HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 30 2003
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 30, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Members Present: Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Judith Faust
Gary Langlais
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Rohn Muse
Bill Rector
Members Absent: Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2003 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
OCTOBER 30, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Z-6782-B Second Baptist Church – Revised Conditional Use Permit
1709 John Barrow Road
B. G-23-328 Greathouse Bend Drive – Right-of-Way Abandonment
South of Overlook Drive
II. NEW ITEMS:
1. Z-7503 Jones Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
5510 “B” Street
2. Z-7504 Harper Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
7221 Yorkwood Drive
3. Z-7505 Wright Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
2319 West 13th Street
4. Z-7506 Morgan Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
10211 Republic Lane
5. Z-7507 Kindle Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
7516 Vega Drive
6. Z-7510 Moore Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
5200 Westminister Drive
7. Z-7513 Sims Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
2706 Montreal Drive
8. Z-7516 Palmer Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
1812 Rice Street
9. Z-3021-G Rezoning from O-3 and OS to O-2
South side of Riley Drive, east of John Barrow Road
10. LU03-12-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the 65th Street West Planning
District at the southeast corner of Talley and Colonel Glenn
Roads from Light Industrial to Commercial.
Agenda, Page Two
II. NEW ITEMS: (CONT.)
10.1. Z-7508 Rezoning from R-2 to C-3
Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road
11. Z-7509 Rezoning from C-3 to C-4
3334 Fair Park Blvd.
12. LU03-30-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Buzzard Mountain
Planning District at the southwest corner of Ferndale Cut-Off
and Cantrell Roads from Low Density Residential to
Commercial.
12.1. Z-7517 Rezoning from R-2 to C-3
9300 Ferndale Cut-Off Road
13. Z-3895-B Francis A. Allen School – Conditional Use Permit
816 N. Tyler Street
14. Z-5365-D Geyer Springs First Baptist Church – Conditional Use Permit
12400 I-30
15. Z-7477 Nunn Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
19 Warren Road
16. Z-7511 Felton Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
5324 Sherwood Road
17. Z-7512 Interstate 630 Self-Storage – Conditional Use Permit
5700 West 10th Street
18. Z-7514 Jones Gun Store and Indoor Shooting Range – Conditional Use
Permit
South end of Otter Creek East Blvd.
19. Z-7515 Ault Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
5 Ridgehaven Court
20. Z-7518 Sobel, Inc. Time Extension
3820 West 65th Street
21. Z-7501 Rezoning from I-3, I-2, C-3 and R-4 to UU between McLean
& 7502 and Bond north of 6th Street to Arkansas River
Agenda, Page Three
II. NEW ITEMS: (CONT.)
21.1. Z-7501 CUP Conditional Use Permits in the area between McLean
& 7502 CUP and Bond north of 6th Street to Arkansas River
22. Presidential Park Overlay – Zoning Overlay District surrounding the Presidential
Park and Heifer International sites (I-30 to east of Bond, Arkansas River to
Ninth Street)
23. Midtown Overlay – Zoning Overlay District for the Midtown Redevelopment
District (I-630 to Lee Avenue, Father Tribou from McKinley to Fillmore)
24. Dyke Annexation – 368 Acre Annexation between Crystal Valley and
David O Dodd Roads west of I-430
25. Bank of Little Rock – Appeal of Land Alteration Ordinance Requirements
15901 Cantrell Road
26. Z-7519 Rezoning from R-2 to I-1
10118 Colonel Glenn Road
27. Adoption of 2004 Planning Commission Calendar
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-6782-B
NAME: Second Baptist Church – Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 1709 John Barrow Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Second Baptist Church/Rev. Kevin Kelly
PROPOSAL: A revised conditional use permit is requested to allow
for expansion of a parking lot on this existing, R-2
zoned, 5± acre church site.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of John Barrow Road, north of Labette
Drive.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The church has been a part of this neighborhood for many years. On
July 26, 2001, a C.U.P. was approved to allow for construction of a Family
Life Center and reconstruction of the existing parking lots. The church
has filled an area behind the rear parking lot and paved over the fill for
new parking. The new parking area has been located fairly near an
apartment development which is located behind the church. Although
there are concerns about the engineering of the fill and the reduction in
buffer, staff believes the parking lot expansion should not affect the
church’s continued compatibility with the neighborhood. Outstanding
Public Works and Landscape concerns must be resolved.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow and
Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this
request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The church’s sanctuary has a seating capacity of 550 persons, requiring
110 parking spaces (built prior to November 1, 1988). 144 spaces existed
at the time of the July 2001 C.U.P. approval. This expanded parking area
contains 51 additional parking spaces. Access to the new parking area is
through the existing rear parking lot.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6782-B
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
A total of eight (8) percent of the expanded parking area must be
landscaped with interior landscaping islands. To receive credit toward
fulfilling this requirement of the Landscape Ordinance, landscape islands
must be at least 150 square feet in area and 7 ½ feet in width. A redesign
of the parking area to accommodate this interior landscaping and to help
with vehicular circulation will be necessary.
A protective border to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic is
required.
Much of the required thirty-six (36) foot wide land use buffer along the
eastern perimeter has been destroyed or will be due to compaction and
proposed benching and grading. Steps should be taken to protect and
preserve existing trees.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings are required to
screen this site from the residential properties to the east and south. This
screening must be located near the paved area due to its high-elevation.
Irrigation of landscaped areas is required. Prior to a construction permit
being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved landscape plans
stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. This parking lot was constructed without a grading permit as required
under the land alteration ordinance. Obtain a grading permit in
accordance with section 29-186(c) and (d) prior to any additional
grading activities at the site. Detailed site grading, and drainage plans
will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction.
2. Revise proposed grading plan to save all remaining trees. Some
parking spaces will be lost.
3. The existing slope already shows evidence of slope failure. During
construction, a registered, qualified professional engineer must
investigate and certify the long-term stability of the slopes.
4. All unsuitable fill materials including construction debris and tree trunks
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6782-B
3
must be removed from the fill as work progresses.
5. Evergreen tree planting will be required in accordance with the zoning
and land alteration ordinances, which ever is stringent.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: 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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments received.
CATA: No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2003)
Thomas Pownall and Rev. Kevin Kelly were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding
site lighting and fencing. Staff noted that the primary areas of concern were the
site work that had been done without proper permits and the paving that had
been done without landscaping. Public Works Comments were discussed at
length. It was noted that staff had concerns that improper fill material had been
used and the slope of the fill area was already failing. It was noted that much of
the required buffer area had been destroyed and many of these trees left
standing would likely die since the fill material had been placed around them.
The applicant was advised that the parking area would need to be redesigned to
accommodate Public Works and Landscape Comments. The applicant was
advised to prepare a plan addressing staff’s concerns. Staff stated the
Commission would then determine if it was appropriate to allow the parking lot
expansion and a specific time given to address the engineering and landscape
issues.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6782-B
4
The item was then forwarded to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On July 26, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit
allowing for construction of a Family Life Center building and reconstruction of
the existing parking lots on this R-2 zoned church site. Subsequent to
construction of the new facility, the church filled and paved an area behind (east)
the rear parking lot. This parking lot expansion was not included in the approved
C.U.P. The parking lot was constructed without an approved grading permit,
unsuitable fill materials may have been used and the slope of the fill already
show signs of failure. The parking area was constructed without concern for the
City’s landscape and buffer regulations. No interior landscaping, screening,
irrigation or curbs have been installed. Much of the required 36 foot wide land
use buffer along the east perimeter of the site has been destroyed or will be due
to compaction and proposed benching and grading.
Staff believes the parking lot is an appropriate use for this portion of the site and
could be compatible with the neighborhood. If the church had gone through the
proper steps including Commission approval, grading and landscape permitting
and appropriate construction and inspections. This might very well have been a
“non-issue”. As it is, the parking lot may yet be an appropriate use, if those
outstanding Public Works and Landscape concerns are resolved.
On September 3, 2003, the applicant submitted a revised site plan and
responses to staff issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The parking lot has
been redesigned to accommodate interior landscaping and appropriate stall and
driveway configuration. Shrubbery has been shown at the top of the slope on
the east perimeter of the parking lot to provide screening to the east. No
screening has been provided on the south perimeter. Curb and gutter has been
provided to protect the landscape areas. The applicant proposes to remove a
portion of the existing asphalt to help with the required slope stabilization and to
help preserve the existing trees.
The engineering questions related to the fill and slope have not been answered.
