes.The large tract across Forest Lane to the north was
recently approved for redevelopment as a single family subdivision.
Older,single family homes are directly adjacent to the west.Valley Falls
Estates,a large,new single family subdivision is being developed further
to the west and south.A church occupies the large,R-2 zoned tract
adjacent to the east.With proper attention to issues such as landscaping
and screening,this relatively small school should be compatible with
surrounding uses.The primary issue of concern appears to be access to
the site.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Johnson Ranch and
Westchester Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The applicant proposes to access the site via a single driveway off of
Forest Lane.A total of 31 on-site parking spaces are proposed.The
school is proposed to have 16 employees;6 full-time and 10 part-time.
Sixteen parking spaces are required for the employees.The enrollment of
the school is 110 students divided as follows;66 preschool (ages 3-6),22
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
lower elementary (ages 6-9)and 22 upper elementary (ages (9-14).The
15 remaining parking spaces exceed the number required by the code for
a school with the student population proposed.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Portions of the proposed land use buffer along the eastern perimeter drop
below the nine (9)foot minimum width allowed at any given point.The
average land use buffer width required along the eastern perimeter is
twenty (20)feet.
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 to help
screen this property from the residential properties to the east,south,and
west.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide an
approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered
Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6)inch
caliper or larger.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Forest Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial
street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance,
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
7.Show estimated storm flows (Q)and direction of flow for water courses
entering and leaving the property.
8,The existing minimum pavement width of Forest Lane is 13'hich
does not meet standards for the two way traffic that will be generated
by the proposed school.Provide a solution to access problems.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:A Capital Investment Charge base on the size of the meter
applies in this area in addition to normal connection fees.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.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.
C~PI I:N C
CATA:The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(SEPTEMBER 12,2002)
Dorothy Moffett was present representing the application.Staff presented the
item and noted that additional information was needed regarding:signage,
number of employees,number of students by pre-school and elementary age,
days and hours of operation,site lighting (especially the soccer field),fencing
and phasing of construction.Staff noted that the buildings along the east
perimeter needed to be moved farther from the property line to provide the
required setback and buffer.In response to a question from staff,Ms.Moffett
stated the soccer field would be solely for use by the school.She stated it was
her hope to have interschool competition on the site and the soccer field would
be lighted.Ms.Moffett stated the first phase of construction would involve the
southernmost building and one of the two northern buildings.Staff noted that
there appeared to be a power line along the east perimeter of the site and no
easement was shown on her survey.She was advised to have her surveyor
double-check that issue.
Landscape comments were presented and discussed.Ms.Moffett stated she
would prefer to use a wrought-iron fence with landscaping to provide screening
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
rather than a solid wood fence.The Committee felt that would provide a more
aesthetic appearance.
Public Works Comments were presented.The focus of the discussion centered
on access to the site since Forest Lane is such a substandard street.It was
noted that Ms.Moffett is obligated only to widen the street directly in front of her
site.Staff informed the Commission that the north half of Forest Lane,from in
front of this site west to Katillus Road,would be widened in conjunction with
Phase IV of the residential plat proposed for the property north of Forest Lane.
Several options were discussed including converting Forest Lane to one-way,
requiring persons going to the Montessori School to utilize a one-way pattern
while leaving the street itself open to two-way traffic and allowing Ms.Moffett to
do some degree of widening of Forest Lane to Katillus Road in lieu of doing full
street improvements in front of her site.She was advised to meet with staff.
Ms.Moffett was advised to submit 4 copies of a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday September 18,2002.The
Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Chenal Valley Montessori School proposes to develop the wooded,R-2 zoned
tract located on the south side of the 16,600 Block of Forest Lane as its new
campus.The school will relocate from its current location on Taylor Loop Road.
The applicant proposes to build three,one-story buildings on the site.Two
buildings will be built in Phase I;the rear building and one of the front buildings.
The third building will be built in Phase II.Parking,consisting of a single
driveway and 31 parking spaces,will be built in Phase I,The school will employ
6 full-time teachers and 10 part-time employees.Maximum enrollment will be
110 students,divided as follows;66 preschool children (ages 3-6),22 lower
elementary children (ages 6-9)and 22 upper elementary children (ages 9-14).
Regular school hours are 8:30 a.m.—3:15 p.m.,Monday through Friday.There
is also a before and after school program.Parents can bring their children as
early as 7:30 a.m.and pick them up as late as 6:00 p.m.The preschool program
is divided into two,half-day programs;either 8:30 a.m.—11:15a.m.or 8:30 a.m.
—12:00 p.m.
A soccer,playfield will be located west and north of the school buildings.The
rear building will contain a small gymnasium.The soccer and basketball
programs are a part of the school's physical education program.The gym and
soccer field will be used by the students during the school day.There are no
plans for evening use.The soccer field will not be lighted.Low-level lighting is
proposed at the entrance drive and along the parking areas.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
The applicant proposes to use the Cathedral School on Cantrell Road as a
model for the Montessori School's front entrance.A brick and wrought iron
fence will extend along the front property line.An arched,gated entrance with
the school's name across the top will be located over the driveway.
Playgrounds will be located south of the buildings.The sides and rear of the site
will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall,chain link fence.Screening along the perimeters
of the site will consist of natural vegetation,both existing and new.
Staff believes this is an appropriate location for this small school.A multiple
building church campus is located adjacent to the east.Undeveloped property is
adjacent to the south and a large,horse farm is located across Forest Lane to
the north.A new,multi-lot subdivision has recently been approved for the
property north of Forest Lane.That new subdivision "backs-up"to Forest Lane
and has no access to Forest Lane.One single family home is directly adjacent
to the west.Other single family properties have a rear yard relationship to the
west side of the proposed campus.The homes on these deep lots are located
nearer Katillus Road.
On September 18,2002,the applicant submitted an addendum to her cover
letter and 4 copies of a revised site plan which addressed the issues raised at
Subdivision Committee and noted in the analysis above.The buildings have
been moved to provide a 9 foot buffer on the east side where the site is adjacent
to the R-2 zoned church campus.A 7.5-foot utility easement has been shown on
that perimeter.The easement does infringe on the buffer between the school
buildings and the church site.Since the adjacent property is developed as a
multiple building church site,allowing the reduced buffer at that point should
have no effect on the adjacent property.Signage will conform to office
standards with the exception of the sign over the entry arch.
The applicant has worked with the Public Works staff to address the issue of
access to the site,since Forest Lane is a substandard street.In lieu of doing full,
half-street improvements only in front of the school site,the applicant has offered
to widen the entire half-street west to Katillus Road.The street widening will be
to rural residential standard;open ditch.This is acceptable to Public Works
since the terrain is fairly flat and at the crest of a small hill.The north side of
Forest Lane will be widened with Phase IV of the previously mentioned
preliminary plat.
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
1.Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined Sections 4,5
and 6 of this report.
2.Compliance with the development plan outlined by the applicant in her cover
letter and addendum.
Staff recommends approval of the 9-foot land use buffer on the east perimeter
with the 7.5 foot utility easement.Staff also recommends approval of a variance
to allow the signage over the gated archway entrance.Staff recommends
approval of the street widening plan to allow a reduced,half-street section to be
constructed in front of this site and west to Katillus Road,as proposed by the
applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 3,2002)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors present.Staff had
received several telephone calls in opposition to the item.Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff noted that the
applicant had agreed to construct a cul-de-sac or turn-around at the end of the
driveway to create a better traffic flow on-site for drop-off/pick-up of children.
Mike Hood,of Public Works,described the current condition of Forest Lane and
explained the applicant's proposal to widen Forest Lane West to Katillus Road.
Mr.Hood explained that there was 50 feet of right-of-way already in place,west
to Katillus Road and there was likely no right-of-way in place,east to Taylor Loop
Road.
Chris Barrier,attorney for the applicant,addressed the Commission.He stated
the school would comply with all staff comments and conditions.Mr.Barrier
stated the school was "absolutely committed"to widen Forest Lane to 26 feet in
front of the school and west to Katillus.He stated the school would work with the
church adjacent to the east to explore the possibility of doing street widening
east to Taylor Loop Road.Mr.Barrier stated the church had agreed to dedicate
right-of-way.He described the drop-off/pick-up of children at the school as
occurring at staggered times during the day,thus reducing peak hour traffic
conflicts.Mr.Barrier stated there was no traffic problem at the school's current
location which has less stacking and drop-off/pick-up space.Mr.Barrier
surmised that the proposed school would produce less traffic than if the site were
developed as single family homes.
Tom Holmes,of 12 Pine Manor Drive,stated he was a home builder in a nearby
subdivision and he was concerned about increased traffic in the area,particularly
on Forest Lane.
6
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
Hal Kemp,representing Rick Ferguson developer of Valley Falls Estates,stated
he did not feel the applicant had adequately addressed traffic issues.He voiced
his client's concerns about traffic.Mr.Kemp stated the City's own ordinances
required that schools be located on a collector street or higher classification
street (Section 31-201(c)).He stated his client would not object to the school,if
access was from Taylor Loop Road,not Katillus Road.
Jim Swink,of 5011 S.Katillus,spoke of his proposed new residential
development planned for the property north of Forest Lane.Mr.Swink voiced
concerns about traffic and the compatibility of the school with this proposed
development.
Ricky Hunter,of 4611 S.Katillus Road,voiced concerns about noise,school
activities,traffic and the proposed soccer field.
James Matthews,of 47 Waterview Court,stated he was building a home in
Valley Falls Estates and he was opposed to any use of the land for a school.He
presented a letter in which he outlined his specific concerns.
Doug Sherman,of 44 Waterview Court,also spoke of his concerns about traffic.
Chairman Lowry asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles to comment on
Mr.Kemp's interpretation of Section 31-201(c).Mr.Giles responded that the
Commission must determine if the proposed use was a "major traffic generator."
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the proposed school
was not a major traffic problem either in number of vehicles or peak hour
volume.He stated the City would be "hard-pressed"to require the widening of
Forest Lane both to the west and the east.
In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley,Mr.Giles stated
conditional uses go with the land.Mr.Lawson commented that the conditional
use could be limited to a Montessori School,exactly as described by the
applicant and with whatever conditions imposed on the site deemed appropriate
by the Commission.
In response to questions raised by Commissioners Berry and Rahman,Mike
Hood stated Katillus Road's traffic carrying capacity was 2,500 vehicles per day;
there are no capital improvement plans to widen the road;it will be widened as
adjacent properties are developed;that single family residences generate 10
trips per day and most traffic on Forest Lane travels west-to-east.
Further comments were made regarding the appropriateness of widening Forest
Lane,either to the east or to the west.
7
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
Chris Barrier responded that Section 31-201(c)gives "examples"of traffic
generators and is not a specific list.He stated the Commission must take each
application one at a time.Mr.Barrier stated that requiring the widening of Forest
Lane to the east would negatively impact the church.He reiterated the school's
commitment to wide Forest Lane to two lanes to the west and to continue
discussions with the church about possible widening to the east.Mr.Barrier
stated he did not feel it was appropriate to hold the school hostage when it is a
low traffic generating use.He stated the conditional use was specifically for a
Montessori School,with specific conditions and limits.
Jim Dill,of 37 Durance Drive,voiced concern about the appearance of the
proposed buildings.He expressed concerns about traffic and also presented a
petition signed by many persons in opposition to the school.
Doug Sherman reiterated his traffic concerns and stated he would not be
opposed to the site developing as single family homes.
There was a brief discussion of the level of improvements that would be made to
Forest Lane if the subject property were developed as single family homes as
opposed to the level of improvements to the street proposed by the applicant.
A discussion ensued between Commissioner Berry,Hal Kemp and Doug
Sherman regarding the widening of Forest Lane and the appropriateness of
schools in residential neighborhoods.
City Attorney Steve Giles addressed the issue of off-site street improvements.
He stated the Commission has to look at issues including access to determine if
a proposed conditional use is appropriate.He stated the Commission could
determine that a site has such inadequate access that the proposed use should
be denied.Mr.Giles stated that was a "back-door"approach to telling the
applicant that access must be improved.Mr.Giles stated the Commission could
not force the applicant to widen Forest Lane to the east because there was no
right-of-way to the east (apparently)and other property owners would be
involved.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the Commission could vote on the issue,having
not seen a site plan with the proposed turn-around.Mr Lawson responded that
the Commission often approved applications with conditions that resulted in a
minor change to the site plan after the Commission meeting,
Commissioner Rector commented that he had previously lived near a Montessori
School,and he did not find it to be a problem.
Commissioner Muse stated he could not vote on the issue without knowing how
access to the site would be provided.Commissioner Faust commented that the
8
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
Commission did know;that the road would be widened to 26 feet in width,west
to Katillus.
In response to a comment by Commissioner Rahman,Mr.Barrier showed
photographs of the proposed buildings.
A motion was made to approve the application,including all staff comments and
conditions;including construction of a turn-around and widening Forest Lane to
26 feet in width,west to Katillus Road.The vote was 5 ayes,5 noes and
1 absent.The motion failed.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors.Prior to the Board
meeting,the application was amended.The amendment included two
substantial changes from the plan acted on by the Commission.The plan has
been "flipped";placing the soccer field on the east side of the property,adjacent
to the church property and away from the residential property to the west.The
second major change is the applicant's proposal to widen Forest Lane eastward
to Taylor Loop Road rather than west to Katillus Road.Other changes include
the addition of a cul-de-sac incorporated into the driveway to provide better
circulation on the site and an increase in enrollment from 110 students to 115.
The applicant has offered the following conditions to be made part of the
application:
1.Improve Forest Lane to Taylor Loop to City residential standards with 22
feet of pavement,and two foot shoulders on each side and curb,sidewalk
and gutter along the perimeter of the applicant's property.