Staff believes the geotechnical report on the suitability and stability of the fill and
the new slope design need to be completed by the applicant prior to the
Commission considering the C.U.P. It may be that the results of that report
could lead to substantial revisions to the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the October 30, 2003
Commission agenda. Staff believes it is imperative that the required engineering
report be completed and submitted to staff as soon as possible. A report should
be made no later than the October 9, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6782-B
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the item needed to be deferred to allow for the needed
engineering report to be completed. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the
October 30, 2003 Commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF REPORT:
Mr. Dinwiddy, a deacon at Second Baptist Church was present at the October 9,
2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated the engineering analysis had
not been completed. Mike Hood, of Public Works, stated he was aware that
borings were being made on the site as a component of that study. Staff
advised the Committee that the item should be deferred one more time to allow
for completion of the engineering report. The Committee concurred. Staff
believes the applicant should submit the report no later than the November 20,
2003 Subdivision Committee meeting allowing the Commission to take action at
its December 18, 2003 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the required engineering report had not been submitted.
Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the December 18, 2003
Commission meeting with the engineering report to be submitted no later than
the November 20, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: G-23-328
Name: Greathouse Bend Drive –
Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location: South of Overlook Drive
Owner/Applicant: Various Owners/McGetrick and
McGetrick
Request: To abandon the 50-foot wide
Greathouse Bend Drive right-of-
way within Phase I, Greathouse
Bend Addition, for use as a
private street.
STAFF REVIEW:
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way:
As noted in paragraph G. of this report, all of the public utility companies
consent to the right-of-way abandonment. With the exception of Entergy,
all of the utilities require that the area be retained as an easement. The
Public Works Department Comments are as follows:
1. This portion of Greathouse Bend is the only portion accepted for City
maintenance. The remainder of Greathouse Bend is a private drive.
Abandonment of this right-of-way would not impact Public Works
operations.
2. Any future gates would have to meet Traffic Engineering requirements
regarding width, turn-out area and configuration. Contact Bill Henry at
379-1816.
B. Master Street Plan:
The Master Street Plan classifies Geathouse Bend Drive as a local street.
Abandonment of this right-of-way will not adversely affect the Master
Street Plan, as is not classified as a collector street or higher.
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain:
Greathouse Bend Drive is a paved street with curb and gutter. The street
serves phases 1 and 2 of the Greathouse Bend residential subdivision.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-328
2
D. Development Potential:
Once abandoned, the street will serve as a private street access to the
Greathouse Bend Subdivision (phases 1 and 2). A gated entrance will be
constructed for controlled access.
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect:
The street right-of-way is located in an area of single family residential
zoning. Rebsamen Park Road and Murry Park are located to the north.
Abandoning the Greathouse Bend Drive right-of-way will have no adverse
impact on the general area.
F. Neighborhood Position:
The Overlook and Heights Neighborhood Association were notified of the
abandonment request. As of this writing, staff knows of no objectors to
the abandonment. All abutting property owners were also notified of the
public hearing.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
Central Arkansas Water: No objection to abandonment. Execution of a
private fire hydrant contract is required. Right-of-way must be
maintained as an access and utility easement.
L.R. Wastewater: No objection to abandonment. Retain as utility
easement.
Southwestern Bell: No objection to abandonment. Retain as utility
easement.
Entergy: No objection to abandonment.
Centerpoint Energy (Arkla): No objection to abandonment. Retain as
utility easement.
H. Reversionary Rights:
All reversionary rights extend to the adjacent property owners.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues:
Abandoning this street right-of-way will have no adverse effects on the
public welfare and safety. The Fire Department has no objection to the
abandonment. Construction of gates must be approved by the Fire
Department.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-328
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Greathouse Bend Drive right-of-way
abandonment, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of
this report.
2. Compliance with the utility and fire department comments as noted in
paragraphs G. and I. of this report.
3. The area of abandonment must be retained as a utility and drainage
easement.
4. The area of abandonment must also be retained as an access easement,
serving phase 2 of the Greathouse Bend Subdivision.
5. A revised Bill of Assurance must be recorded, providing for the access
easement and addressing the private maintenance of the roadway.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 2003)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff briefly described
the proposed abandonment.
Mr. McGetrick briefly addressed the abandonment issue. In response to a
question from staff, Mr. McGetrick noted that the road would be gated after
abandonment. Mr. McGetrick also noted that the property owners’ association
for phase 2 of the subdivision maintains the private roadway within that phase.
He noted that there would be a similar maintenance agreement worked out for
phase 1.
Commissioner Rector noted that property owners within phase 2, Greathouse
Bend Drive subdivision should be notified of the abandonment request, and be
included in the maintenance of the private street. This issue was briefly
discussed.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred, as the
applicant had not submitted all of the required paperwork to staff. Staff
recommended deferral to the September 18, 2003 agenda.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-328
4
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 18, 2003 agenda. A motion to
that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. The
application was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be
deferred to the October 30, 2003 Planning Commission agenda. Staff supported
the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 30, 2003 agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
The item was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting
that the application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the
withdrawal request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for withdrawal, without prejudice. A motion to that effect was
made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The
application was withdrawn.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-7503
Name: Jones Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 5510 “B” Street
Applicant: Marjorie Jones
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-4 zoned property at 5510 “B” Street.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
5510 “B” Street is located at the west end of “B” Street, between N. Polk Street
and N. Taylor Street. “B” Street deadends into the property. The properties to
the north are zoned R-3 and contain single family residences. The properties to
the east and west are zoned R-4 and also contain single family residences. The
property to the south (across a drainage ditch) is zoned R-5 and contains a
multifamily development.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame structure and is typical of
those in the general area. There is a wide driveway from the end of “B” Street,
with parking for several vehicles. The rear yard is fenced and provides a safe
play area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 7:30 a.m. to
5:35 p.m., Monday – Friday. The applicant has also noted that there will be no
additional employees for the day care use.
The applicant has operated a day care family home at this address for
approximately seven (7) years. Before that, the applicant operated a day care
family home in the residence next door for 13 years. The applicant has noted
that she averages seven to eight children per day. The applicant has also noted
that many of the children she cares for are those of UAMS employees. She has
noted that she currently has one (1) child from the immediate neighborhood.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant has
noted that she is licensed by the State Department of Human Services. The
applicant has noted that no Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood could be
located by the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s office.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7503
2
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 5510 “B” Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-7504
Name: Harper Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 7221 Yorkwood Drive
Applicant: Katina E. Harper
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-2 zoned property at 7221 Yorkwood Drive.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Yorkwood, Santa Monica, Rob
Roy Way and SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
7221 Yorkwood Drive is located on the south side of Yorkwood Drive, east of
Chicot Road. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family
residences. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property further to the north and
south.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick structure and is typical of those in the
general area. There is a driveway from Yorkwood Drive, with parking for four (4)
vehicles. The rear yard is fenced and provides a safe play area. The applicant
proposes to operate the day care from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday – Friday.
The applicant has also noted that there will be no additional employees for the
day care use.
The applicant has operated the day care family home at this address for one
year and three months. The applicant has noted that she averages seven (7)
children per day. The applicant has also noted that the majority of the children
she cares for live in nearby surrounding neighborhoods.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant has
noted that she is licensed by the State Department of Human Services. The
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood which
was recorded in 1976 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of Assurance
contains the following language:
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7504
2
“Lots 5 thru 26 inclusive shall be used for single family residences only.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 7221 Yorkwood Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Katina Harper was present, representing the application. There were two (2)
persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation
of approval, with conditions.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7504
3
John Lamb, of the Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, addressed the
Commission in opposition. He noted that Yorkwood Drive was a busy street and
expressed traffic concerns. He stated that his neighborhood association did not
support the day care use. Mr. Lamb presented a petition to the Commission.
Commissioner Allen asked how many residents lived in Yorkwood. Mr. Lamb
responded that there were approximately 435 residents. Commissioner Allen
noted that only seven (7) persons signed the petition. The issue of
neighborhood opposition was briefly discussed.
Vice-Chairman Rahman asked Mr. Lamb if he had seen as increase in traffic
since the day care use had been on the property. Mr. Lamb responded that he
did not know the day care was in operation.
Commissioner Rector noted that the use was a day care family home and limited
to 10 children in a single family home. There was additional discussion related
to the day care use and the neighborhood.
There was a brief discussion pertaining to the length of time the day care family
home had been in operation.
Chairman Nunnley asked if staff could track the number of day care family
homes in the city. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated
that it could be done and briefly discussed the issue. Commissioner Faust noted
that the reason the Commission is seeing so many day care family home
applications is because the State is requiring the day cares to seek City
approval.
Keith and Katina Harper addressed the Commission in support of the
application. Mr. Harper stated that the day care did not create traffic problems.
Mrs. Harper noted that Yorkwood Drive is a busy street and that the day care did
not adversely impact the traffic.
There was a motion to approve the special use permit, subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-7505
Name: Wright Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 2319 West 13th Street
Applicant: Larry G. and Emma J. Wright
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-3 zoned property at 2319 West 13th Street.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Central High, Wright Avenue and
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
2319 West 13th Street is located on the south side of West 13th Street, between
Rice Street and Dennison Street. All surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and
R-4 and contain single family homes. The Central High School Campus is
located one (1) block to the south, with a parking lot for the school located within
the eastern portion of this block.
The applicants’ home is a one-story frame structure and is typical of those in the
general area. There is no residential driveway on the site. West 13th Street is
rather wide in this area (approximately 34 feet), with two (2) travel lanes and
parking on both sides of the street. There is also alley access along the rear
property line from Rice Street. The rear yard is fenced and provides a safe play
area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., Monday – Friday. The applicant has also noted that there will be no
additional employees for the day care use.
The applicants have operated the day care family home at this address since
January, 2003. They have noted that they currently average five to six children
per day. The applicants have also noted that three of the children they care for
live in the neighborhood.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicants
have noted that they are licensed by the State Department of Human Services.
No Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood could be located by the Pulaski
County Circuit Clerk’s office.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7505
2
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 2319 West 13th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The
application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-7506
Name: Morgan Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 10211 Republic Lane
Applicant: Ophelia Morgan
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-2 zoned property at 10211 Republic Lane.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the O.U.R., Santa Monica and
SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
10,211 Republic Lane is located on the east side of Republic Lane, east of
Geyer Springs Road. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain
single family residences. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property located
further to the east, west and south.
The applicant’s home is a two-story brick and frame structure and is typical of
those in the general area. There is a driveway from Republic Lane, with parking
for four (4) vehicles. The rear yard is fenced and provides a safe play area. The
applicant proposes to operate the day care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
– Friday. The applicant has also noted that there will be no additional employees
for the day care use.
The applicant has operated a day care family home at this address since March,
2003. The applicant has noted that she currently cares for five children, and will
increase to no more than 10 if the special use permit is approved. The applicant
has also noted that two of the children she cares for live in the immediate
neighborhood, with the others living in nearby surrounding neighborhoods.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant has
noted that she is licensed by the State Department of Human Services. The
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood which
was recorded in 1968, and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of Assurance
contains the following language:
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7506
2
“No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No building shall
be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other
than one single-family dwelling not to exceed two and one-half stories
in height and a private garage for not more than two cars.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 10211 Republic Lane subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Ophelia Morgan was present, representing the application. There were two (2)
persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation
of approval, with conditions.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7506
3
Pat Gee, of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association, addressed the
Commission in opposition. She noted that she was representing the O.U.R.
Neighborhood Association. She expressed traffic concerns with the proposed
day care use.
Troy Laha also addressed the Commission in opposition. He noted that he
observed several vehicles parked on the property. He contended that day care
family homes were commercial uses.
Ophelia Morgan addressed the Commission in support of the application. She
noted that her next door neighbor had several cars parked on their adjacent
property. She noted that she was licensed for a day care family home by the
State.
Commissioner Meyer asked Ms. Morgan if the front yard was used for
parking. Ms. Morgan noted that none of her parents/clients use the front
yard for parking. She amended her application as follows:
“No parent will park in the front yard area when dropping-off or
picking-up children.”
There was a brief discussion of the parking issue.
There was a motion to approve the special use permit as amended by the
applicant and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-7507
Name: Kindle Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 7516 Vega Drive
Applicant: Deborah Kindle
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-2 zoned property at 7516 Vega Drive.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Chicot, West Baseline and
SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
7516 Vega Drive is located on the north side of Vega Drive, two lots east of
Chicot Road. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family
residences. There is a small area of O-1 zoning to the west across Chicot Road
which includes a contractor’s office.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame single family residence.
There is a circular drive from Vega Drive, with parking for several vehicles. The
rear yard is fenced and provides a safe play area. The applicant proposes to
operate the day care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday – Friday. The
applicant has also noted that there will be no additional employees for the day
care use.
The applicant has operated the day care family home at this address for one
year and four months. The applicant has noted that she currently cares for five
children, and will increase to no more than 10 if the special use permit is
approved. The applicant has also noted that three of the children she cares for
live in the immediate neighborhood, with the others living in nearby surrounding
neighborhoods.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant has
noted that she is licensed by the State Department of Human Services. The
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood which
was recorded in 1965, and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of Assurance
contains the following language:
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7507
2
“LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE. No lot shall be used except for
residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or
permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family
dwelling, not to exceed 2 ½ stories in height, and a private garage for
not more than two cars.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 7516 Vega Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7507
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Deborah Kindle was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of
approval, with conditions.
Troy Laha addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated that there was a
large day care south of this location and other day cares in the general area. He
stated that the Commission should honor the neighborhood action plan and deny
the day care use. He also noted that traffic was a concern.
Chairman Nunnley commented on the size of day care family homes and the fact
that the residential character of the properties was maintained. He noted that
day care family homes were market-driven and a part of thriving neighborhoods.
Mr. Laha stated that there were other day care uses in the area. Chairman
Nunnley asked Mr. Laha if day care family homes caused neighborhoods to
decline. Mr. Laha responded that they did.
Commissioner Meyer asked if any vehicles were parked on the grass at this
location. Mr. Laha responded that the vehicles were parked on the driveway and
circular drive.
Commissioner Rector commented that the day care use is in a residence and
the residential character of the property is maintained. Commissioner Rector
made additional comments related to the size of day care family homes and the
fact that they are not an intense use of the property.
Deborah Kindle addressed the Commission in support of the application. She
noted that she has a circular drive for easy access. She briefly discussed her
day care family home use.
There was a motion to approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-7510
Name: Moore Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 5200 Westminister Drive
Applicant: Stanley and Lucille Moore
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-2 zoned property at 5200 Westminister
Drive.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Wakefield and SWLR United for
Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
5200 Westminister Drive is located at the northwest corner of Westminister Drive
and Lancaster Road. The properties to the north, south and west are zoned R-2
and contain single family residences. There is nonconforming commercial
property and a church located across Lancaster Road to the east, with the
Wakefield Elementary School campus located across the intersection to the
southeast.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame structure and is typical of
those in the general area. There is a driveway from Westminister Drive (with
gravel extension), with parking for four vehicles. There is a small fenced area
within the rear yard which provides a safe play area. The applicant proposes to
operate the day care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday – Friday. The
applicants have also noted that there will be no additional employees for the day
care use.
The applicants have operated the day care family home at this address for one
year and three months. The applicants have noted that they typically care for
nine children. The applicant has also noted that the majority of the children she
cares for live in nearby surrounding neighborhoods.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicants
have noted that they are licensed by the State Department of Human Services.
The applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood
which was recorded in 1963 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7510
2
Assurance contains the following language:
“All of said Lots 51 and 63 shall be used as residential lots only, and
no structure shall be erected, altered, or permitted to remain other than
one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed one and a half
stories in height, and a private garage and servant’s quarters or
storeroom.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 5200 Westminister Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7510
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Stanley and Lucille Moore were present, representing the application. There
was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval, with conditions.
Troy Laha addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He noted
that there was an existing day care center in the commercial building across
Lancaster Road from this site. He expressed concern with the number of
children that this day care use would add to the area.
Commissioner Allen noted that this day care family home would have no more
than 10 children. There was a brief discussion regarding this issue.
Stanley Moore addressed the Commission in support of the application. He
noted that there had been no complaints from the neighbors in the one year and
three months that the day care use has existed. He noted that the maximum
number of children cared for would be 10.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, asked how many children
were currently cared for. Mr. Moore responded that they currently have seven
children.
Chairman Nunnley asked if the Moores lived in the residential structure.
Mr. Moore responded that they do. Chairman Nunnley asked if they had any
intent to move and maintain the day care use on the site. Mr. Moore responded
that they do not.
There was a motion to approve the special use permit, subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-7513
Name: Sims Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 2706 Montreal Drive
Applicant: Ruthie Ann Sims
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-2 zoned property at 2706 Montreal Drive.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
2706 Montreal Drive is located at the west side of Montreal Drive, four lots north
of West 28th Street. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single
family residences.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame structure and is typical of
those in the general area. There is a one-car driveway from Montreal Drive, with
parking for two vehicles. The rear yard is fenced and provides a safe play area.
The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday – Saturday. The applicant has also noted that she has one employee
as required by the State Department of Human Services.
The applicant has operated a day care family home at this address for one year.