2.Internal circulation subject to City approval with regard to access for
emergency vehicles.
3.Soccer field and playgrounds not to be lighted.
4.Student enrollment to be limited to 115 students aged 3 to 14,pre-school,
primary and elementary grades,in a Montessori program.
5.Construction to exclude manufactured buildings with external metal,
conventional stucco,or conventional cinder block;external surfaces to be
brick,lap siding and/or decorative pre-cast concrete or similar material,
with membrane,metal standing seam,shingle,or similar roofs.
(Illustrative elevation attached.)Also,no chain-link fencing within fifteen
feet (15')of right-of-way.
9
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
6.Buildings sited in substantial conformity with attached illustrative site plan.
7.Landscaping buffer plan subject to staff approval,including credit for
preserved trees.
8.Improved site irrigation and storm water detention plans subject to staff
approval.
At is January 21,2003 meeting,the Board of Directors determined that the
current application varied from that reviewed by the Planning Commission and,
consequently,remanded the issue to the Commission for a public hearing and
further review.All persons who filled out cards at either the Planning
Commission or Board of Directors meeting were notified of the February 20,
2003 Commission hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised application subject to compliance
with the previous conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6 of this report and
compliance with the additional conditions submitted by the applicant as outlined
in the "Staff Update".
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors and supporters
present.Staff presented the item and noted the conditions offered by the
applicant.Staff noted that a revised site plan had been presented two days prior
to the meeting.Staff commented that the revisions to the site plan were
relatively minor.Staff recommended approval of the application subject to
compliance with the previous conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6 of this
report and compliance with the additional conditions submitted by the applicant.
Pastor Allen Emerson,of Maumelle Assembly of God Church,spoke of his
concerns with the nature of the road widening to take place adjacent to the
church.He stated he felt building the road without curb,gutter and sidewalk
would create drainage problems for the church and a safety issue for children.
During the ensuing discussion of the nature of the proposed street
improvements,Jim Lawson Director of Planning stated the school had agreed to
do off-site street improvements and staff did not feel it was reasonable to require
full improvements.
10
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7295
Chairman Nunnley asked if the City could get an in-lieu contribution for future
sidewalk construction.Mr.Lawson reiterated that the City could not require off-
site improvements.Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles stated that the City would
be on shaky legal ground if off-site improvements were required.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rahman,Mike Hood of Public
Works stated the design of the street would have to be such that it did not create
drainage problems.
Chris Barrier,the applicant's attorney,stated the school had pledged to the
church that the road design would address drainage,curb cuts and pedestrian
issues.
Kerrie Keith,of 26 Portland Road and the parent of a child in the Montessori
School,spoke in support of the application.She presented several photographs
of the existing school site and the proposed new site.
Matt Warner,of 7 Chambard Lane,spoke in opposition.
Jason Sims,owner of B 8 H Construction,spoke of his concerns about traffic
issues and his fear of future expansion of the school.
Jan Sherman,of 4 Waterview Court,chose not to speak.
David Dill,of 8 Waterview Court,stated he was not opposed to the school but
was opposed to it being located on Forest Lane.He also expressed concerns
about traffic.
Kim Dill,of 8 Waterview Court,also spoke of traffic concerns.
Ms.Keith stated the parents would be instructed to use Taylor Loop Road,not
Katillus Road.
Mike Hood stated the school was not a huge traffic generator.He stated traffic
related to the school was spread throughout the day.Mr.Hood said the City'
concern of adequate access to the school had been addressed.
A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit subject to compliance
with all staff comments and conditions.
Commissioner Muse asked why the number of parking spaces had been
increased over the previous plan.Ms.Keith responded that there were several
programs during the year,when all of the parents attend,that create the need for
the parking.
A vote was then taken on the motion.The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
11
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:Z-6481-B
NAME:Breshears Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION:on the northwest corner of Woodlawn and Tyler Streets
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
D.R.Breshears Donald Brooks Surveying
6605 Kenwood 20820 Arch Street Pike
Little Rock,AR 72207 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:0.14 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Restaurant with a mixture of 36 seats;a catering-commercial use,
C-1 permitted uses.
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Same as above with the addition of a second structure adjacent to
the alley to be used as a contractor's storage shed.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 15,1998 the City of Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance
No.17,820,rezoning the site from R-3,Single-family to PD-C.Ordinance No.17,821
which was also approved on September 15,1998 deferred the right-of-way dedication
on Tyler Street and Woodlawn Avenue for five years.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-B
The approved PD-C allowed the continuing use of the building as a deli/restaurant with
seating for a maximum of 36 persons,allowing seating on a proposed 20 foot by 17 foot
deck with proper screening and on outside speakers.C-1 permitted uses were
approved as alternative uses.
On February 16,1999 the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.17,933
approving two (2)minor revisions to the previously approved PD-C.The applicant was
allowed to add "catering-commercial"as a permitted use of the property,in conjunction
with the approved restaurant use.The applicant indicated there would be no expansion
of the existing kitchen facility or additional employees required.There would also be no
changes to the previously approved site plan.
The applicant also requested a modification to the hours of operation.The applicant
requested the daily hours of operation to be 10:30 am to 6:30 pm,Monday through
Saturday.The applicant indicated the delivery vehicle for the catering operation would
be a mini-van,the restaurant owner/manager's personal vehicle,which he would drive
to the restaurant daily.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PD-C to allow for the
construction of a second structure on the site near the western property line
adjacent to the alley.The applicant is proposing to use the building as a
contractor's storage shed.The applicant is not proposing any plumbing to be
located in the storage building.
The building is proposed at 35-feet by 45-feet and to be a single-story metal
building.There is an existing 18-foot by 20-foot concrete slab on the site,which
will be incorporated into the new concrete slab used to support the new
structure.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a one-story 1373 square foot frame commercial building with a
16 foot by 10 foot deck on the rear corner.
There are single-family residences to the north,west and south,across
Woodlawn Avenue.Fairpark Elementary School is located to the east,across
Tyler Street.
There is an existing wood fence running approximately 't~the distance of the
north property line.Woodlawn Street has been constructed with curb and gutter
but no sidewalk adjacent to the site.Tyler Street has not been constructed to
Master Street Plan Standards and has open ditches for drainage.
2
Feb ru a ry 20,2003
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-B
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
Hillcrest Residents and the Capitol View Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing along with all property owners located within 200-
feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,located within 300-feet
of the site.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No Comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entercnr:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water:No objection.~NC:Ppp d I It d.
~CPI I:N I d.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The
applicant has applied for a revision of the PCD for a storage building on this
property in addition to the existing restaurant.If the proposed structure is done
so that it has a residential feel,the proposal would not have a significant impact
on the Land Use Plan,which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property is
located in an area covered by "the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan;a
'Blueprint'f Our Community."The chapter on zoning and land use contains a
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-B
goal of creating a different set of guidelines with which to govern the
development of Hillcrest.This goal is supported by the two objectives directing
specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and
establishing design standards consistent with the character of the neighborhood
The plan also contains a list of supplemental issues,which includes a land use
objective of limiting Mixed Uses to the Kavanaugh commercial areas.
Landsca e Issues:The proposed structure extends over into the required 6.7
foot wide street buffer area along Woodlawn Avenue.
The wood fence along the northern perimeter needs to continue westward
toward the alley.
B iIdi C 1:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 16,2003)
Mr.Don Breshears was present representing the application.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed project to the Committee.Staff then stated there were
additional items needed on the proposed project.Staff questioned Mr.
Breshears of the items to be stored in the proposed garage.
Staff also indicated the hours of operation of the restaurant/deli would need to be
revised as a part of the application.Staff stated the original PCD did not allow
for deliveries to be made to the site other than in the owner/operators personal
vehicle.Staff questioned if deliveries were being made in this manner and if not
stated the applicant would also need to make a revision to the PCD to allow
delivery trucks to access the site.
Staff requested the applicant provide the proposed building materials,building
height and driveway location.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the applicant would be
required to extend the existing wooden fence to the west along the property line
to screen the adjoining single-family residence to the north.
There was no further discussion.The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to Staff addressing most of the
issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has
indicated a 30-foot by 45-foot storage building to be located on the site near the
intersection of Woodlawn and the alley on the western property line.The
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-B
applicant has indicated there will be two driveways and two door locations for the
building;one located on Woodlawn and one located from the alley.The
applicant has stated both will be overhead doors and the driveway accessed
from Woodlawn will have 20-feet width.The door adjacent to the alley will have
a 12-foot driveway.Both doors will be remote controlled doors.
The applicant has indicated the new structure will be constructed with materials
that will blend with the existing architecture of the neighborhood.The applicant
has not indicated the proposed building height.
The applicant has indicated the current hours of operation for the restaurant to
be Tuesday through Thursday from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm and Friday and Saturday
until 10:00 pm.Staff feels this should be the actual closing time of the business
(both customers and employees).The applicant has also indicated deliveries for
the restaurant to be on Friday afternoon between 2:00 pm and 4:00 pm.Staff is
supportive of the request to allow delivery vehicles to access the site.
The applicant has indicated the new structure will be utilized for storage of cars,
a boat,lawn mowers,weed eaters,blowers,garden equipment and lumber for
repairs of the existing structure when needed.The applicant has indicated the
new structure will not be a commercial use;therefore,hours of operation do not
apply
Staff is not supportive of the proposed request.The applicant has not given
Staff satisfaction the proposed new structure will blend with the existing
architecture.The building material was not furnished as requested at the
Subdivision Committee meeting nor was the proposed building height.Staff is
also concerned with the size of the proposed structure.A 30-foot by 45-foot
building is not compatible with the scale of garage or outbuildings in the area.
Although several homes do have detached garages for the most part they are
somewhat smaller more in line with the existing concrete slab on the site or 18-
feet by 20-feet.
The applicant proposes the building placement on Woodrow Street seven (7)
feet and adjacent to the alley at 1.5 feet from the property line.The location of
the drive would cause vehicles exiting the site to back onto the street on
Woodrow Street and be parked or blocking the alley in the second drive location.
The site is located near an elementary school and staff is not supportive of this
access or the backing of vehicles into the street.Safety is the primary concern
of Staff.With the building placement and the driveway locations Staff does not
feel the proposal would allow for safe access to and from the site.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development as filed.The existing scale
of the building does not lend itself to the character of the existing neighborhood.
Staff would recommend the hours of operation be modified to allow the business
5
Feb ru a ry 20,2003
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-B
to remain open but that the site be vacated by both customers and employees by
the reported time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 6,2003)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant failed to notify property owners 15-days prior to the Public Hearing as required
by the Planning Commission By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had requested the
item be deferred to the February 20,2003 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were
supportive of the request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was not present.There were objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had requested the item be withdrawn without prejudice.Staff stated they
supported the requested withdrawal.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
withdrawal.A motion was made to approve the Consent Agenda to include all Staff
Recommendations and Comment.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
6
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:Z-6178-G
NAME:Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Signage issue on Lot 2 and Lot 4)
LOCATION:9222 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Finley 8 Company Hurricane Valley Engineers
9222 Stagecoach Road P.O.Box 118
Little Rock,AR 72210 Bryant,AR 72807
AREA:1.68 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD and POD
ALLOWED USES:Selected Office and Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD and POD
PROPOSED USE:Selected C-3 Uses and 0-3 permitted uses.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Stagecoach Village preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission in
August of 2000.The Plat contained four (4)lots.As a separate action on September
5,2000,the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.18,342 establishing
Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)Short-form PCD.The applicant proposed to construct a
3,600 square foot branch bank building and a 9,000 square foot commercial building
and 54 parking spaces.At the time of approval,the applicant proposed to convert the
bank building into a commercial building (C-2 uses)if a bank tenant could not be
secured.The site plan was later revised (June 26,2001)at a Staff level to remove the
bank building from the site plan and the commercial building square footage was
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-G
increased to 10,800 square feet.The applicant proposed the building to be used as
80%commercial (C-2 uses)and 20%office (general and professional).
The hours of operation were proposed at 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
The sign area approved for Lot 4 was to be a maximum of eight (8)feet in height and
eighty (80)square feet in area.The sign was to be a monument style ground mounted
sign.
On March 21,2000,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,234,which
rezoned Lot 2 from R-2 to PCD.C-2 permitted uses were approved for the property,
with the uses for the entire development being tied to the preliminary plat application.
As a part of the proposal the applicant proposed to utilize the existing 3,230 square foot
building on Lot 2 and construct 15 parking spaces to serve the building.The applicant
also proposed to utilize the existing driveway from Stagecoach Road to serve Lot 2
temporarily,until the new street for this subdivision was constructed.At that time the
existing driveway would be closed and a shared drive between Lots 2 and 3 would be
used.The timing of the new street construction will be tied to the preliminary plat and
the final platting of Lot 3 or 4,or the development of the larger single-family tract.
Ordinance No.18,340,rezoned Lot 2 from PCD to POD and was approved by the Little
Rock Board of Directors on September 5,2000.The applicant requested 0-3 uses as
permitted uses for Lot 2.(The applicant requested C-2 permitted uses for Lots 1 and 4
and 0-3 permitted uses for Lots 2 and 3.)The applicant also agreed to a single-ground
mounted monument style sign six (6)feet in height and a maximum of sixty-four (64)
square feet in area to be constructed on Lot 2.
The hours of operation for Lot 2 were approved as 8:00 am to 9:00 pm and there were
to be no external pay phones,ice machines,vending machines or speakers.The
applicant was to remove the existing access drive from Stagecoach Road to Lot 2 when
Staley Drive was constructed.The area was to be replaced with landscaping.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the Planned Developments related to signage
allowed on the site.The applicant was approved for a ground mounted
monument style sign to be located on Lots 2 and 4.The approved signage was
not installed on Lot 4.The request is to recognize the existing pole mounted
sign located on Lot 4 along with Subdivision identification signs located on Lots 2
and 4.Signage has not been installed on Lot 2.
The current signage consists of Stagecoach Village Subdivision identification
signs (one located on the northeast corner of Lot 2 on Stagecoach Village Drive
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-G
and one located on Lot 4 on the southeast corner of Stagecoach Village Drive)
and the existing pole mounted backlit tenant identification sign located on Lot 4.
The applicant proposes to "turn-off"the lighting for the sign by 11:00 pm daily.
The applicant is also requesting a six (6)foot sixty-four (64)square feet in area
ground mounted monument style sign for the future uses of Lot 2.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed as a strip retail center.There are seven bays with four
being occupied with a mixture of small scale retail uses (cleaners,Subway,
beauty supply,gift shop).Other uses in the area include an office located on the
northwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road.A Planned
Development for Residential uses has been approved to the west of the site and
is beginning to develop.
The site has parking located both in front and rear of the building.Access to the
site is taken from a single access point from Stagecoach Village Drive.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received one phone call from an area resident.The
Otter Creek Homeowners Association,Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress,all property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents,who
could be identified,within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
This item was not re-routed to the various agencies and utilities of comments
since an application was previously submitted and withdrawn at the
December 19,2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing.These comments
were included with the previous agenda.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comments.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-G
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:No objection.
~F»D:Pl l kyd t P d.D k Nl R NF
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has not effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This request is located in an area
covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
OC/CV Neighborhood Action Plan contains an Action Statement calling for the
aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-
friendly and better quality development under the Office and Commercial
Development Goal.The plan contains an Action Statement of limiting
commercial and office development to a corridor along Stagecoach Road and
between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.The plan also contains a
statement of requiring businesses to be access by a loop street to minimize curb
cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
Bdtdddd dd%N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 16,2003)
The applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff
informed the Committee Members the applicant was requesting a revision to his
Planned Developments for Lots 2 and 4 of the Stagecoach Village development.
Staff stated the applicant had installed a pole-mounted sign on Lot 4 but the
signage approved was a monument style ground-mounted sign.Staff stated
they would work with the applicant to resolve any outstanding issues associated
with the proposed development prior to the Commission meeting.
There being no further items for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-G
H.ANALYSIS:
Staff made a site visit to review the existing signage of the development.The
applicant has installed two (2)subdivision identification signs,one (1)north of
Stagecoach Village Drive and one (1)south of Stagecoach Village Drive.The
signs are ground-mounted style and consistent with signage area allowed for
subdivision identification signs per the Zoning Ordinance.However,the
Ordinance only allows one (1)sign per subdivision.Staff does not feel the
applicant's request for two (2)signs is too far out of line and would support the
request to allow the two (2)identification signs.
The applicant has also installed a pole-mounted sign on Lot 4 instead of the
approved eight (8)foot high maximum of eighty (80)square feet in area.The
pole-sign is 24-feet in height and has a sign area of 64-square feet.This is
significantly smaller than the allowed sign area in commercial zones or 36-feet in
height and 160 square feet in area.
Although,the signage installed is not the approved signage of the Planned
Development,staff feels the signage is acceptable.The signs height and area
are within the allowable guidelines for signage in commercial zones.Staff feels
however the lighting of the sign should not be light unless the businesses are
open.Therefore,staff recommends the backlighting of the pole-mounted sign
be limited to the retail business hours or 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
Staff would recommend the signage for Lot 2 remain as the previously approved
and the current request of a maximum of six (6)feet in height and sixty-four (64)
square feet in area.
To Staff's knowledge,there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs E and H of this report.
Staff recommends the lighting of the existing pole sign be limited to the hours of
operation of the commercial center (8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday).
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-G
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 6,2003)
The applicant was not present.There was one objector present.Staff stated the
applicant had failed to notify property owners 15-days prior to the Public Hearing as
required by the Planning Commission By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had
requested the item be deferred to the February 20,2003 Public Hearing.Staff stated
they were supportive of the request for deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item.The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
Mr.Randy Fraizer was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the Staff Recommendation above.
Staff stated they had received one letter of support for the property owner across the
road from the development.Staff stated Mr.Hinny had requested the sign lighting be
"turn-off"when the businesses were not open,as recommended by Staff.
Staff stated the Southwest United for Progress did not wish to speak but requested their
objection be made a part of the Public Record.Staff stated quoting from a letter
received from the organization "While Stagecoach Village shopping area represents
quality development in the area,the revision of the PCD to allow for a larger sign
violates the spirit of the PCD.When an applicant agrees to limits on signage,they
should follow that guideline when requesting their sign permit."
There was no further discussion of the item.The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for Approval and approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
6
February 20,2u03
ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:LU03-24-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Sweet Home Planning District
Location:East of Trust and Sanders Street
Receuest:Single Family and Low Density Residential to Multi-family
Source:Todd Rice,Vanadis Group
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Sweet Home Planning District from Single Family and
Low Density Residential to Multi-family.The Multi-family category accommodates
residential development of ten (10)to thirty-six (36)dwelling units per acre.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the area
of review to include the property located at the northwest corner of Sanders Street and
Southern Road.With this change the applicant's property would be linked to the area
shown as Multi-family between Southern Road and Frazier Pike and between Sanders
Street and Franklin Street.The property at the southwest corner of Frazier Pike and
Sanders Street would remain shown as Mixed Use.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is currently vacant land zoned R-3 Single Family and is
approximately 2.22+acres in size.The expanded area includes a pavilion on the
campus of the Rivercrest Healthcare nursing home zoned C-3 located at the northwest
corner of Southern and Sanders Streets.The College Station Community Resource
Center is located in the northeast corner of the study area next to the College Station
Post Office.The property to the north is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial for a
vacant liquor store located at the southwest corner of Frazier Pike and Sanders Street,
and R-3 Single Family for a house located at the southeast corner of Frazier Pike and
Sanders Street.A Post Office zoned C-3 is located northeast of the application area on
the corner of Gray Street and Frazier Pike.The properties to the east,south,and west
consist of single-family homes and vacant lots.The nursing home located on the north
side of Southern Road west of Sanders Street is zoned MF-18 Multi-Family.A
cemetery is located southeast of the application area at the end of Gray Street.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 16,1999 multiple changes were made from Commercial,Multi-family,
Park/Open Space,Public Institutional,Single Family and Agricultural to Low Density
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-24-01
Residential,Mixed Use,Public Institutional,Multi-family,Park/Open Space,and Single
Family within a 1 mile radius of the applicant's property to reflect existing conditions
throughout the neighborhood.
The expanded area of review is shown as Low Density Residential and Single Family.
The property to the north is shown as Mixed Use while the land to the east is shown as
Low Density Residential and Single Family.The land to the south and west is shown
as Single Family.The property on the north side of Southern Road to the west of
Sanders Street is shown as Multi-family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Sanders Street,Southern Road,and Gray Street are all classified as local streets.
Sanders Street,Southern Road,and Gray Street utilize open drainage and will need
improvements in order to conform to Master Street Plan Standards.Frazier Pike,
located V~of a block to the north,is a two-lane road shown as a Minor Arterial that may
be affected by increasing in traffic resulting from the development of the applicant's
property but would not be subject to half street improvement.Currently the applicant's
property is accessible from Sanders and Gray Street.Improvements would need to be
made to both streets to meet the demands of increased traffic resulting from the
development of the applicant's property if it is developed to Multi-family densities.The
Master Street Plan does not show any bikeways that would be affected by development
of the applicant's property.
PARKS:
The property in question is located about 2 blocks west of the College Station
Elementary School.The Little Rock Park System Master Plan of 2001 recognizes
public schools as facilities eligible for providing for the recreation needs within eight
blocks of all Little Rock households as a part of the "Eight Block Strategy."
H I STO R I C D I STR I CTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
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.
While there is not a neighborhood action plan for the neighborhood recognized by the
City of Little Rock,Planning staff worked with the College Station Community
Redevelopment Coalition.The coalition reached a consensus on the issues to have
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-24-01
the preservation and reinforcement of College Station as a residential neighborhood
and to strengthen Frazier Pike as the community's commercial core.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in the residential area south of Frazier Pike in the
community of College Station.The core of the College Station community is located
along Frazier Pike between Jones Street and 3-M Road.The College Station
Elementary School,the largest non-residential feature of this community,serves as the
anchor of the community at the east end.Any new uses developing in this area would
need to respect the integrity of the school.At the west end,the non-residential uses
centered on the Frazier Pike /3-M Road intersection are commercial in nature where
future business oriented non-residential developments are liable to take place.The
application area is located near the center of the College Station Community between
the two ends of the non-residential core.This change would increase the density of
possible residential development south of Frazier Pike near the core of the College
Station community.
If the land use is changed to Multi-family,an arm of Multi-family will be created in an
area characterized by a low density of Single Family development.Since a large
number of the lots shown as Single Family are vacant,a change to Multi-family will be a
substantial increase in residential density.However,the area east of Gray Street that
would be available for future Single Family development is relatively small.The area
shown as Public Institutional for the elementary school and the cemetery is not as likely
to develop for other uses in the future.The small area to the east of Gray Street that
would remain as Single Family would be separated from the residential area west of
Sanders Street.The amount of vacant land that would remain shown as Single Family
west of Sanders Street would still provide opportunity for such development to take
place in the future.Any development that increases the density of residential uses in
the area will need to respect the integrity of the less intense neighboring residential
uses.Interaction between Multi-family uses and the other uses to the north may
include an increase of traffic and an added demand on area infrastructure.
Since most of the existing uses to the north are residential or institutional in character,
the impact of a change to Multi-family will depend on the nature and scale of the
specific developments in the area shown as Multi-family.A low intensity Multi-family
development will impact the utility infrastructure network shared by neighboring
businesses and residences,while a high intensity Multi-family development will also
generate more traffic.A traditional Multi-family development of apartments would be an
example of a high intensity Multi-family development that would create more demand
on existing infrastructure.A non-traditional Multi-family development such as an
assisted living complex would be an example of low intensity Multi-family.Such a
development would generate less demand on existing infrastructure due to the lower
volume of traffic generated and a lower average number of persons occupying each
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU03-24-01
unit.The way a Multi-family development is implemented will determine whether or not
it is compatible with the single-family uses.A Multi-family use that is institutional in
nature may be more compatible with neighboring Single Family and Public institutional
uses by functioning as a place of transition available to allow the mixing different age
gl oups.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:College Station
Progressive League,and Granite Mountain Neighborhood Association.Staff has not
received any comments from area residents at this time.
STAF F R E COMMENDATION S:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A typical Multi-family development would
not be appropriate in this location.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 6,2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the February 20,2003
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda
and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 20,2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H.1 FILE NO.:Z-7353
NAME:Fruit of the Spirit Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:Between Sanders Street and Grey Street near the intersection of Trust
Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
The Vanadis Group Caradine 8 Company
221 West 2"Street P.O.Box 190
Little Rock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:2.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:40 unit assisted living for the elderly facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct a 40-bed assisted living facility for the
elderly on this 2.5-acre site.The structure is proposed as a single-story building
of masonry construction.A fenced courtyard for privacy and security as well as
secured and monitored exits is proposed.There will be substantial common
space for communal dining and recreation as well as a laundry,commercial
kitchen and other amenities on-site.The center will offer 36 one bedroom units
and 4 two bedroom units.Each unit is approximately 410 square feet and 620
square feet respectively.The applicant has indicated each unit will offer
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7353
separate sleeping quarters for privacy,a fully accessible bathroom,ample closet
space and a modern kitchenette.
The development will consist of a mixture of market rate and affordable assisted
living units and will be funded primarily through the issuance of low-to-moderate
tax credits through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority.
The applicant proposes the primary ingress/egress from Sanders Street on the
west and all receiving and parking will be located on the west side of the site as
well.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tract of land located in College Station.The property to the
north of the site is also vacant.Single-family homes are scattered along
Sanders Street and Gray Street the boundary streets and to the south of the site.
Other uses in the area include a mix of residential,non-residential and public
uses.There is a County Health Unit facility located in the area and a nursing
home located north and west of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The College Station Progressive League,all residents located within 300-feet of
the site,who could be identified and all owners of property located within 200-
feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has not
received any comment from the area residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.The proposed land use would classify Sanders Street on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from platted
centerline.
2.The proposed land use would classify Grey Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from the as-
constructed centerline.
3.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:No comment received.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7353
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered
connection off a private fire system.The Fire Department,having
jurisdiction,needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional
public and/or private fire facilities will be required.If additional facilities are
required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional
details.
0 %i d.
0~PI i:N i d.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:The site is shown as Single Family on the City's Future Land
Use Plan.The desire use is not consistent with Single Family therefore a Land
Use Plan Amendment has been filed for this item and is a separate item on this
agenda.(File No.LU03-24-01 -Item ¹19)
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The area lies in an area not
covered by a City of Little Rock recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landsca e Issues:No comment received.
~lid 0d%N
G,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 16,2003)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the proposed development
consisted of the construction of a 40-bed assisted living facility for the elderly.
Staff stated there were a few items,which were needed on the proposed site
plan which had not been addressed.Staff stated they would contact the
applicant and try to resolve any issues prior to the Commission meeting.
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7353
There being no further items for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
Staff met with the applicant and made comments of the additions needed on the
proposed site plan.The applicant has indicated a single-story building on the
site plan along with additional landscaping.