The applicant has noted that she averages six to eight children per day. The
applicant has also noted that four of the children she cares for live in the
neighborhood, with the others coming from nearby surrounding neighborhoods.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant has
noted that she is licensed by the State Department of Human Services. The
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood which
was recorded in 1963 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of Assurance
contains the following language:
“LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE. No lot shall be used except for
residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or
permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7513
2
dwelling not to exceed 2 ½ stories in height and a private garage for
not more than two cars.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 2706 Montreal Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Ruthie Ann Sims was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of
approval, with conditions.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7513
3
Carolyn Heitman, of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, addressed the
Commission in opposition. She expressed opposition to any day care use
located in a residential area. She stated that a day care family home should be
classified as a commercial business and asked that a moratorium be placed on
day care uses in residential areas.
Chairman Nunnley asked staff to comment on the day care family home use.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, responded that the principal
use of the property is single family residential. He noted that other types of
home occupations were allowed in residential areas. This issue was briefly
discussed.
Commissioner Faust commented that she was stunned that someone would
suggest a moratorium on day care uses in residential zones. She made
additional comments regarding day care uses in residential areas.
Ruthie Ann Sims addressed the Commission in support of the application. She
noted that the day care family home had operated for one year. She noted that
she was required by the State to have one employee because she cares for
several small children (one year olds or younger). She noted that someone from
the State informed her that she needs to seek City approval.
There was a motion to approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff. Commissioner Floyd asked Ms. Sims how long she
had lived at 2706 Montreal Drive. Ms. Sims responded that she had lived there
since 1990. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-7516
Name: Palmer Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
Location: 1812 Rice Street
Applicant: Sharon Palmer
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-3 zoned property at 1812 Rice Street.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Central High and Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
1812 Rice Street is located on the west side of Rice Street, one-half block north
of Wright Avenue. The properties to the north, south, west and east (across
Rice Street) are zoned R-3 and R-4 and occupied by single family residences.
There is a church located two lots to the south, with a mixture of uses further
south along Wright Avenue.
The applicant’s home is a one-story frame structure and is typical of those in the
general area. There is a one-car driveway from Rice Street, with parking for two
vehicles. The applicant has noted that parents also use the church parking lot to
the south for drop-off and pick-up. The rear yard is fenced and provides a safe
play area. There is also a small play area on the front porch. The applicant
proposes to operate the day care from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday – Friday.
The applicant has also noted that she has one employee as required by the
State Department of Human Services.
The applicant has operated a day care family home at this address for two years.
The applicant has noted that she averages seven to eight children per day. The
applicant has also noted that three of the children live in the neighborhood, with
others living in nearby neighborhoods or having parents that work in the
downtown area.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant has
noted that she is licensed by the State Department of Human Services. The
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood. The
Bill of Assurance was recorded in 1873 and addresses no use issues.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7516
2
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care
centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location
will have no adverse impact on the general area. To staff’s knowledge, no
complaints from neighbors have been received as long as the day care use has
been located on the property.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 1812 Rice Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day-light
hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-3021-G
Owner: Keller Family
(Carl Keller and David Keller, et al)
Applicant: Wanda Stephens
Location: South side of Riley Drive, approximately 300 feet
east of John Barrow Road
Area: 18 acres
Request: Rezone from O-3 and OS to O-2
Purpose: Hospital
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Undeveloped property and mixed commercial uses;
zoned O-3, C-3 and OS
South – Undeveloped property and single family residences (along
Michael Drive); zoned R-2, MF-12 and C-3
East – Nursing home; zoned O-3
West – Undeveloped property; zoned C-3
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior
to the start of construction.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA bus route. CATA Bus Route #3
(Baptist Medical Center Route) is located to the south along Kanis Road.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3021-G
2
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow and
Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District. The Land Use
Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for O-2
Office and Institutional zoning for a small hospital.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow
Neighborhood Action Plan. Although the plan does not contain goals,
objectives, or action statements, which address this application, Chapter
Three of the plan contains a list of recommended actions, which
encourages medical office development along Kanis and John Barrow
Roads north of Parkview High School.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Keller Family, owner of the 18 acres of property located along the
south side of Riley Drive, is requesting to rezone the property from “O-3”
General Office District and “OS” Open Space to “O-2” Office and
Institutional District. The rezoning is proposed for the development of a
small hospital (approximately 60 beds). The property is currently
undeveloped and tree-covered, with varying degrees of slope. The
portion of the property zoned OS is a natural drainage area (low area).
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There is
undeveloped O-3 and OS zoned property to the north across Riley Drive,
with a mixed commercial development (old Target Store) to the northwest.
A nursing home is located on the O-3 zoned property to the east. There is
undeveloped property (zoned R-2, MF-12 and C-3) and single family
residences to the south. There is an undeveloped C-3 zoned tract
immediately west of the site, with single family residences further west
across John Barrow Road.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3021-G
3
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as office. The
requested O-2 zoning does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Staff is supportive of the downzoning of the property to O-2. The
proposed O-2 zoning will allow the use of the property as a hospital and is
a site plan review zoning. Therefore, any proposed development plan for
the property will have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission. Issues related to drainage, stormwater detention, buffers,
etc. can be addressed at that time. Staff feels that the proposed O-2
zoning will be compatible with the various residential, office and
commercial uses in the general area, and should have no adverse impact
on adjacent properties.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested O-2 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The
application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: LU03-12-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - 65 Street - West Planning District
Location: Southeast corner of Col. Glenn and Talley Road
Request: Light Industrial to Commercial
Source: Virginia Unser
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the 65 Street - West Planning District from Light
Industrial to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of
retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and
general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale,
depending on the trade area that they serve.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is two houses built on large lots currently zoned R-2 Single Family
and is 10.01 acres ± in size. The property on the north side of Col. Glenn Road
is a fast food restaurant zoned C-3 while on the neighboring property to the rear
a new building is under construction. The property at the northwest corner of
Col. Glenn and Talley Road is a radio station and exhibition hall zoned C-2
Shopping Center. The property to the north across the street on Col. Glenn is a
business park zoned I-1 Industrial Park. The property to the northeast along Col.
Glenn Road consists of a house built on a large lot zoned R-2. The land east of
the applicant’s property is vacant land zoned R-2 with a warehouse zoned I-2 at
the southwest corner of Col. Glenn and Shackleford Road. The property to the
south is houses built on large lots zoned R-2 while the land to the west is zoned
C-3 General Commercial recently cleared for development. Further to the
southwest on Talley Road is recently cleared land zoned O-3 General Office for
a new office park. Currently at the I-430 Col. Glenn intersection, there are 112
acres of land zoned C-2 Shopping Center, 82 acres of land zoned C-3 General
Commercial and 38 acres of land zoned C-4 Open Display Commercial. If the
proposed changes that are before the Board of Directors take place on October
21, the totals will be an increase of 40 acres of C-3 and 13 acres of C-4.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On February 4, 2003, a change was made from Multi-family to Mixed Office
Commercial on the southwest corner of I-430 and W. 36th Street about a ½ mile
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-12-02
2
northwest of the application area to accommodate proposed development
On January 7, 2003, a change was made from Office to Commercial on the
south side of Col. Glenn Road about 1 mile west of the amendment area to
accommodate proposed development.
On November 4, 2002, a change was made from Single Family to Low Density
Residential along Lehigh Street about 1 mile northeast of the amendment area to
recognize existing conditions.
On January 16, 2001, changes were made from Mixed Use to Commercial and
from Suburban Office to Office across the street from the applicant’s property on
Talley Road to accommodate proposed development, resulting in the current
land uses shown.
On September 19, 2000 a change was made from Low Density Residential and
Mixed Office Commercial to Mixed Use at W. 36th Street and Bowman Road
about ¾ of a mile northwest of the study area to accommodate proposed
development.
On April 6, 1999 changes were made from Office and Community Shopping to
Mixed Office Commercial at the northwest corner of Col. Glenn at Bowman Road
about 1 mile west of the applicant’s property to accommodate proposed
development.
The applicant’s property is shown as Light Industrial on the Future Land Use
Plan. All the property fronting Col. Glenn Road to the east of Talley Road is
shown as Light industrial and the area to the west of Talley Road is shown as
Commercial. Currently at the I-430 Col. Glenn intersection, there are 118 acres
of land shown as Commercial and 94 acres of Mixed Office Commercial most of
which is zoned C-2. If the proposed changes that are before the Board of
Directors take place on October 21, there would be increase of almost 50 acres
shown as Commercial.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Col. Glenn Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is
built with half street improvements on the north side. Talley Road is a local
street built to standard with curb and gutter. Talley Road at the Col. Glenn
intersection remains a two-lane road with open drainage to allow for the widening
of Col. Glenn Road at a future date. The south side of Col. Glenn Road would
be subject to half street improvements in order to conform to Master Street Plan
standards. There are no bikeways shown that would be affected by this
amendment.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-12-02
3
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the
applicant’s property is located in a service deficit area. Service Deficit Areas are
areas identified by the Parks and Recreation Department that consist of
properties located at a distance of more than eight blocks from the nearest park
and open space amenity. A park and open space amenity would need to be
developed within an eight block walking distance to conform to the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan “Eight-Block Strategy.”