Staff feels the proposed development is a fit for the neighborhood.The proposal
includes 40 units of assisted living elderly housing,The proposed development
is consistent with the definition under the City of Little Zoning Ordinance and the
normal objection to multi-family development in an area should be somewhat
calmed by the fact elderly housing is defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
The area contains a hodge-podge of development.There are single-family
homes,commercial businesses,public facilities and a nursing home to name a
few of the type uses.Staff feels the proposed use would not negatively affect
the neighborhood if developed in the manner proposed.The proposed density is
16 units per acre.The City's Future Land Use Plan indicates the site as Single
Family.There is an area however,shown on the Plan as Multi-family located V~
block north and Vz block west of the site.The Multi-family shown is developed.
An area V~block to the north of the site is designated as LDR or Low Density
Residential and a large portion of this area is developed.
To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed development if developed in the manner proposed.Staff would
recommend approval of the request to rezone the site to allow assisted living for
the elderly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request to Planned
Development —Residential subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D,E and F of the above report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 6,2003)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify property
owners 15-days prior to the Public Hearing as required by the Planning Commission
By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the
February 20,2003 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the request for
d efe rra I.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO..H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7353
There was no further discussion of the item.The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
Mr.Todd Rice was present representing the applicant.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the
applicant had requested the associated Future Land Use Plan Amendment be
withdrawn.Staff stated they had reviewed the proposed request and was comfortable
with the request to rezone the site to PD-R for an assisted living facility for the elderly.
Staff stated they did not feel comfortable changing the Future Land Use Plan to reflect
Multi Family for the site and would request any other use of the site be reviewed on the
application individual merits to determine a "fit"to the neighborhood.
There was no further discussion of the item.The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval and was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
February 20,2u03
ITEM NO.:
Name:65'treet West Neighborhood Action Plan
Location:West of South University,East of l-430,South of the Fourche Creek
and North of I-30
~Re uest:Approve resolution of support
S~ffR
Staff began working on the development of the Neighborhood Action Plan for the 65
Street area by contacting the Neighborhood Associations and requesting to attend
their monthly meeting.At these meetings staff introduced the ideal of a Neighborhood
Action Plan to the attendees.After initial attempts to gain support of the neighborhood
associations in the 65'treet West Neighborhood Action Plan area,Staff developed
background information on the area and distributed a survey to all residential
addresses in the area.In December 2000,an organizational meeting was held to start
the neighborhood plan effort.Some two hundred forty households were invited to this
meeting.These were the households who responded to the survey and indicated a
desire for additional information from the almost 2013 households who received
surveys in October 2000.
Based on the survey results and concerns of those present at the December meeting,
topic areas were agreed to and a basic meeting schedule was set.Each of the
neighborhoods was represented in the action planning process.Over the next ten
months,the committee met monthly spending two meetings per topic area.By
October a draft was ready for review.This document was then taken by the
neighborhood representative to the three neighborhood associations located within the
plan area,as well as city departments and the Plans Committee of the Little Rock
Planning Commission.No comments were received from the neighborhood groups or
the Plans Committee.The departmental comments are attached to the document in
Appendix I I I.
A meeting was scheduled for November 2001,with all 240 households invited,to
review the goals,objectives and action statements and comment on any additions or
deletions to the plan section.The issues of most concern raised at this meeting were
the need to protect and improve the overall quality of the area.While most agree that
this is a good area,residents want to keep it that way.With this plan the residents
want to stress the importance of two actions,one to put in place and enforce
regulations to prevent the parking of cars and vehicles (junk)in the front yards of
homes in the area.The second is active enforcement of building and environmental
February 20,2003
ITEM NO,:I Cont.65 STREET WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN
codes on both owner and rental houses,being sure to maintain City standards.
Closely related is the desire to maintain Boyle Park as a safe and attractive
recreational facility for the area.
The committee determined the construction of Mabelvale Pike to a 36-foot roadway
with a 4-foot sidewalk on the south side was the number one priority.A close second
was the realignment of North Chicot Road at the intersection with Mabelvale Pike.
Drainage problems in the area were also a big concern.The committee also
determined preservation of the environment was concern in which the committee
should take a more active role.The Parks and Recreation Goal list an Objective of
promote protection of natural areas,systems and urban forestry initiatives.The action
statement included specifically identifiers how to achieve this goal.
With the highest priority issues selected the committee now is requesting a resolution
of support from the Little Rock Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation:Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 28,2002)
Mr.John Honea was present representing the Neighborhood Action Plan on behalf of
the Steering Committee.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of support.
Mr.Honea stated the group had worked to develop the plan over a 12-month period.
He stated the committee was made up of representatives of the
Meadowcliff/Brookwood,Town and County and South Brookwood/Ponderosa
Neighborhood Associations.He stated there was also representation from the areas,
which were not "covered"by a Neighborhood Association.Mr.Honea stated the
group was concerned with the current design of Mablevale Pike as was the South
Brookwood/Ponderosa Neighborhood.He stated the roadway was a narrow roadway
with deep ditches on both sides and a hazard to travel.Mr.Honea stated there were
several areas along Mabelvale Pike,which had redeveloped,and the city had required
the development to install "/'treet improvements,which also created to the
hazardous condition.He stated,if a person was not familiar with the area then the
driver could easily "drive off one of the many drop-offs"which were a result of piece-
meal widening.
Mr.Honea stated a concern for the Meadowcliff/Brookwood residents was the park.
He stated the neighborhood was interested in routine police patrols and general
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:I Cont.65 STREET WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN
maintenance of the park.Mr.Honea stated the Town and Country Neighborhood was
most interested in the routine maintenance of the ditches.He stated the drainage
ditch which "ran-through"the subdivision was not on a routine schedule for
maintenance,which in turn caused some flooding concerns during heavy rains.
Commissioner Berry questioned the Objective in the Action Plan along with the Action
Statements referring to Manufactured Housing.Mr.Honea stated the group did not
want any additional manufactured housing locating in the area.Commissioner Berry
stated the statements were contrary to the City of Little Rock and HUD policy.Ms.
Cindy Dawson,Deputy City Attorney,stated the Commission could approve the plan
with a recommendation stating that as far as the proposal was consistent with
applicable laws.
Commissioner Faust stated she could not support the statement to not allow different
housing types.She stated integrated housing and mixed uses were important to the
success of a neighborhood.She stated another area of concern was two of the
Objectives under the Land Use and Zoning Goal.Commissioner Faust stated,the first
Objective stated to ensure the non-residential developments be limited to areas
currently reserved for such uses on the Future Land Use Plan and the second
statement was to review the appropriateness of existing zoning classifications in the
area.Commissioner Faust stated,the two statements contradicted themselves.
After a discussion concerning these two items the Commission elected to defer the
item indefinitely.Staff stated they would work with the neighborhood to develop a
proposal,which would not be "illegal"and still meet the desires of the neighborhood.
A motion was made to defer the item for an indefinite time period.The motion passed
8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
65 Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has worked with the Neighborhoods involved to resolve some of the
Commissioner's concerns of wording with regard to a few of the Goals and Action
Statements listed in their Neighborhood Action Plan.The participants have agreed on
less restrictive wording of a few of the statements.
One area of concern by the Commission was the wording of an Objective under the
Housing Goal.The previous statement was to require new single-family housing be
site built homes.The Committee has revised the wording to state encourage new
single-family housing to be compatible in architecture and mass with the existing
housing in the area.The neighborhood continues to support the Action Statements
related to this Objective.The neighborhood is not supportive of the placement of any
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.;I Cont.65"STREET WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN
additional manufactured home parks in the area and will not support the placement of
manufactured housing in the area.
An Objective stated under the Land Use and Zoning Goal indicated non-residential
development and multi-family developments should be limited to areas currently
designated on the Future Land Use Plan or zoned for such uses.When comparing
percentage of total acreage of the area to percentages of total citywide the
neighborhood is comparable for commercially zoned and residentially zoned property
(Table 4.Acreage Percentage of Total —Zoning),When comparing the percentage
of property zoned for residential use (89.71%)and the area indicated on the Future
Land Use Plan for residential use (42.21%)it would appear the area has sufficient
area set aside for non-residential uses.
The 65 Street West Neighborhood Action Plan area has been slow to develop.
There are large undeveloped areas along West Baseline Road and the 1-30 Frontage
Road,which will more than likely be developed as non-residential uses.These areas
are set-aside on the Future Land Use Plan as Service Trades District and Mixed
Office Commercial.The Neighborhood feels with the Cities current review policy of a
three (3)to five (5)year review and the addition of a statement in the Action Plan to
indicate this review policy the areas indicated for non-residential development should
be more than adequately address the demand for non-residential uses wishing to
locate in the area.
The neighborhood would like to ensure development and redevelopment in the area
be quality development to ensure the viability of the single-family neighborhoods.The
residents feel the areas to develop first for non-residential uses should be along the
major traffic routes or the Interstate,West Baseline Road and Mabelvale Cut-off,and
not locate within the existing neighborhoods.Once these areas have developed or
become at risk of full development then the neighborhood will examine other areas for
non-residential development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
Mr.John Honea was present representing the Neighborhood Plan Committee
Members.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval.
There was no further discussion of the item.The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for Approval and approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J F ILE NO.:S-289-A
NAME:Brimer Subdivision Replat
LOCATION:On the south side of Mabelvale Cut-off and north of Brimer Street near the
intersection of Mabelvale Cut-off,University and Woodbridge Streets
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mystery Properties Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick
P.O.Box 56403 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72215 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.65 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,CUP
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:In-lieu contribution for street construction to
Mabelvale Cut-off.
BACKGROUND:
On July 13,1982,the Planning Commission approved a two-lot plat (and a CUP for a
Church on Lot A)for the Light House Baptist Temple Lots A and B.The plat was final
platted and recorded December 1,1982.The current proposal includes the land area
of Lot A,which has not developed.(Lot B was replatted into Courtney Subdivision.)
A.P ROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to replat Lot A into eight (8)single-family residential lots.
The lots will have street frontage on Mabelvale Cut-off and Brimer Road.The
lots average 7020 square feet;adequate to meet the minimum requirement of
the Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant proposes a 35-foot platted building
line adjacent to Mabelvale Cut-off and a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to
Brimer Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.F ILE NO.:S-289-A
The applicant has indicated right-of-way will be dedicated and one-half street
improvements made to Brimer Road.The applicant has indicated right-of-way
dedication but is requesting an in-lieu contribution for street construction to
Mabelvale Cut-off.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with a scattering of trees.Brimer Road is a narrow
unimproved (no sidewalk)roadway with open ditches for drainage.Mabelvale
Cut-off is an unimproved roadway also with open ditches for drainage.One-half
street improvements have been made to the property located to the west of the
site on Mabelvale Cut-off.
There are single-family residences located in the immediate area with the homes
south of Mabelvale Cut-off being on large lots.The homes north of Mabelvale
Cut-off,in the Woodbridge Subdivision,are located on similar sized lots as the
lots proposed.There is a relatively new single-family home located immediately
west of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
West Baseline Neighborhood Association and Southwest United for Progress,
along with all abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Mabelvale Cut-off is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline will be required (the
proposed dedication is acceptable).
2.Brimer Road is classified as a local street and a right-of-way width of 50-feet
is acceptable.
3.Provide design of Brimer Street conforming to the Master Street Plan
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot
sidewalk with the planned development.Provide contribution in-lieu of
construction for Mabelvale Cut-off.
4.All residential lots should take driveway access from Brimer or a single
access point on Mabelvale Cut-off.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.F ILE NO.:S-289-A
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if
service is required for Lots 1 through 3.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at
688-1414 for additional details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water:A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection (s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether
additional public fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are
required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
D %Pl ll kyd p d.D k Dl R kyl
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.~D':N»l d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PN l Dill:N
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
G,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present
representing the application.Staff gave an overview of the proposed
development to the Subdivision Committee indicating there were additional items
necessary on the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the proposed source of
water and the proposed means of wastewater disposal were needed in the
General Notes of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the applicant was to
include the number of lots and the average lot size in the General Notes as well.
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.FILE NO.:S-289-A
Staff stated there was a concern related to three driveway locations onto
Mabelvale Cut-off and requested Mr.McGetrick try to minimize the number of
driveway locations.Mr.McGetrick indicated the proposed development would
have two driveway locations with Lots 2 and 3 sharing a driveway on the lot line
and Lot 1's driveway would be located as far as feasible away from this break as
possible.Staff requested Mr.McGetrick indicate the driveway locations on the
proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated there were some concerns of the
buildability of Lot 1 and requested Mr.McGetrick indicate on the proposed
preliminary plat the buildable area of Lot 1.
Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater
requesting Mr.McGetrick contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to Staff addressing most of
the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has
indicated in the General Notes the proposed source of water (Central Arkansas
Water Association)and the proposed means of wastewater disposal (Little Rock
Wastewater Utility).The applicant has also indicated the average lot size and
the number of lots.
The applicant has indicated on the preliminary plat the proposed dedication of
right-of-way to both streets,Brimer Road and Mabelvale Cut-off,and indicated
street improvements will be made to Brimer Road.The applicant has also
indicated an in-lieu contribution for Mabelvale Cut-off rather than street
construction.Staff is supportive of this request.
The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance,being greater than 60-feet in width and more than 7,000 square feet
in area,as required for R-2,Single-family zoning.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.Although,the lots are
somewhat smaller than the land area of homes located around the site,the lots
average 7,020 square feet comparable to the lots to the north of the site in the
Woodbridge Subdivision.The applicant has indicated the buildable area for Lot
1 and in that area it appears that a 1,800 —2,000 single-story home could be
constructed on the lot.
To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed preliminary plat.Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat for
the Brimer Subdivision as presented.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.FILE NO.:S-289-A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for
street construction of Mabelvale Cut-off.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were objectors present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning
Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine
(9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8)
Commissioners present.
Mr.McGetrick requested the item be deferred to the January 23,2003 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 23,2003)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant.There were numerous
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff
stated the proposed preliminary plat complied fully with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff stated the application was not requesting any waivers or variances.
Mr.McGetrick stated he had met with the neighborhood on two (2)occasions.He
stated the neighborhood was opposed to the size of the lots.He stated the property
owner did not want to decrease the number of lots and wanted to proceed as filed.
Mr.Fred Worthington spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated
drainage was a concern.He stated the property drained across his property and
drainage was currently an issue without development.Mr.Worthington stated Staff had
commented the lot sizes were similar to lot sizes to the north of Mabelvale Cut-off but
the proposed lot sizes did not compare to the lot sizes to the south of Mabelvale Cut-
off.He stated south of Mabelvale Cut-off the lots were near one (1)acre,
Mr.Worthington stated he was not opposed to single-family development and
suggested the applicant reconsider and subdivide the site into five (5)lots.Two (2)lots
on Mabelvale Cut-off and three (3)lots on Brimmer Street.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.F I LE NO.:S-289-A
Mr.Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the proposed preliminary plat.He stated he
represented the Southwest United for Progress and the Association had voted to
support the Legion Hut Neighborhood Association in their opposition of the proposed
development.
Ms.B.J.Wyrick,City Director Ward 7,spoke in opposition of the proposed preliminary
plat.She stated the proposed plat was not conducive to the surrounding neighborhood.
She stated the neighborhood was in favor of three single-family lots accessing Brimmer
Street and a single lot development as a commercial or office development accessed
by Mabelvale Cut-off.
Mr.Jay Reba spoke in opposition of the proposed development.Mr.Reba stated the
proposed development was too intense for the road.He stated three (3)driveway
locations on Mabelvale Cut-off was excessive.He stated the neighborhood had met
with Mr.McGetrick on two (2)occasions and made recommendations for modifications
to the proposed plat.Mr.Reba stated the applicant was unwilling to take the advice of
the neighborhood and reduce the number of lots.
Mr.L.W.Perry stated he lived adjacent to the site and was opposed to the proposed
development.He stated his home was built in 1994 and was 100-foot off the roadway,
Mr.Perry stated the proposed plat only indicated a 35-foot platted building line,which
was to close to the roadway.He stated the site sloped from north to south five (5)to
fifteen (15)feet.He stated drainage was an issue for the site and would continue to be
an issue once the site was developed.
Mr.Perry stated cars traveled Mabelvale Cut-off at an excessive rate of speed even
though the posted speed limit was 35 miles per hour.Mr.Perry stated cars backing out
of their drives onto the street would be in great danger.
Mr.Perry stated the applicant had indicated the sales price of the homes to be $80,000.
Mr.Perry stated his home was recently appraised at $107,000.Mr.Perry stated there
was more to a neighborhood than selling houses.He stated the proposed lots would
not allow for a yard,which was out of character with the neighborhood.He stated the
proposed development would change the appearance of Brimmer Road,
There was a general discussion concerning the Commission's role when the applicant
met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Giles stated
Richardson vs.the City of Little Rock had determined the Commission was required to
approve the request.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed.The motion failed by a vote of
5 ayes,3 noes,1 abstain (Robert Stebbins),1 recuse (Fred Allen)and 1 absent.
6
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.F ILE NO.:S-289-A
STAFF UPDATE:
Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated an item heard by the Commission at
their February 6,2003 Public Hearing should be reconsidered.He stated to do so
several motions and waivers would be required.
A motion was made to reconsider the Brimmer Subdivision Replat.The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recuse (Fred Allen).
A second motion was made to expunge the previous vote of the February 6,2003
Public Hearing.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and
1 recuse (Fred Allen).
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws with regard to the applicant being required to
file a new application,paying a new filing fee and the required legal notice.The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recuse (Fred Allen),
The Commission requested Staff to notify the persons who spoke in opposition of the
proposed development at the previous Public Hearing and the Neighborhood
Association which were previously notified.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant.There were objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the
proposed preliminary plat meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and
the applicant was not requesting any waivers or variances.
Chairman Nunnley stated since the item was previously heard the Commission they
would only hear new information.
Ms.Janet Berry addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development.
She stated she was a resident of the area and was also representing the Southwest
United for Progress in opposition of the proposed development.She stated traffic
concerns for the area roadways and the increased traffic in the area,primarily residents
of Saline County traveling the road to work and shopping.
Ms,Berry stated the homes would not be a sufficient distance for the road to allow for
noise reduction from the passing motorist.She stated her home was located 100-feet
from the roadway and noise was a concern.
Ms.Berry stated she had participated in the development of the Neighborhood Action
Plan for the area.She stated the plan committee determined due to the topography of
7
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:J Cont.F ILE NO.:S-289-A
the site and the condition of the road in this area the site should not develop as single-
family but as a quite neighborhood friendly business.She stated the Committee had
shown the site as Mixed on the Future Land Use Plan.She stated a small scale office
or commercial development was more appealing to the neighborhood than the
proposed three single-family lots adjoining the road with five additional lots facing
Brimmer Road.
Mr.Fred Worthington spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He
questioned the reasoning for the item being reheard by the Commission,when the item
was previously denied.He stated if there was no review process then the Commission
should change their review policy and not waste citizen's time by coming to address the
Commission with no benefit.
Mr.L.W.Perry indicated he had no new information to share with the Commission.
Mr.Walter Kenzel stated he had no new information to share with the Commission.
Chairman Nunnley stated the reasoning for the review of the application was not the
threat of a law suite but that the Commission did not follow their own rules.He stated it
was unfair to applicants for the City to have rules in place and the applicant meet all the
requirements under the ordinance and the city not play by the rules.
Commissioner Floyd stated the City should review the Ordinance to allow Staff to
administratively sign-off on plats which complied with the requirements of the
ordinance.
A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as filed to include all Staff
Recommendations and Comments.The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,
1 absent,1 abstain (Norm Floyd)and 1 Recuse (Fred Allen).
8
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:G-23-319
Name:Battle Road Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location:Located north of West 65 Street to the Union
Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
Owner/A licant:Sysco Foods,Claude Fulton and St.Jude
Packaging/McGetrick and McGetrick
Receuest:To abandon the 50-foot wide Battle Road
right-of-way to be utilized by the adjacent
business owners as private access and
development.
STAFF REVIEW:
A.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-Wa:
As noted in paragraph G.of this report,all of the public utility companies
request to retain the right-of-way area as a utility easement.The Public
Works Department comments are as follows:
1.The street currently serves three industrial/commercial users.Closure
would not impact traffic operations.
2.If approved,provide Traffic Division approved signage indicating
private drive.
B.Master Street Plan:
The Master Street Plan classifies Battle Road as a local road.
Abandonment of this right-of-way will not adversely affect the Master
Street Plan,as it is not classified as a collector street or higher.
C.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-Wa Terrain:
Battle Road is a paved road with curbs and gutters for approximately 100
feet north of West 65 Street.There are ditches along both sides of the
remainder of the roadway.There are three (3)commercial/industrial
properties adjacent to the right-of-way.Sysco Foods has gated the north
portion of the street,as there is ongoing construction in this area.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-319
D.Develo ment Potential:
Once abandoned,the area of the right-of-way will be utilized by the
adjacent property owners as private access and development.
E.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect:
The general area contains a mixture of commercial and industrial uses
located along West 65'"Street.There are single family subdivisions west
of the Sysco Foods development and across the railroad right-of-way to
the north.Abandoning the Battle Road right-of-way will have no adverse
impact on the general area.
F.Nei hborhood Position:
All abutting property owners as well as the Wakefield,Geyer Springs and
SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
As of this writing,staff knows of no objectors to the abandonment.
G.Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
Wastewater:No objection to abandonment,but easement rights for right-
of-way must be retained.Sewer main located in right-of-way.
Entergy:No objection to abandonment.Retain area as utility easement.
Reliant:No objection to abandonment.Retain area as utility easement.
Southwestern Bell:No objection to abandonment.Aerial and buried
cable located in right-of-way.Retain easement and access
rights to maintain facilities.
Water:The right-of-way must be maintained as a utility easement unless
all meters off the existing water main are vacated and the 2-inch water
main is abandoned.
Fire Department:No objection to abandonment.
H.Reversiona Ri hts:
All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-319
Public Welfare and Safet Issues:
Abandoning this street right-of-way will have no adverse effects on the
public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Battle Road right-of-way abandonment,
subject to the area of abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage
easement,and compliance with the Public Works signage requirement as noted
in paragraph A.of this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described
the proposed right-of-way abandonment and noted that the applicant needed to
submit an abstract letter.
There was a brief general discussion regarding the proposed abandonment.In
response to a question from staff,Mr.McGetrick noted that the single family
residential structure on the west side of Battle Road was owned by Sysco Foods
and that the structure would be removed from the site with a future phase of
Sysco's P ID development.
There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee forwarded the
application to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The
application was approved.
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-4103-D
NAME:Charlotte Gardens Apartments —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1425,1501,1505,1511,1521 and 1601
Charlotte Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Easter Seals Arkansas/The Fletcher Firm
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a 15 unit apartment complex for
individuals with physical and/or development
disabilities on this 0-3 zoned,1.31acre tract.
OR D I NANCE DES I G N STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of Charlotte Drive,600'eet south of
N o rthmoor D rive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is located on the edge of a larger area of office zoned properties
where it is adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood.The 0-3
properties to the north are undeveloped up to Northmoor Drive where a
relatively new office building is located.To the east are several
undeveloped,0-3 zoned tracts and two office warehouse buildings and a
correctional facility located along Garfield Drive.Single family residences
are located to the south and west,across Charlotte.Other uses in the
general area include a variety of commercial businesses along University
Avenue to the east and several institutional uses beyond Cleveland Street
to the west.This small scale,low intensity multifamily project is
compatible with the diverse uses in the area and should serve as a good
transition from the office development to the nearby residential properties.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Broadmoor,Point
O'Woods,University Park and Oak Forest Neighborhood Associations
were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
A 15-unit apartment complex requires 22 on-site parking spaces based on
a requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit.The applicant proposes to construct
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4103-D
23 parking spaces,6 of which are designated as handicap accessible.
Access to the site will be via two driveways off of Charlotte Drive.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
A forty (40)wide buffer along the southern perimeter was a requirement
of the original rezoning.The applicant proposes to incorporate two (2)
30-inch high retaining walls within this landscape buffer.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.The proposed land use would classify Charlotte Drive on the Master
Street Plan as a minor commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 25
feet from centerline.
2.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in
accordance with Sec.31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield).
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as
required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information
regarding street light requirements.
8.Grading permit will be required on this development.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available.Capacity Contribution Analysis required.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4103-D
Southwestern Bell:5'asement requested along east and south property
lines.Locate all utilities before constructing fence or excavating.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location
of water meter.The meter location may be different than that shown
on the plans.A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.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.This development will have
minor impact on existing water distribution system.Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
N~PI I:N N
CATA:CATA Bus Routes are located on S.Llniversity Avenue and West
t2 Street;tvvo blocks to the east and north respectively.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding signage,site lighting,building design and
construction phasing.Public Works and Landscape Comments were discussed
briefly.Joe White,project engineer,asked about the possibility of grading a
portion of the 40 feet buffer on the south perimeter.He stated it would be less
expensive to grade the slope and replant the buffer than to build the two,30-inch
retaining walls.It was noted that the buffer is not zoned Open Space and there
was no language stating this particular buffer was to be left completely
undisturbed.Staff urged the applicant to be sensitive to the buffer issue and to
leave as much of it undisturbed as possible.Staff suggested that the small
retaining walls might be the best way to accomplish this.The applicant was
advised to submit the needed information to staff no later than noon,Wednesday
February 5,2003.The Committee determined there were no other issues and
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Easter Seals Arkansas,through its soon to be established corporation,Charlotte
Gardens,Inc.proposes to build a 15-unit apartment complex in association with
the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the 0-3 general office
zoned property located at 1425,1501,1505,1511,1521 and 1601 Charlotte
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4103-D
Drive.The lots will be replatted into a single lot with the address being 1509
Charlotte Drive.The proposed HUD Section 811 complex is funded to assist
individuals with physical and/or developmental disabilities to live independently
with minor assistance from an on-site manager.The project consists of 4,one-
story buildings built around a 23-space parking lot.Eleven units are to be one
bedroom apartments and 3 are to be 2 bedroom apartments.The project also
includes a 2 bedroom manager's apartment and community space (laundry;
community room,mail boxes).The parking lot will be accessed via two
driveways off of Charlotte Drive.The buildings are to be designed in a
residential style which is compatible with the nearby neighborhood.The
structures will have pitched,shingled roofs and will have either brick veneers or
vinyl siding with brick wainscot.A garbage can enclosure will be hidden behind
and incorporated into the brick,project sign.A 6-foot tall wood privacy fence will
be placed along the south property line and a portion of the west property line,
behind the southern-most building.
The density of the development is 11.28 units per acre (15 units/1.33 acres).
Multifamily at 36 units per acre is a conditional use in 0-3.It is important to note
that the project consists of 11 one bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units;
resulting in a real person per acre density of much less than a multifamily
development that consists primarily of 2,3 or 4 bedroom units.
At the time these properties were rezoned from R-2 to 0-3 and replatted for
office-sized lots,a 40 foot buffer was platted along the south perimeter where the
site is adjacent to single family residential.The buffer was not zoned OS Open
Space,nor was there an indication that the buffer was to remain undisturbed.
There is a slope to the property and the applicant proposes to regrade the north
12 feet of the buffer to accommodate the maximum slope accessibility
requirements of the project.The graded area will be resodded and landscaped.