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 the area covered by the Stagecoach-Dodd
section of the Pecan Lake, Westwood, Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Action
Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal supports concentrating proposed non-
residential developments in the area bounded by I-430, Shackleford, Colonel
Glenn, and David O’Dodd Roads. The plan also lists an Action Statement of
encouraging new non-residential development to locate west of Shackleford
Road and north of David O’Dodd Road.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is located near developing commercial uses at the I-430 / Col.
Glenn Road interchange. The central location of the I-430 / Col. Glenn Road
interchange between the interchanges on I-430 at I-30 and I-630 encourages
much of the development occurring west of the applicant’s property. The
neighboring development is fostering the creation of a commercial corridor
extending west from the amendment area toward the Col. Glenn and Bowman /
David O. Dodd intersection. A change to Commercial at the applicant’s property
would add an extra 10.01 + acres of land to the area already shown as
Commercial. In addition, a large portion of the land designated for Commercial
and Mixed Office Commercial at the I-430 / Col. Glenn Road interchange
remains undeveloped.
This amendment would decrease the area shown as Light Industrial. Although
much of the area shown as Light Industrial remains undeveloped, the existing
Light Industrial uses cover large tracts of land. Light Industrial uses also require
easy access to transportation facilities, which is currently provided by I-430, Col.
Glenn, Shackleford Road and Talley Road. The Light Industrial area is buffered
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-12-02
4
from less intense uses to the east with a strip of Park / Open Space along Brodie
Creek. A change to Commercial would reduce a prime area for Light Industrial
development.
Industrial and Light Industrial areas are needed in the city. The Industrial areas
are listed in order of decreasing size are located at the Port; 65th Street and
Scott Hamilton; Asher Avenue; and the Airport. Light Industrial areas are listed
in order of decreasing size are located at Otter Creek, the Airport, the
Shackleford Road corridor and at Sibley Hole and I-30. This Shackleford
corridor of Light Industrial provides employment opportunities with easy access
to freeway. It can provide an option to the Industrial and Light Industrial which
are located in other parts of town and an option that is the closest to the fast
growing sections of northwest Little Rock.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Meadowcliff/Brookwood Neighborhood Association, Pecan Lake Property
Owners Association, South Brookwood Ponderosa, Stagecoach-Dodd
Neighborhood Association, Tall Timber Homeowners Association, Westwood
Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Connections, SW Little Rock UP,
WCLR Coalition of Neighborhoods, John Barrow Neighborhood Association,
Kensington Place Property Owners Association, and Westbrook Neighborhood
Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This change would reduce an area
that is well suited for Light Industrial development and add to undeveloped areas
shown as Commercial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 18,
2003 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to wavier the by-laws
for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That
motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10.1 FILE NO.: Z-7508
Owner: Virginia F. Unser
Applicant: Virginia F. Unser
Location: Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and
Talley Road
Area: 5 acres
Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose: Future Commercial Development
Existing Use: Single Family Residential
(two single family residences)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Office/warehouse uses; zoned I-1
South – Undeveloped; zoned R-2
East – Undeveloped; zoned R-2
West – Commercial subdivision (currently under development); zoned C-3
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline
will be required.
2. The proposed land use would classify Talley Road on the Master
Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of Talley and Colonel Glenn Roads.
4. A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508
2
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA bus route. CATA Bus Route #14
(Rosedale Route) is located to the east along Colonel Glenn and
Shackleford Roads.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow and
SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the 65th Street – West Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has
applied for C-3 General Commercial for commercial development.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate
item on this agenda.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Stagecoach-Dodd
section of the Pecan Lake, Westwood, Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood
Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal supports concentrating
proposed non-residential developments in the area bounded by I-430,
Shackleford, Colonel Glenn, and David O Dodd Roads. The plan also
lists an Action Statement of encouraging new non-residential development
to locate west of Shackleford Road and north of David O Dodd Road.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Virginia F. Unser, owner of the 5-acre tract located at the southeast corner
of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road, is requesting to rezone the
property from “R-2” Single Family District to “C-3” General Commercial
District. The rezoning is proposed for future commercial development.
There are currently two (2) single family homes on the property, one (1) at
the northwest corner of the property and one (1) at the property’s
southwest corner. The remainder of the property is undeveloped and
tree-covered.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508
3
The general area contains a mixture of uses and a large amount of
undeveloped property. There are office/warehouse uses across Colonel
Glenn Road to the north, with the Clear Channel facility and a new
Wendy’s restaurant to the northwest. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned
property immediately east and south of the property. There are industrial
uses further east and south along Shackleford Road. There is a
commercial subdivision under development (site work only) across Talley
Road to the west.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Light
Industrial. The applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for a
change to commercial which is Item 10. on this agenda.
Staff does not support the requested rezoning to C-3. Staff feels that a
rezoning of this property to commercial is premature, given the large
amount of undeveloped commercial property (zoned C-2, C-3 and C-4) to
the west, at the intersection of I-430 and Colonel Glenn Road. The
property is part of a large light industrial corridor along Shackleford Road
as shown on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Although a future rezoning
of this property could be a viable option, staff feels that the removal of the
property from the light industrial corridor is inappropriate at this time.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to C-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on
October 30, 2003 requesting that the application be deferred to the December 18,
2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission waived their bylaws
and accepted the deferral request being less than five (5) days prior to the public
hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 18, 2003 Agenda. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application was deferred.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7509
Owner: Paul Eller
Applicant: Paul Eller
Location: 3334 Fair Park Blvd.
Area: 0.25 Acre
Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose: Auto repair
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Industrial building; zoned I-2
South – Muffler shop; zoned C-3
East – Auto parts store (across Fair Park Blvd.); zoned C-3
West – Auto repair and mixed commercial uses along the north side of
Asher Avenue; zoned C-3
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is located on CATA Bus Route #17A (Mabelvale – UALR Route).
The site is also near Route #9 (UALR Route) and Route #16 (South
Highland – UALR Route).
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Curran-Conway
and South of Asher Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7509
2
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a C-4
Open Display Commercial for an auto repair shop.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Oak Forest
Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not contain any goals,
objectives, or action statements relevant to this application.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Paul Eller, owner of the 0.25 acre property at 3334 Fair Park Blvd. (west
side of Fair Park Blvd., 150 feet north of Asher Avenue), is requesting to
rezone the property from “C-3” General Commercial District to “C-4” Open
Display District. The rezoning is requested in order to establish an auto
repair business. The 0.25 acre is part of a larger ownership which
includes 1.81 acres. The overall ownership includes the buildings
immediate north (Victory Outreach), west (auto repair garage) and
southwest (Hubcap Annie’s) of the 0.25 acre proposed to be rezoned.
The 0.25 acre property contains a one-story block and frame commercial
building which is vacant. There are access drives from Fair Park Blvd.
and Asher Avenue for the overall property ownership. The 0.25 acre was
previously used as a plant nursery. The property is otherwise overgrown
with grass and weeds.
The general area contains a mixture of commercial uses, many of which
are auto related. There is an industrial building (zoned I-2) immediately
north of the overall property ownership. An auto parts store is located
across Fair Park Blvd. to the east. There is an auto muffler shop
immediately south, with auto repair and glass shops located further south
across Asher Avenue. There is a mixture of commercial uses to the west,
along the north side of Asher Avenue.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Commercial.
The requested C-4 zoning does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7509
3
Staff is supportive of the requested C-4 zoning. Staff feels that the C-4
zoning is appropriate for the general area, given the other auto-related
uses existing at or near the intersection of Asher Avenue and Fair Park
Blvd. If the property is developed adhering to the C-4 development
standards (vehicular use areas being paved, no outside storage of
salvage vehicles or parts, etc.), the proposed auto repair use of the
property should prove to be a good fit for the area. Given the fact that this
0.25 acre is part of a larger, multi-building ownership, any new buildings
proposed will have to be approved (multiple building site plan review) by
the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The
application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: LU03-30-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Buzzard Mountain Planning District
Location: 9300 Ferndale Cutoff Road
Request: Low Density Residential to Commercial
Source: Darrel Odom, Odom & Associates - Architectures, Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Buzzard Mountain Planning District from Low
Density Residential to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad
range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional
services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and
scale, depending on the trade area that they serve.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the neighboring property across Ferndale Cutoff to
the east extending from Ferndale Cutoff Road to the area shown as Park / Open
Space.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is a house built on a large lot zoned R-2 Single Family and is 7.25 ±
acres in size. Most of the land to the north is vacant with the exception of the fire
station on the north side of the Highway 10 / Ferndale Cutoff intersection. The
neighboring land across Ferndale Cutoff to the east is a small plant nursery
zoned R-2. The rest of the surrounding land to the south and west consists of
large lot single family houses built on land zoned R-2. A few small businesses
are located at the Highway 10 / Barrett Road intersection with a church and
convenience store located at the northeast corner zoned C-3. A church,
fraternity lodge, and siding business are located east of Barrett Road and are
zoned R-2.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Staff included the applicant’s property in the review of future land use for the
expansion of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of 2002 resulting in the current land
uses shown for the applicant’s property and all of the surrounding properties
within a 1-mile radius.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-30-01
2
The applicant’s property is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Low Density
Residential. The existing commercial node was recognized as Commercial and
extends on both sides of Cantrell from Barrett Road on the west towards the
east. From that node to the intersection of Cantrell and Ferndale Cutoff, both
sides of the road are shown as Low Density Residential. The property to the
east is shown as Park / Open Space along the floodplain of the Little Maumelle
River. A small strip of Single Family is shown between Ferndale Cutoff Road
and the PK/OS shown. The land surrounding the above mentioned areas are
shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
State Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and is built as a rural two-lane highway. Ferndale Cutoff Road is
shown as a Minor Arterial and is built as a rural two-lane road. Both Highway 10
and Ferndale Cutoff will be subject to half street improvements in order to
conform to the Master Street Plan.