The southern 28 feet of the buffer,where adjacent to the residential property,
would remain undisturbed.Staff believes this proposal to leave 70%of the
buffer undisturbed and to replant the disturbed 30%cornplies with ordinance
requirements for treatment of a buffer and meets the intent of the Commission in
platting the buffer back in 1988.The buffer requirements should not be as
stringent for this small-scaled multifamily,residential project as they would be if
the tract developed as an office use under the current 0-3 zoning.
On February 5,2003,the applicant submitted revised site plans and responses
to staff issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.Those responses
are incorporated into the analysis above.
The only outstanding issue is that of the proposed ground mounted sign.As was
previously mentioned,the brick sign is to also serve as the enclosure for trash
receptacles.The sign is proposed to be 5 feet in height and 22 feet in length;
110 square feet.Lettering identifying the project covers the majority of the brick
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4103-D
face.The maximum allowable signage for multifamily developments is 24
square feet.The maximum sign area in office zones is 64 square feet.Since
the property is zoned 0-3 and the signage is incorporated into the trash
enclosure screen,staff can support a maximum area for the sign lettering of 64
square feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5
and 6 of this report.
2.All site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed into the site.
3.Lettering on the project identification sign is to be limited to 64 square feet
in area.
4.The south 28 feet (70%)of the buffer along the south perimeter is to
remain undisturbed.The north 12 feet (30%)of the buffer that is to be
regraded is to be resodded and landscaped.
5.The lots are to be replatted as a single lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRLIARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.One letter of
support had been received from the owner of an adjacent residential property.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval,subject to
compliance with the conditions 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 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6053-A
NAME:Crystal Hill Baptist Church —Revised Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:18823 Crystal Valley Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Crystal Hill Baptist Church/Larry Ballard,Pastor
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a new church sanctuary on this
existing,R-2 zoned,20'cre church site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Lawson Road,at its
intersection with Crystal Valley Road.The project is located outside of the
corporate city limits but within the City's zoning jurisdiction.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a rural area characterized by large areas of
undeveloped,wooded property and single family homes on larger tracts.
Across Lawson Road,north of this site,an office use occupies an 0-3
zoned tract.A large area of undeveloped 0-2 zoned property is located
farther north.A variety of intensive industrial uses,including a quarry
operation,are located on 1-2 and l-3 zoned properties to the northeast.
The existing church building and a small cemetery are located across
Crystal Valley Road to the east.The proposed new sanctuary is to be
built on a large tract currently home to the church's multipurpose building.
Allowing the proposed new sanctuary to be constructed should not affect
the church's continued compatibility with the neighborhood.
As required for a church of this proposed size,all owners of property
located within 500 feet of the site were notified of both an on-site meeting
hosted by the church and of the commission hearing.Notice was also
sent to SWLR United for Progress and all residents within 300 feet who
could be identified.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
New parking is proposed to wrap-around the new sanctuary building.No
new curb cuts are proposed.Access to the new parking will be via the
existing parking lot which takes access off of Crystal Valley Road.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6053-A
Churches are required to provide one on-site parking space for every four
seats in the principal assembly area.This new sanctuary is proposed to
have a seating capacity of 625 persons;requiring 156 on-site parking
spaces.205 new parking spaces are shown.An additional 30 spaces are
shown as future parking.18 of the parking spaces are designated as
handicap accessible.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed ordinance
requirements for the most part.However,the proposed long row of
parking along the western perimeter will need to be broken up with a
couple of interior landscape islands of at least 300 square feet in area.
And,of course,the Outer Loop Road dedication will protrude over into
existing buffer and landscape areas.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wall,a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is required to
help screen this property from the properties to the south,east and west.
Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and
undergrowth that provide the year-around screening necessary.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit,it will necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Lawson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arteria!.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be
required.
2.Crystal Valley is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be
required.
3.Public Works would support a waiver of Master Street Plan
construction at this location for this project.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6053-A
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding meter size needed.
The Fire Department having jurisdiction needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether the proposed fire hydrant location is the site where
a hydrant will be required.Additional fire hydrant(s)will be installed at
the Developer's expense.The main shown in Lawson Road is an 8-
inch main.There is also a 12-inch main on the southerly side of
Crystal Valley Road.This development will have minor impact on
existing water distribution system.Proposed water facilities will be
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department:On-site fire hydrants will be required.
C~PI:N C d C C PPI d.
CATA:Site is located outside of CATA Service Area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed on the building;height,roof pitch,exterior treatment,
square footage and specific uses.Staff asked if there would be a steeple or
other architectural element extending above the roof.Staff asked the applicant
to submit a signage plan and to show the dumpster location and fencing.It was
noted that the church was required to do expanded notification and to hold a
neighborhood meeting as per section 36-107(14).The applicant responded that
the initial notices had gone out and a meeting would be held.Public Works and
Landscape Comments were noted.The applicant responded that all required
right-of-way had previously been dedicated.He was directed to meet with Public
Works staff to address that issue.The applicant stated the plan would be
revised to show landscaping and existing wooded areas to be preserved.
The applicant was advised to submit responses to staff issues no later than
noon,Wednesday February 5,2003.The Committee determined there were no
other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Crystal Hill Baptist Church's sanctuary is currently located on the southeast
corner of Lawson and Crystal Valley Roads.The church has a large,
multipurpose building located on a 201 acre tract across Crystal Valley Road.
The multipurpose building was approved under a conditional use permit several
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6053-A
years ago.The church now proposes to construct a new sanctuary building on
the 20 acre tract,adjacent to the multipurpose building.The new 26,689 square
foot building will contain offices,classrooms and a 625 seat sanctuary.The
building will have a height of 40'"and will be topped with a steeple extending40'"above the roof ridge.No activities such as a day care or private school
are proposed.The building's exterior treatment will consist of brick,E.I.F.S.,
baked enamel metal siding or vinyl.The roof is to have a 5/12 pitch and roofing
material is interlocking baked enamel metal.A 205 space parking lot will be built
in conjunction with the new sanctuary.Thirty (30)additional parking spaces are
indicated as "future parking",to be constructed,if needed,A new,10'ide by
4'igh(40 square feet)ground-mounted sign will be placed near the corner of
Lawson and Crystal Valley Roads.At its closest point,the sanctuary is some
200 plus feet from the nearest property line.Existing trees and undergrowth
provide screening along the south and west perimeters.Required landscaping
will be installed around the new,paved parking lot to comply with ordinance
requirements.
On February 5,2003,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.To staff's
knowledge,there are no unresolved issues.It appears the required right-of-way
dedication for Lawson Road and the Outer Loop occurred at the time of the
previous conditional use permit.
As required by Section 36-107(14),the church held at public hearing on
February 4,2003 at 7:00 p.m.There was no opposition voiced to the proposed
new sanctuary.
Staff is supportive of the proposed conditional use permit.The church has been
a part of this neighborhood for many years.Allowing the new facility to be
constructed on this 20+acre site should not affect the church's continued
compatibility with the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections
4,5 and 6 of this report.
2.AII site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed into the site.
3.Required screening is to be placed around the dumpster.
4.The proposed new ground-mounted sign is to be relocated out of the
dedicated Outer Loop right-of-way or a franchise must be obtained.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6053-A
Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow a building height of 40'4"
and a steeple height of 40'5"above the roof ridge.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.One letter of
support had been received from Southwest Little Rock United for Progress.Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff
recommended approval of the requested building height and steeple height
variances.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda,including the variances,and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
NAME:Sonic Drive-In —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:2917 Cantrell Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Eagle Bank and Trust/CEI Engineering
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an "eating place with drive-in service"
on this C-3 zoned 1.6a acre lot.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the south side of Cantrell Road,just east of
Rebsamen Park Road (the former Steak and Ale site).
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located within the Riverdale Commercial District,fronting onto
Cantrell Road.Residential properties are located adjacent to the south
and west.Due to the close proximity of residential properties,staff does
have concerns about the nature of commercial businesses that locate on
the south side of Cantrell Road in this area.Specific aspects of a drive-in
restaurant,such as noise,hours of operation,lighting and traffic,bring into
question the compatibility of such a use with adjacent or nearby
residential properties.Although the site was previously occupied by a
restaurant,the nature of a "dine-in"restaurant is much different than a
drive-in facility.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest and Cedar Hill
Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.Staff
has received a letter of opposition from the Edgerstoune Property Owners
Association (adjacent to the south).
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This 1,362 square foot building requires 13 on-site parking spaces.Thirty
(30)spaces are provided for customer service at order stations.Nine (9)
parking spaces are provided west of the common drive (still on-site)for
employees.A drive-thru lane wraps around the south side of the building
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
for service at a pick-up window located on the building's east side.
Access to the site is gained via a common drive and fire lane easement
off of Cantrell Road.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed street buffer drops below the thirteen (13)foot minimum
width average allowed by the Zoning Ordinance but meets Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
About fifty (50)percent of the proposed land use buffer along the southern
perimeter is located within a dedicated utility easement.Utility easements
cannot count as part of the land use buffer but can count toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements.
The existing western parking area does not allow for the minimum 4 V~
foot wide landscape strip along its northern perimeter.This is required by
the Landscape Ordinance because of the new structure to be built on the
same property.This width requirement takes into account the twenty-five
(25)percent reduction allowed for rehabilitation of an existing site.
The width of the proposed landscape strip along the eastern perimeter
drops below the 6.7 foot minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance,
Variances from the Landscape Ordinance requirements require City
Beautiful Commission approval.
Requirements stated take into account the reduction allowed within the
designated mature area.
It is recommended the Leyland Cypress evergreen trees be planted within
the southern perimeter to help screen this site from the residential
property to the south.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be
required at this location.
2.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.Extend existing turn lane across
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
remainder of property frontage and re-construct driveway apron.
3.Show location of cross access easements on the plan.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield).
7.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way
from AHTD,District Vl.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,grease trap required for restaurant.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:There is existing water service to this site.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.~~~Gi:G
CATA:No issues.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding building height,signage,number of
employees,site lighting,days and hours of operation and fencing.The applicant
was asked to locate mechanical equipment and to describe the materials to be
used for the dumpster screening.Staff noted the baffle and screening
requirement for the drive-through menu board order station and asked that those
elements be indicated on the plan.Staff noted that the driveway at the northeast
corner of the site exited onto an adjacent property and there was no indication of
a cross-access easement.The applicant stated he would provide proof of that
easement or would eliminate that driveway.Public Works Comments were
discussed as were landscape comments.The applicant presented a copy of a
revised site plan that addressed many of the issues raised by staff.He was
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
advised to submit four (4)copies of the plan and responses to staff issues no
later than noon,February 5,2003.After a brief discussion of the issues of traffic
and buffers,the Committees forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The C-3 zoned property located at 2917 Cantrell Road is currently occupied by a
vacant commercial building that once housed the Steak and Ale Restaurant.
The remainder of the site is paved with the exception of a small landscaped area
located directly in front of the building.The applicant proposes to raze the
building and redevelop the site as a Sonic Drive-In Restaurant.Restaurants
(eating places)with drive-in service require a conditional use in the C-3 zoning
district.The proposed,1,362 square foot restaurant building would be located
roughly in the center of the site.Two canopy covered areas are located west of
the building;providing drive-in service for 28 vehicles.A separate drive-thru lane
circles around the building queuing at an order board and pick-up window
located on the east side of the building.A driveway circles through the site,
entering west of the building and exiting on the east.A 20 foot wide common
drive and fire lane easement enters off of Cantrell Road and circles around this
site and the adjacent lots to the east.Access to the proposed Sonic is off of this
20 foot easement and a second drive easement at the northeast corner of the
lot.A small parking lot,located west of the common drive,provides parking for 8
vehicles.Employees will utilize this parking lot.The applicant states there are
typically 8 employees on each shift.Days and hours of operation are proposed
to be 7 days a week from 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m.and 7.00 a.m.—midnight during
summer months.Site lighting,separate from that lighting on the building,is
proposed to be low-level,aimed inward to the site.A dumpster area,with
required screening,is proposed to be located at the rear of the site.The
required speaker baffle has been indicated for the drive-thru order board and the
required 6 foot tall,20 foot long solid wall has been shown directly opposite the
drive-thru order speaker.An area of outdoor seating is located in front of the
building.A canopy covers this outdoor seating area.Proposed signage
cornplies
with commercial district standards.
On February 5,2003,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to issues raised at Subdivision Committee.The applicant has addressed almost
all issues raised by staff.
A variance is requested regarding the required land use buffer along the south
perimeter of the site.Approximately 50%of the required buffer is located within
a utility easement and the previously mentioned driveway and fire lane
easement.This is an existing situation.
The issue of access at the northeast corner of the site,through the adjacent lot,
has not yet been resolved.Redevelopment of this site has caused the driveway
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
on the subject property to be moved too far south to access the easement on the
adjoining property.The applicant is attempting to resolve this issue.
Although the applicant has done an admirable job in addressing site plan related
issues,staff is not supportive of the proposed use.There is a substantial
difference in the level of activity associated with the proposed use and those
businesses adjacent to the site,along the south side of Cantrell Road.Single
family residential properties abut the site to the south.Although these
residences are located at a substantially higher elevation than the proposed
drive-in,staff is concerned that the noise,light and activity on the site could have
a negative affect on the residential properties.By their very nature.drive-ins
have more in and out traffic than a typical "dine-in"restaurant or many other
commercial uses that could be developed on the site.Additionally,there is the
noise factor to consider,with 28 order stations plus the drive-thru order line.
Staff is also concerned about the effect of this proposed use on the traffic on
Cantrell Road.Staff feels that the large amount of in and out traffic associated
with this use could create a dangerous situation for vehicles entering or exiting
the site onto Cantrell Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRLIARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors present.Several
letters of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the
Commission.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Mike Huntington,of Sonic Restaurants,stated he was not aware of staff
concerns in time to address them.He stated the site would have low-level
lighting and the order speakers had a volume low enough that the sound did not
extend beyond the site.
Chairman Nunnley asked Mr.Huntington if he wanted to defer the item in order
to try to address staff concerns.Mr.Huntington responded that he felt those
issues could be dealt with at this meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lowry,Mr.Huntington stated the
restaurant should attract 425 vehicles per day with 50%of those corning
between the hours of 11:00 a.m.—1:00 p.m.
In response to a question from Chairman Nunnley,Mr.Huntington stated there
had been no meeting with the neighborhood.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
Commissioner Faust stated she was concerned about the deferral suggestion.
She asked when the applicant received staff's recommendation.Staff
responded that the applicant received the recommendation the same time that
the Commission received the agenda.Commissioner Faust stated that the
applicant's contention that he was unaware of staff concerns was not quite true.
She stated those issues were raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated staff's
recommendation was prepared after a thorough review of the issue,not up front
when the application is filed.
Chairman Nunnley stated he heard the applicant state he had not met with the
neighborhood.Commissioner Allen asked why not.Mr.Huntington stated he
was not aware it was necessary.Commissioner Allen asked if Sonic did not
meet with neighborhood residents when it went into a new area.Mr.Huntington
responded that Sonic did not.
Ron Tabor,representing the property owner,spoke in support of the application.
John Schlereth,representing the property owner,stated the pre-1980 zoning of
the property allowed drive-in restaurants.He stated the homes on Edgerstoune
Lane were built with full knowledge of the commercial development along
Cantrell Road.Mr.Schlereth stated there were a theater and a private club in
the area that did create problems for the neighborhood He stated Sonic would
not create any problems.Mr.Schlereth stated the City should encourage infill
redevelopment.He stated Sonic was developing the site to conform to City
regulations.Mr.Schlereth urged the Commission to "protect the City from well-
meaning but over-zealous planners."He stated it was difficult to do infill
redevelopment.
In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer,Jim Lawson gave a brief
history of the change in the City code that occurred in 1980.He stated a drive-in
was not an appropriate byright use in C-3.Mr.Lawson commented that no other
drive-ins,other than nonconforming drive-ins,were located adjacent to
residential properties.
Commissioner Meyer stated he was uncomfortable with not allowing a use that
this land owner could do prior to the code being changed.Deputy City Attorney
Steve Giles stated that was an appropriate argument to make 20 years ago.
In response to a question from Commissioner Floyd,Mr.Lawson stated the
applicant could have requested a higher zoning classification at the time of the
code conversion.He surmised that no change was requested because the use
of the property at that time,a dine-in restaurant,was permitted in C-3,
6
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
Commissioner Lowry commented that situations change with time.He stated he
did not feel anything was being taken away from the applicant by not allowing a
drive-in.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters,spoke in opposition.She stated
traffic on Cantrell Road had increased with new office development in the area
and increased development further west.She asked the Commission to recall a
similar issue the Commission recently dealt with regarding a restaurant on
Rebsamen Park Road.That restaurant was creating problems for a nearby
neighborhood because of noise and lights.
Kathleen Oleson,also of the League of Women Voters spoke in opposition.She
cited the increased intensity of activity and traffic.
Max Brantley,of 3210 Edgestoune Lane,spoke in opposition.He refuted the
applicant's statement that staff concerns had not been raised in a timely manner.
He stated the City's Traffic Engineer had raised the issue early in the review
process.Mr.Brantley voiced concerns about litter,noise and traffic.He stated
the larger issue was the possible precedent that could be set by allowing a drive-
in to locate adjacent to a residential property.Mr.Brantley stated the site was
more appropriate for other commercial development.
Commissioner Stebbins asked how deep the residential lots were.Mr.Brantley
responded that the properties were 3001 feet deep.Mr.Brantley stated there
was a "quirk"of the terrain that allowed sound to travel up the hill to the
residences.
Commissioner Lowry commented that he felt allowing a drive-in restaurant at this
location would change the nature of allowable commercial development in the
area.
Robin Mays,president of the Edgerstoune POA,spoke in opposition.She stated
the noise from the valley is clearly heard in the residences.Ms.Mays stated
most of the commercial use along this portion of Cantrell,with one or two
exceptions,were quiet.She stated the traffic pattern at the Sonic would be
different because of a larger number of young people frequenting the site.
Jim Lawson commented that most Sonic restaurants play music over their
speakers.He stated the Commission should address that issue.
Commissioner Stebbins stated the Commission had approved restaurants
abutting residential areas in the past;that there is a need for this service in this
area,that there would be no impact on the homes on Edgestoune;and this site
was not historically significant.
7
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
Mr.Huntington stated Sonic could agree not to have outdoor music.
Commissioner Muse stated he appreciated Sonic agreeing to eliminate outdoor
music.He asked if Sonic would agree to eliminate the outdoor seating.Mr.
Huntington stated the outdoor seating was under a canopy but Sonic would
eliminate it if the Commission were to make that a condition.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the hours of operation could be condensed to
make them more palatable.Mr.Huntington responded that the restaurant could
close at 11:00 p.m.during summer months,not 12:00 midnight as originally
proposed.
Cory Roberts,of CEI Engineers,asked if staff had done studies to determine if
noise would be an issue or if traffic to the site would be higher than a dine-in
restaurant.Mr.Lawson responded that personal experience showed that to be
the case.
Commissioner Rahman stated all this "deal making"was inappropriate.He
stated the Commission needed to determine if this use was appropriate for this
site.He asked if there was a possibility of constructing a left turn lane on
Cantrell Road.Mike Hood,of Public Works,stated there was not enough room
for one at the present.
Commissioner Rahman stated he could see this as a case of making a situation
worse,not better,since traffic on Cantrell cannot be improved.He stated C-3
zoning allowed a wide variety of uses that are more compatible with the
neighborhood and better for traffic.
Commissioner Faust stated it was not an issue of Sonic being a bad neighbor;
that it was a question of whether the drive-in was an appropriate use for this
particular site.
Cory Roberts,of CEI Engineers,addressed the noise issue.He stated the noise
generated by the Sonic would not be heard above the noise already generated
by the traffic on Cantrell Road.He stated traffic generated by Sonic would be
similar to that generated by Steak and Ale.Mr.Roberts stated Sonic's studies
have shown their largest patron group does not include teenagers.
There was a discussion of the noise issue.Commissioner Floyd stated this area
formed a natural amphitheater,amplifying the noise.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to reduce the
summer hours to 7:00 a.m.—11:00 p.m.,no outside/patio seating,no outside
music and including applicable staff comments in Sections 4,5 and 6 of the
8
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270-A
agenda.The vote was 5 ayes,5 noes and 1 absent.The application was
denied.
9
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-7354
NAME:Gardner Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:208 Fleetwood Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:James and Helena Gardner
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a two-story accessory building
containing a two-car garage on the ground floor and
an accessory dwelling on the upper floor.The
property is zoned R-2.
STAFF REPORT:
On January 15,2003,the applicant requested that this item be withdrawn.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to withdraw this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.The item
was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-7355
NAME:Niemeyer Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:17916 Crystal Valley Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Henry and Judith Niemeyer
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
placement of a single-wide,manufactured home on
this R-2 zoned,2a acre tract to serve as an accessory
dwelling.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.S ITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of Crystal Valley Road,
approximately V~mile south of Lawson Road.The site is located outside
of the corporate city limits,but within the City's zoning jurisdiction.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This rural area is characterized primarily by single family homes on larger
tracts.Housing types range from large site-built homes,such as the
applicants,to single-wide and multisectional manufactured homes,A
single wide manufactured home was located on this property,serving as
an accessory dwelling for the applicants'on from 1982 through 1998.It
was removed when the son relocated.Allowing placement of a new
single-wide manufactured home on the property,in the same general
location as the previous home,should be compatible with development in
the area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Crystal Valley and SWLR
United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of this
request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The existing site built home and the proposed accessory dwelling are
each required to have one on-site parking space,The property has a
circular driveway off of Crystal Valley Road.There is more than adequate
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7355
parking area available on the site.No new driveways will be built off of
Crystal Valley Road.The proposed accessory dwelling will be accessed
via the existing driveway.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional
meter(s)are needed.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~CPI I:NC I N.CCPPI Id
CATA:Site is located outside of CATA Service Area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted that some
additional information was needed on the proposed manufactured home.Staff
asked if the accessory dwelling was to have separate utilities and if occupancy
would be limited to a family member.The applicant responded positively to each
question.Staff noted that orientation of the home would require a variance and
no new driveways would be permitted onto Crystal Valley Road.The applicant
was advised to respond to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday
February 5,2003.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7355
The Committee determined that there were no other issues and forwarded the
item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property at 17916 Crystal Valley Road is currently occupied by a
two-story,brick and frame,single family dwelling.A 14'62'oot mobile home,
occupied by the applicants'on,was located on the site for 17'ears.The
mobile home was removed in 1998.Removal of the mobile home caused the
site to lose its nonconforming status.The applicants approached staff about
moving a new manufactured home onto the site,again to be occupied by the
son.They were advised that the property's nonconforming status had been lost
and they needed to apply for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory
dwelling.The applicants now propose to place a 2000 model,16'80'ingle-
wide manufactured home on the site,in the same location occupied by the
mobile home.The home is to have a pitched roof,vinyl exterior and matching
underpinning.The septic system,water and electric service are already in place.
The home is to be placed perpendicular to the road,within a grove of trees
located north of the applicants'ome.Occupancy of the home is proposed to be
limited to the applicants'on who will help to care for his parents,both of whom
have health problems.
Staff is supportive of the proposed conditional use permit.A single-wide mobile
home was located on this site for several years.There are other manufactured
and mobile homes scattered around the general vicinity.Placement of the
proposed manufactured home on this 2a acre tract should have no effect on the
surrounding properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow
placement of a 2000 model,16'80'ingle-wide manufactured home on this
site as an accessory dwelling subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with any applicable staff comments and conditions outlined in
Sections 4,5 and 6 of this report.
2.Occupancy of the accessory dwelling is to be limited to a family member of
the property owners occupying the principal dwelling on the site,
3.Placement of the manufactured home is to comply with the following siting
criteria:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen (14)degrees or
greater.
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO..6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7355
b.Removal of all transport features.
c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the neighborhood.
e.Underpinning with permanent materials.
f.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures.
g.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards.
Staff recommends approval of the request to have separate utility meters as
needed.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the structure to be oriented as
proposed,perpendicular to the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.One letter had
been received from Southwest Little Rock United for Progress.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval,subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff noted that
SWLR United for Progress had suggested the following four conditions be
attached to the conditional use permit:
1.No separate utility meters
2.Accessory dwelling occupants be limited to family members
3.Never be rental property
4.Conditional Use Permit be limited to this applicant
Staff noted that a separate electric meter was already in place and water to the
accessory dwelling ran from the house.
Commissioner Lowry surmised that it would be easier to rent the manufactured
home if all the utilities were separated.He stated he felt it would be easier for
staff to monitor occupancy of the home if all the utilities were not separate.
Chairman Nunnley commented that it seemed reasonable to allow separate
meters.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7355
In response to a question from Commissioner Lowry,Ms.Neimeyer stated she
had no objection to having only one water meter on the site.
In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer,Ms.Neimeyer stated she
had no objection to limiting the conditional use permit to her family's ownership
and occupancy of the property.
Ms.Neimeyer stated she would amend her application to include those two
conditions.
A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit,as amended,subject
to compliance with appropriate staff comments and conditions.The vote was
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-7356
NAME:Allen Temple A.M.E.Church —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1702 South Oak Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Allen Temple A.M.E.Church
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a new church building on this existing,
R-3 zoned church site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.S ITE LOCATION:
The church is located on the southwest corner of South Oak and West
17 Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This small church has been located in this neighborhood for decades.
Although the proposed new building is larger than the existing church,it
still remains a 'neighborhood scale"church.A much larger church and its
associated parking lots occupy several parcels south of this site.
Stephens Elementary School occupies two blocks directly to the east.
Vacant lots are located west of the site,to Pine Street.Single family
homes,some occupied and some boarded,are located to the north.The
remainder of the general vicinity around the site is primarily single family
in use.Allowing this small congregation to replace its dilapidated facility
with a new church building should not affect the church's continued
compatibility with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Stephens Area Faith,
Hope,Love and Midway Neighborhood Associations were notified of this
request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The church is proposed to have a sanctuary with a seating capacity of 160
persons,requiring 40 on-site parking spaces.The church has 75
members on roll and the seating capacity of the existing building is most
likely not much more than that.There is currently no parking on the site.
The church proposes to construct 5 parking spaces at the rear of the site,
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7356
taking access off of the alley.A one-way driveway from the alley to West
17'"Street provides a location for drop-off and pick-up.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
6.7 foot wide landscaping and buffering perimeter strips are required
along West 17'nd Oak Streets and along the western perimeter.These
strips are required by both the zoning and landscape ordinances.
Additionally,a small amount of building landscaping between the public
parking areas and building is required by the landscape ordinance.
These requirements take into account the reductions allowed within the
designated mature area.
Variances from the minimum landscape ordinance requirements must be
approved by the City Beautiful Commission.
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 western perimeter.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.The proposed land use would classify Oak and 17 Streets on the
Master Street Plan as a minor commercial street.Dedicate right-of-
way to 25 feet from centerline.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3.Bring sidewalks and ramps up to the current ADA standards.