A Class II Bikeway is shown on Highway 10 from Ferndale Cutoff to Chenonceau
Boulevard but will not require any additional right-of-way or paving. A Class III
Bikeway is shown on Ferndale Cutoff from Highway 10 to Denny Road but will
not require any additional right-of-way or paving. The Class III Bikeway on
Ferndale Cutoff may be affected by this amendment on the west side of
Ferndale Cutoff.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 show a Potential
Greenbelt along the floodplain of the Little Maumelle River. The designation of
Potential Greenbelts along the floodways of streams is intended to not only
preserve the watersheds of the streams, but also allow the future development of
park amenities, and or the preservation of open space amenities. Any future
development of the property within the study area should be designed in a
sensitive manner to protect the nearby streams. The applicant’s property is also
located near the “Take it to the Extreme” Trail. The “Take it to the Extreme” Trail
is the western edge of a trial loop system proposed by the Parks and Recreation
Department to circle Little Rock as a part of the plan concept of creating a “City
in a Park.” The applicant’s property is also located about a mile northeast of the
proposed Regional Park 2000, which is intended to be developed as a Large
Urban Park of more that 50 + acres to serve the entire City of Little Rock.
Development of the applicant’s property will need to be sensitive to the potential
development of the “Take it to the Extreme” Trail and the Potential Greenbelt.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-30-01
3
The Regional Park 2000 is proposed to be large enough that this amendment is
not likely to have an impact on development of the park.
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:
The applicant’s properties are located outside city limits a little over 2 miles to the
west of the developing commercial node at the Chenal / Highway 10 intersection.
Most of the Commercial nodes on Highway 10 are located at intersections with
Principal and Minor Arterials. Most all of the nodes of Commercial and
Neighborhood Commercial along Cantrell Road are not fully developed. The
area shown as Commercial located at the intersection of Highway 10 and Barrett
Road is under used with a convenience store/market; two churches with one in a
storefront; a fraternity lodge; a siding contractor and several houses. This node
contains vacant land that could be developed in the future for Commercial uses.
There is sufficient distance between the applicant’s property and the node at
Barrett Road to preclude the joining of the proposed and existing commercial
nodes. If joined, the proposed commercial strip would stretch from Garrison
Road to Ferndale Cutoff and be over one half mile in length. The remaining Low
Density Residential on the south and north side of Cantrell would provide
alternative residential options in the area and support the commercial areas to
the east and west. This LDR could provide density along Cantrell while not
adding to the commercial strip.
The applicant’s properties are also located about 1 ½ miles west of Highway
300, the western boundary of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Although
the applicant’s property is located outside the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District, the application of similar design standards would address some key
issues to minimize the impact of a change to Commercial with imposing
increased setbacks, landscaping, buffering and monument signage.
The applicant’s property is located in an area characterized by a rural pattern of
development with large tracts of land remaining undeveloped, under used, or in a
floodplain. The application area is located across the street from the floodplain of
the Little Maumelle River. This amendment would not change the area shown as
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-30-01
4
PK/OS on the Future Land Use Plan. Development of the applicant’s property
would need to be done in a manner that would minimize any run-off towards
Ferndale Cutoff Road with the goal of preserving the ecological and hydrological
integrity of the Little Maumelle River.
A change to Commercial at this site would necessitate that future development
does not have a negative impact on the neighboring residential areas on
Cameronwood Lane to the south. Development on this property would need a
sufficient buffer between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring
single-family residences to compensate for the scale and massing of future
buildings built on the property. Without sufficient buffers, the neighboring
properties would be impacted by Commercial uses on the applicant’s property.
The massing, scale, visual impacts, and noise generation of any future
development on this site should be minimized to isolate the potential affects of
any non-residential development on the neighboring single-family development.
Adherence to the Highway 10 Overlay District would address these issues.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Greystone Manor
Neighborhood Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12.1 FILE NO.: Z-7517
Owner: Sam Hollowell and Frances Hollowell Rowland
Applicant: Darrel Odom
Location: 9300 Ferndale Cut-Off Road (southwest corner
of Ferndale Cut-Off Road and Highway 10)
Area: 7.25 acres
Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose: Bank and future commercial uses
Existing Use: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Single family residence, fire station and undeveloped property;
zoned R-2
South – Single family residences along Cameronwood Lane and
undeveloped property; zoned R-2
East – Landscape business (across Ferndale Cut-Off); zoned R-2
West – Undeveloped property; zoned R-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Ferndale Cut-Off and Highway 10 are both classified on the Master
Street Plan as principal arterials. A minimum dedication of right-of-
way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of the two arterials.
3. All curb cut locations and street improvements should be approved by
Public Works and AHTD District 6.
4. This property is outside the City limits.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7517
2
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on or near a CATA Bus Route.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Greystone Manor
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Buzzard Mountain Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The
applicant has applied for a C-3 General Commercial for a shopping
center.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate
item on this agenda.
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.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Sam Hollowell and Frances Hollowell Rowland, owners of the 7.25 acre
tract at the southwest corner of Highway 10 and Ferndale Cut-Off Road,
are requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family Residential
to “C-3” General Commercial District. The rezoning is proposed for
development of a branch bank, with a future commercial strip center. The
property currently contains a one-story brick and frame single family
residence. There is a driveway from Ferndale Cut-Off Road which serves
as access. The remainder of the property is undeveloped and wooded,
with varying degrees of slope.
The general area contains a large amount of undeveloped R-2 zoned
property. A single family home, volunteer fire department and
undeveloped property are located across Highway 10 to the north. There
is undeveloped property immediately west and south, with single family
homes along Cameronwood Lane located further south. A landscape
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7517
3
business is located across Ferndale Cut-Off Road to the east, at the
southeast corner of Highway 10 and Ferndale Cut-Off Road.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Low Density
Residential. The applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for a
change to commercial which is Item 12. on this agenda.
Staff is supportive of the rezoning to C-3, as long as the property is
developed in compliance with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
standards. Currently the Highway 10 DOD boundaries extend from I-430
west to Highway 300. Staff is in the process of reviewing an amendment
to the Highway 10 DOD to extend the district boundaries from Highway
300 west to the City’s extraterritorial zoning boundary. This issue will be
on an upcoming Planning Commission agenda. Development of this
property as per the Highway 10 DOD standards should provide
appropriate building setbacks and buffering from the adjacent single
family residential property to the west and south. The applicant has
submitted a letter to staff stating that future development of the property
will meet the design overlay district standards.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to C-3, subject to
the future development of the property conforming to the Highway 10
Design Overlay District Ordinance requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The
application was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
NAME: Francis A. Allen School – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 816 North Tyler Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Francis A. Allen School/
Canino Peckham and Associates
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
expansion of this existing school. The property is
zoned R-3.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The existing school is located on the south side of “H” Street, between
Tyler and Polk Streets.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has been a part of this neighborhood for many years.
Although the surrounding neighborhood is primarily single family in nature,
there are other institutional uses within proximity of the site. The Holy
Souls School and Church occupy over two blocks located directly across
“H” Street to the north. Fair Park Elementary School is located two blocks
to the south. Woodlawn Baptist Church and Mt. Saint Mary’s School are
located two blocks to the southwest and northeast respectively. Single
family residences are located adjacent to the south, west and across Tyler
Street to the east. The proposed expansion will result in a minor increase
in student enrollment and the addition of much-needed on-site parking.