4.Remove the existing driveway apron with planned development.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:SBC cables located in west right-of-way of Oak
Street.Locate prior to any excavating.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location
of the water meter.The largest meter available off existing mains is
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7356
'i4-inch.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether an additional public private fire hydrant and
possible a water main to support that hydrant will be required.This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution
system.Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.C~i:C
CATA:Nearest CATA Bus Routes are located on West t3 and West
20 Streets,four blocks to the north and three blocks to the south
respectively.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
There were several representatives of the church present.Staff presented the
item and noted additional information was needed regarding building design,
signage,site lighting,fencing and dumpster location.Staff suggested revising
the site plan by moving the building up closer to the corner and by having parking
located directly off of the alley.Staff suggested that to do so would be a better fit
for the neighborhood and would address parking design and landscape issues.
A sketch of a proposed redesign was given to the applicants for them to
consider.Public Works and Landscape Comments would be revised if a revised
plan were submitted.It has noted that a letter had been received from the Little
Rock School District authorizing the church to use the Stephens Elementary
School parking lot,located across Oak Street,on Sunday and Wednesday
evenings.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Allen Temple A.M.E.Church is located on the R-3 zoned property at 1702 S.
Oak Street.This small church has been a part of this neighborhood for more
than 100 years.The existing,1,573'quare foot,brick building has fallen into
disrepair and is no longer usable.The church is now meeting at an off-site
location.Allen Temple proposes to raze the old building and replace it with a
new,3,800 square foot building.Five parking spaces,including one handicap
accessible space,will be constructed at the rear of the site,taking access off of
the alley.A one way driveway,extending from the alley to West 17"Street,
provides an area for drop-off/pick-up.The church currently has 75 members on
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7356
roll.The new building will have a future seating capacity of 160 persons.The
new building will be one-story in height (20 feet)and will be topped with a 20 foot
tall steeple.The building will have a brick exterior and a 6/12 pitched roof.No
additional activities such as day care,mother's day out or a private school are
proposed.The facility will be used for typical church related activities;including
worship services,Sunday School and Bible study.The Little Rock School
District has submitted a letter authorizing Allen Temple to utilize the parking
facilities at Stephens Elementary School for parking on Sundays and for
Wednesday evening services.The school is located directly across S.Oak
Street,to the east.
Staff is supportive of the requested conditional use permit.As was previously
mentioned,the church has been on this corner for decades.A large,elementary
school campus occupies two blocks to the east.A much larger church is located
directly south of the Allen Temple site.The larger church also owns the
remainder of the block west of Allen Temple and has parking lots scattered in the
immediate area around its facilities.
In response to a suggestion by staff,the Church revised its site plan;moving the
proposed new building up nearer the corner of 17 and Oak and placing the
parking at the rear of the structure.The proposed location is similar to that of the
existing building and is more in character with this developed,urban
neighborhood.The proposed 14 foot front yard setback is less than the 25 feet
required by the Ordinance but more than the 1'I foot setback of the existing
building.
On February 10,2003,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues raised at Subdivision Committee.Staff does support variances to
allow the reduced front yard setback and to allow reduced on-site parking.
Combining the available on-street parking with that available on-site and on the
school property should meet the parking needs of this small congregation.Very
minor adjustments will need to be made to the revised site plan prior to a building
permit being issued;to provide the required street buffer width on Oak Street,
building landscaping between the building and the on-site parking and the
screening on the west perimeter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5
and 6 of this report.
4
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7356
2.Signage is to be limited to that permitted in office and institutional zones.
One ground-mounted sign is permitted,not to exceed 6 feet in height and
64 square feet in area.
3.Any site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed inward to the site.
4.Minor modification of the site plan prior to issuance of a building permit to
provide the following:
(a)A 6.7 foot wide street buffer and landscape strip along the entire east
perimeter,adjacent to S.Oak Street.
(b)Building landscaping between the building and the on-site parking.
(c)Screening along the west perimeter which may be either a wooden
fence with its finished side facing outward or dense evergreen
plantings.
(d)Curb and gutter or another approved border along the vehicular use
area to protect landscaped areas.
Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow a reduced front yard
setback and reduced on-site parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval,subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff recommended
approval of the setback and parking variances.,
There was no additional discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda,including the variance,and
approved as recommended.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7357
NAME:Shephard Day Care Center —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:7803 Preston Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Wayland Cox,property owner/
Janice Shephard,occupant-applicant
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow the
occupant of this residence to operate a day care
center with a maximum enrollment of 16 children.
The property is zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the south side of Preston Drive,two blocks west of
Chicot Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This property is located within a neighborhood that is exclusively single
family in nature.All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and are
occupied by single family homes.The proposal is to utilize this single
family residence exclusively as a day care center.There will be no
residential occupancy of the structure.The applicant lives next door,at
7801 Preston Drive.Although the daycare is relatively small in scale,it is
the fact that the proposed use is completely nonresidential that causes
concern for staff.In staff's opinion,allowing the nonresidential use of this
home,versus a day care family home,where the home is occupied by the
applicant,is not compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Chicot,West Baseline and
SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of
this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed day care is to have an enrollment of 16 children with two
employees,including the applicant.Three parking spaces are required;
one per employee and one per 10 persons of licensed capacity.The site
has a double-wide driveway,typical for residential use.Four vehicles
could be stacked on the driveway.The applicant lives next door and
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7357
plans on parking her own vehicle and that of her employee at her home,
freeing-up the driveway at the subject property for parent parking.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A six (6)foot high opaque wood fence with its face side directed outward
should be placed around the perimeter of the playground area.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:There is existing water service to this site.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin:No Comments.
CATA:A CATA Bus Route is located on Chicot Road,two blocks east of
this site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
The applicant was present.Staff noted additional information was needed
regarding signage and the total number of employees.In response to a question
from staff,the applicant stated the rear yard was enclosed by a chain link fence
and would be used as playground area.Staff suggested that the playground
area be enclosed by a wood privacy fence.Staff noted that there would be no
residential occupancy of the structure;that the applicant lived next door,at 7801
Preston Drive.It was noted that parking of employees could take place at the
applicant's home,leaving the driveway at 7803 Preston available for drop-
off/pick-up.It was also noted that hours of operation are proposed to be
Monday-Friday,6:00 a.m.—12:00 midnight.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7357
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 7803 Preston Drive is occupied by a 1,3371
square foot,one-story,brick and frame single family residence.The home is
typical of those in the neighborhood.The applicant,who resides next door at
7801 Preston Drive,proposes to convert the structure into a day care center.
The proposed day care is to have an enrollment of 16 children,with two
employees,including the applicant.The applicant and her employee will park at
the applicant's home,freeing-up the driveway at 7803 Preston for parents
dropping off or picking up children at the daycare.Days and hours of operation
are proposed to be Monday-Friday,6:00 a.m.—12:00 midnight.The rear yard is
enclosed with a 4 foot tall chain link fence.Playground activities in the rear yard
will be limited to daylight hours.A 1'2'ign has been placed above the front
door.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed conditional use permit.Although the
proposed day care is relatively small in scale,staff feels it is inappropriate to
convert this residence into a day care business.No residential occupancy is
proposed,as with a day care family home where the childcare takes place in the
caregiver's home.Such a nonresidential use would be better located outside of
the heart of this residential neighborhood;perhaps along Chicot Road,two
blocks to the east.In addition to staff's concern about the nature of the use,
there are two other specific aspects of the applicant's proposal that lead staff to
recommend denial.The applicant is proposing signage,again not in keeping
with a more appropriate day care family home,and the day care is proposed to
operate until 12:00 midnight.The comings and goings of traffic until that hour of
the night would likely negatively impact nearby residential properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors present.Several
letters of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the
Commission.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
The applicant,Janice Shephard,spoke in support of her application.She stated
the State classified her use as a day care family home,even though she did not
live at the residence.Ms.Shepherd stated she met with the neighborhood
3
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7357
association and the association had problems with her not occupying the
residence and the traffic that the use might create.
Chairman Nunnley stated the proposed use was a business since there was no
residential occupancy.
Commissioner Faust stated it was her understanding that the caretaker must live
in the home for the use to be classified as a day care family home.
Commissioner Meyer stated that although the state may allow the use,that does
not relieve the applicant of her responsibility to comply with City code.
Ms.Shephard responded by stating she would move into the residence at
7803 Preston Drive.
Chairman Nunnley stated there was still the issue of the number of children.Ms.
Shephard responded that the numbers would likely be reduced.
In response to a question from the Commission,staff stated the Commission
could approve as amended applicant for a special use permit for a day care
family home.Dana Carney,of staff,cautioned the Commission that it would be
prudent to allow neighborhood input on a revised application.
In response to a question from Commissioner Langlais,Ms.Shephard stated the
extended night-time hours were needed to accommodate parents who work the
second shift.
Jane Harrison,Vice President of West Baseline Neighborhood Association,
spoke in opposition to allowing a day care in the residential neighborhood.
Juanita Garrett,of 7900 Preston Drive,stated she was opposed to allowing a
business in the neighborhood.
Pat Rayburn,of 703 Preston Drive,spoke in opposition.She also voiced a
concern that the proposed use was a violation of the subdivision's bill of
assurance.
Janet Berry,president of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,spoke in
opposition.
Pat Gee,president of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition.
4
Feb ru a ry 20,2003
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7357
There followed a discussion of the increasing number of day cares in residential
areas.There was a discussion of whether it would be appropriate to defer the
item or to act on the issue.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated he wanted the
applicant to understand that deferring the item did not necessarily mean staff
would support an amended application.
Commissioner Faust suggested that the Commission deny this application and
waive the filing fee if the applicant refiles as a special use permit.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed.The motion was
defeated by a vote of 0 ayes,10 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to waive the filing fee for a special use permit for a period
of 6 months if this applicant files a special use permit application for either
7801 or 7803 Preston Drive.That motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
5
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:G-23-320
Name:West 35 Street and Alley Right-of-Way
Ab and onments
Location:Located between Barrow Road and Ludwig
Street
~OAA Duane Dewey,Mt.Sinai Missionary Baptist
Church,Shellie A.Trimble Neal/
Duane and Sharon Dewey
Receuest:To abandon that portion of the undeveloped
West 35 Street right-of-way located between
Blocks 169 and 170,John Barrow Addition
(between Barrow Road and Ludwig Street),
and the south 96 feet of the undeveloped alley
right-of-way located within Block 170,John
Barrow Addition.
STAFF REVIEW:
A.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-Wa:
As noted in paragraph G.of this report,Little Rock Wastewater Utility and
Entergy request that the areas of right-of-way abandonment be retained
as utility easements.The Public Works Department requests that the
areas be retained as drainage easements.
B.Master Street Plan:
The rights-of-way proposed for abandonment are not shown on the
Master Street Plan.If West 35'treet was shown,it would be classified
as a local road.Abandonment of these rights-of-way will not adversely
effect the Master Street Plan.
C.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-Wa Terrain:
The portions of the West 35 Street and alley rights-of-way are
undeveloped.A portion of the West 35 Street right-of-way is being
utilized as a driveway (from Barrow Road)for the single family residential
property to the south.
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-320
D.Develo ment Potential:
Once abandoned,the areas of the right-of-way will be utilized by the
adjacent property owners for future development.Duane and Sharon
Dewey,owners of the C-3 zoned property at the northwest corner of
Barrow Road and the West 35'treet right-of-way,are planning for the
development of that property in the near future.
E.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect:
The general area contains a mixture of uses along Barrow Road,with
single family residences to the east and west.There is undeveloped
property (C-3)and a residence owned by Mt.Sinai Missionary Baptist
Church (R-3)located on the north side of the West 35 Street right-of-
way.There is a single family residence (C-3)and undeveloped R-3 zoned
property located on the south side of the right-of-way.
F.Nei hborhood Position:
All abutting property owners as well as the John Barrow and Campus
Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.As
of this writing,staff knows of no objectors to the abandonments.
G.Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
Wastewater:No objection to abandonments.The utility has an 8"sewer
main located in the alley running north/south and crossing 35 Street
at the alley.The utility will require that easement rights be retained for
the alley and West 35'"Street.
Entergy:No objection to abandonments.Retain areas of abandonment
as utility easement.
Reliant:No objection to abandonments.
Southwestern Bell:No objection to abandonments.
Water:No objection to abandonments.
Fire Department:No objection to abandonments.
H.Reversiona Ri hts:
All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners.
2
February 20,2003
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-320
Public Welfare and Safet Issues:
Abandoning these street rights-of-way will have no adverse effects on the
public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the West 35"Street and alley right-of-way
abandonments,subject to the areas of abandonment being retained as utility
and drainage easements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 30,2003)
Sharon Dewey was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described
the proposed right-of-way abandonments.Staff noted that the Fire Department
had responded with no objections.
There was a brief general discussion of the abandonment issue.After the
discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 20,2003)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The
application was approved.
3
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
u,
&p
i
&
'v
,
'
5
.
/
n
g
IN
E
M
B
E
R
8C
FC
-
,
/
W
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
FL
O
Y
D
,
NO
R
M
I
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
,
JR
.
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
ZA
N
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
NI
E
M
HE
R
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
K,
v
+
X
u'
~
v
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
v
p
4
~
v
t
v
FL
O
Y
D
,
NO
R
M
0
4
w
v
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
V
y
v
~
M
~
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
v
p
Q
v
v
i
~
v
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
v
v
o
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
,
JR
.
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
e
&
~
o
v'
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
2-
~
P.
M
.
+A
Y
E
NA
Y
E
~A
B
S
E
N
T
&A
B
S
T
A
I
N
'~
R
E
C
U
S
E
February 20,2003
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was
adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Date +'-'
CI Chairman