The proposed expansion should be compatible with uses 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 Hillcrest and Prospect
Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The school currently has 3 on-site parking spaces and a drop-off/pick-up
driveway. Eleven additional spaces are located in a parking lot at the
northwest corner of “G” Street and Tyler Street. The proposed expansion
will result in 22 additional students and 6 additional employees, requiring
8 more parking spaces. The proposed plan shows the construction of a
new 12 space parking lot and retention of 10 spaces in the “G” Street lot
for a total of 22 parking spaces. A new drop-off/pick-up area that will
accommodate 8 vehicles is proposed in front of the Tyler Street entrance.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
The plan submitted fails to provide the minimum six (6) percent (356 sq.
ft.) of interior landscaping required by the Landscape Ordinance within the
interior of the proposed northern parking lot.
Interior islands must have a minimum width of four feet and three inches
and be at least 113 square feet in area to receive credit toward fulfilling
interior requirements. This plan is being reviewed with the reductions
allowed within the designated mature area.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. The proposed land use would classify all streets on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline. Staff supports a waiver of the right-of-way dedication
requirement.
2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at all street
intersections.
3. 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.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan as well
as the discharge location.
6. Provide the dedication of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering
and leaving the property. Off-site drainage easements and
improvements may be required where drainage crosses private
property.
7. The drop-off driveway is acceptable, however, right turn in, right turn
out. Signage must be provided indicating the driveway will be “no left
turn” into and out of the driveway.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
3
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: A ¾-inch water meter is the largest meter available off the existing
main in Tyler Street.
Fire Department: Additional fire hydrants may be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: CATA bus routes are located nearby, along Kavanaugh
Boulevard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 2003)
Suzanne Benham and Greg Peckham were present representing the application.
Staff noted that some additional information was needed regarding signage, day
and hours of operation, site lighting, fencing and building design. Landscape
Comments were discussed and it was noted that the proposed new parking lot
was short of required interior landscaping. Public Works Comments were noted.
There was a lengthy discussion of the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-
way on all abutting streets and to dedicate a 20 foot radius at all intersections.
Mr. Peckham noted that the requirement to dedicate right-of-way to commercial
standards would have a negative impact on the proposed site plan. He stated
the proposal was an infill development in an older section of town and asked if
there was not some compromise. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and
Development suggested that the school might dedicate the right-of-way and
request a franchise for the landscaping. It was also noted that the parking lot
should be changed to one-way with angle-parking, providing additional space for
right-of-way dedication. Mike Hood of Public Works agreed to meet with the
applicant to determine if there was a compromise that could be reached on the
issue. Mr. Hood also noted the Public Works Comments related to stormwater
flow and the drop-off driveway. Mr. Peckham stated those comments would be
complied with. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by October
15, 2003. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded
the item to the full Commission.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
4
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Francis A. Allen School for Exceptional Children is located on the R-3 zoned
property at 824 North Tyler Street. Founded in 1958, the Allen School provides
inclusive pre-school programs and therapy services for developmentally
handicap children ages 1 thru 4. The school is currently licensed to provide
services for up to 62 children and operates with a staff of 25 teachers, therapists
and administrative personnel. The existing building has been home to the school
since 1970, but is no longer adequate to meet its needs. For this reason, the
Board of Directors of the school is submitting this application for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow for the construction of an 11,000 sq. ft. building expansion,
the relocation of an existing outdoor play space and the development of
additional on-site parking.
The proposed one-story expansion will include all new classroom space to better
accommodate the school’s current enrollment, upgraded food service facilities as
well as two additional classrooms to provide for the anticipated needs of the
community. The expanded facility will be able to provide services for up to 84
children with a staff of 31. The current 6,300 sq. ft. building will be renovated to
accommodate administrative needs and to provide much needed therapy space.
The existing outdoor play yard located west of the current facility along “H” Street
will be relocated to an enclosed, shaded courtyard to the rear of the proposed
new structure. On-site parking will be provided by an existing lot located at the
northwest corner of Tyler and “G” Streets, and a proposed new parking lot
situated on the former play yard site along “H” Street. A new loading/unloading
area is proposed for the Tyler Street entrance and service functions and trash
pick-up will be accessed via the existing alley.
On October 15, 2003, the applicant submitted responses to the issues raised at
Subdivision Committee. A new, non-lighted wall sign will be mounted on the
east wall of the new addition, near the entrance. There are no plans for a
ground-mounted sign. The school operates from 6:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. All planned security site lighting will be building mounted wall
pack fixtures at each entrance and on three sides of the proposed play area. All
fixtures will be appropriately shielded. Some up and inward directed landscape
lighting is anticipated. No pole mounted light fixtures are planned. The
screening fence will be constructed of wood pickets and will not exceed 6 feet in
height. It is anticipated that the exterior finish of the proposed building will be
residential in character. The exterior walls will be a combination of brick and
stone. The residential character will be further enhanced by a low eave height
and broad overhang. The Tyler Street façade will be stepped back to break
down the apparent horizontal scale of the structure.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
5
The proposed new parking lot has been slightly modified to provide the required
interior landscaping area. Radial right-of-way dedication has been shown at all
intersections. Staff is supporting a waiver of the requirement to dedicate
additional right-of-way on abutting streets. The property is not covered by a valid
bill of assurance.
Staff is supportive of the proposed expansion. With attention given to
appropriate screening and landscaping, the proposed use should be compatible
with the neighborhood. It appears the site and building design has been
sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the staff
report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of right-of-way dedication on
abutting streets, other than for the required radial dedication at the intersections.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were three objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “Staff
Recommendation” above. Chairman Nunnley asked that the objectors speak
first.
Jeanne Quick, of 803 N. Tyler, stated she was concerned about the proposed
circular drop-off driveway being located across from her home. Ms. Quick voiced
concerns about the narrow street and the amount of traffic. Chairman Nunnley
asked staff to respond. Mike Hood, of Public Works, stated the street would be
widened slightly by the school which would provide for adequate street width. In
response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Hood stated staff would look at the
possibility of restricting on-street parking to the east side of the street.
Commissioner Faust asked if the street would be more passable in light of the
school’s improvements. Mr. Hood responded that it would and noted that the
school would be making improvements to all abutting streets.
Commissioner Rahman asked if staff had considered diverting the drop-off lane
traffic through the south parking lot and onto “G” Street” Mr. Hood responded
that staff had not.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
6
Dawn Miller, of 805 N. Tyler, stated she was opposed to the school expansion
since it would result in the removal of two house and several trees. She also
voiced concerns about the limited on-street parking. Ms. Quick interjected that
the occupants of the homes on the east side of Tyler had to park in the street
due to the lack of on-site parking.
Kevin Verch, of 801 N. Tyler, also voiced concern about the narrow street. Dana
Carney of the Planning Staff noted that the school was committed to improving
its side of the street and improvements to Tyler Street were actually listed as a
project on the upcoming November 4, 2003 bond vote.
The applicant, Greg Peckham, responded to issues raised by the neighbors. He
stated extending or modifying the drop-off lane to “G” Street would result in the
loss of parking spaces and additional trees. Mr. Peckham stated the school did
not object to limiting on-street parking to one side of the street. He stated the
drop-off lane was located at the optimum location for the facility and would
actually provide up to 8 stacking spaces. In response to a question from the
Chair, Mr. Peckham stated the alley was inadequate and impractical to use as
the drop-off. Chairman Nunnley asked if the new parking was adequate for the
expanded use. Mr. Peckham responded that the school was adding 10 parking
spaces and the 8 stacking spaces in the drop-off lane.
Commissioner Rahman asked if the school had considered relocating.
Mr. Peckham responded that the school had a close relationship with Holy Souls
School and Church and Mount St. Mary’s Academy. He stated the school had
been a part of the neighborhood for many years. Mr. Peckham stated the
proposed expansion was not solely to accommodate increased enrollment; that
the space was needed to provide services to the existing students.
Commissioner Rahman stated he could support the expansion to provide
services but perhaps not increase the enrollment. Mr. Peckham responded that
the school had ways to use the expanded space ever if the enrollment did not
increase.
Chairman Nunnley asked what would prevent the school from coming back to
ask for further expansions. Suzanne Benham, Director of the school, responded
that the new space would not allow for any additional expansion of the school’s
enrollment.
During the ensuing discussion of the parking situation, Dana Carney of the
Planning Staff, noted that the school was providing more new parking than was
required for the increased enrollment and new staff. He noted the school would
not, however, be completely up to code as far as the parking requirement.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3895-B
7
Commissioner Faust commented that she was impressed with how the school’s
proposed expansion was sensitive to the neighborhood.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, voiced staff’s support for the
project and noted it was an infill development; as opposed to the school
relocating to west Little Rock.
After further discussion of the street issue, Commissioner Rector stated the
Commission could direct staff to study the issue of limiting on-street parking to
one side of the street. Mr. Hood responded that staff would study the issue.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit subject
to compliance with staff comments and conditions; including the requested
waiver of right-of-way dedication. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
2 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-5365-D
NAME: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church –
Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 12400 I-30
OWNER/APPLICANT: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church
PROPOSAL: A revision to a previously approved conditional use
permit is requested to allow for continued use of
4 portable classroom buildings for up to 2 years.
STAFF REPORT:
On February 12, 1991, the Commission approved a conditional use permit
allowing for construction of a new church building on this R-2 zoned, 130± acre
tract. The approval included a single, two-story, 42,000 square foot building and
associated parking.
On September 6, 1994, the Commission approved an amendment to the C.U.P.
to allow for the placement of 4 portable classroom buildings on the site. Use of
the portable buildings was to be for a period of 3 years or until permanent
classroom facilities were constructed, whichever came first.
On July 18, 1996, the Commission approved an amendment to the C.U.P. to
allow for the addition of a day care and kindergarten within the existing building.
The day care/kindergarten was approved to have a maximum enrollment of 200
children. At that time, the entire congregation had not moved from Geyer
Springs to this new facility. The four previously approved portable buildings had
not yet been placed on the property. Development still consisted only of the
initial 42,000 square foot building and the associated parking.
On May 15, 1997, the Commission approved an amendment to the C.U.P.
allowing for the phased expansion of the building and parking. One large,
temporary modular building had been placed on the site adjacent to the church
building. Phase I consisted of a 85,000 square foot, two-story building addition
and additional parking. Phase I was to contain a 2,000 seat sanctuary, offices,
music rehearsal space and classrooms. The large, temporary modular building
was to be removed after the completion of Phase I. Phase II was to consist of a
40,000 square foot, two-story addition and additional parking. Phase II was to
contain a fellowship hall and additional classroom space. Phase I was
completed and the large, temporary modular building was removed.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5365-D
2
On January 21, 2000, staff approved the placement of two portable classroom
buildings on the site to be used until September 18, 2000 in anticipation of
beginning the Phase II expansion.
On February 22, 2000, staff approved the placement of two additional portable
classroom buildings, also until September 18, 2000.
On August 22, 2000, staff approved the continued use of the four portable
classroom buildings until September 2001.
On August 27, 2001, staff approved an extension, allowing the four portable
classrooms to remain until September 2002. No additional extensions were
granted and the four portable classroom buildings remain on the site.
The church is now asking for approval of the continued use of the four classroom
buildings for an additional two years. The buildings are used on Sunday
mornings for Sunday School and on Wednesday evenings for AWANA’s. They
are used no more than 3 to 4 hours per week. The church anticipates beginning
a building program within the next two years.
Staff is supportive of this request. The church buildings are located within a
larger tract and are not adjacent to any particularly sensitive use.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Otter Creek and SWLR United for Progress
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request. Staff has received no
comments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the continued use of the four
portable classroom buildings until October 30, 2005 or until the next phase of
construction, whichever comes first.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the “Staff
Recommendation” above. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-7477
NAME: Nunn Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 19 Warren Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: US Bank/Berthena Nunn
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for use
of this R-2 zoned single family house as a day care
center. The site was formerly used as a day care
center.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of Warren Drive, north of
Mabelvale Cut-Off.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed day care is located in an area that is predominantly single
family in nature. Most of the surrounding properties are larger tracts
occupied by single family homes. There are other uses in the general
vicinity including two multifamily developments, a nonconforming skating
rink and an elementary school. While this site does have some history of
use as a nonconforming day care, it has been vacant for over two years.
Staff believes the day care may no longer be compatible with the
neighborhood, especially since it appears the required 13 parking spaces
cannot be provided on the site. The level of activity generated by a day
care of this size will have an impact on adjacent properties.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for
Progress, Santa Monica, Allendale and Chicot Neighborhood Associations
were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed day care is to have an enrollment of 40 children with 7
employees and 2 vans. This requires a total of 13 on site parking spaces.
The property currently has a single-wide driveway deep enough to stack 2
vehicles. The applicant has submitted a plan showing a circular
driveway/drop-off and 9 parking spaces. The proposed plan would
require paving virtually the entire front yard. The proposed parking stall
depth and maneuvering area does not comply with code. It would be
possible, though not desirable, to extend a driveway to the rear yard and
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7477
2
to create a paved parking area in the rear yard area that would
accommodate the needed parking spaces.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
The proposed plan does not provide required perimeter and building
landscape areas. Nine foot wide landscape strips are required along the
north, south and west perimeters of the parking lot and a 12.42 wide
street buffer strip is required. Screening is required on the north, south
and east perimeters where adjacent to residential property.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
The proposed radius of the circular driveway is inadequate to serve as a
drop-off. Proposed curb cuts do not comply with ordinance requirements.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: No objection to conversion of existing residence into a day care
center.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The nearest CATA bus route is located on Chicot Road, several
blocks to the west.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 2003)
Larry Wallace and Berthena Nunn were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted much more information was needed on the
proposed use. Staff asked the applicant to provide information regarding
signage, number of employees and children, days and hours of operation, site
lighting, fencing and trash pick-up. Staff noted the site had only a single-wide
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7477
3
driveway and additional on-site parking would be required based on the number
of children and employees. Staff asked the applicant to submit a revised site
plan showing that parking. It was noted that Public Works and Landscape
Comments would be revised to reflect a review of the new parking area. Larry
Wallace responded that all comments would be responded to by October 15,
2003. Mr. Wallace noted the site had been used as a day care center for 25
years prior to its closing.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission after advising the applicant to meet with neighborhood
residents.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property located at #19 Warren Drive is occupied by a one-story,
1,800± square foot, frame, residential structure. The site has a single-wide
driveway deep enough to park two vehicles. A day care center operated on the
site for approximately 25 years until May or June of 2001 when the previous
owner defaulted on a bank loan and closed the business. The building has been
vacant since that date.
The applicant, Berthena Nunn, proposes to reopen the day care. The day care
is proposed to operate Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Enrollment is proposed as 40 children with 7 employees. The day care will have
2 vans. Signage is proposed to consist of a 12 square foot, 6 foot tall ground
sign and a single wall sign. Lighting is to consist of street lighting, a security light
at the southwest corner of the front parking area and lighting over the exit doors
and rear corners of the building. The applicant has proposed to place a
dumpster at the front (southwest) corner of the site.
Staff is not comfortable supporting the application. Although a day care
operated on the site for a number of years, the property is located within a single
family residential neighborhood. The activity generated by a day care center of
this size could have a negative impact on adjacent residential properties.
Additionally, the day care is required to have 13 on-site parking spaces. The
property currently has only enough parking for 2 vehicles stacked in the
driveway. The site plan submitted by the applicant does not provide adequate
parking. The depth and maneuvering area required for several of the spaces is
inadequate; the proposed circular driveway has an inadequate radius to be
usable; and no landscaping and screening is provided on the perimeters of the
vehicular use areas. It is possible that a driveway could be extended into the
rear yard and a proper parking lot constructed in that area of the property. Staff
questions whether that is feasible since it would impact the availability of
playground area. The proposed dumpster location, adjacent to the street is
unacceptable. The dumpster must be oriented away from the street and moved
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7477
4
more toward the rear of the property. Screening of the vehicular use area and
playgrounds from the adjacent residential properties is required.
There is no valid bill of assurance covering this property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One letter of
opposition and two letters by support had been received. Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the
December 4, 2003 meeting to allow for submission of a revised site plan. There
was no further discussion.
A motion was made to waive the Commission’s bylaws to accept the late request
for deferral. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 4,
2003 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-7511
NAME: Felton Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5324 Sherwood Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Josephine and Daniel Felton
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an accessory dwelling on this R-2
zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the north side of Sherwood Road, between Link and
Wildwood.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a residential neighborhood comprised solely of
large single family residences on R-2 zoned lots. Many of the properties
have similar accessory buildings and several have accessory dwellings or
guest homes. The proposed use is compatible with uses 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 Hillcrest and Prospect
Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site has a concrete paved driveway deep enough for 2 vehicles. Two
parking spaces are required; 1 each for the accessory dwelling and the
principal dwelling.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
None required.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7511
2
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: There is an existing 3-inch water main in the 4-foot wide
easement to the rear that will be abandoned in the near future. No
objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: No Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 2003)
The applicants, Josephine and Daniel Felton, were present. Staff presented the
item and noted the applicants had submitted additional information on the
proposed accessory dwelling. It was noted that the building will be one-story in
height and will be designed in keeping with the traditional Tudor style of the
house. The applicants stated the accessory dwelling would occupy 80%, 440
square feet, of the 551 square foot accessory structure. The applicant stated no
separate meters are requested for the utilities serving the structure. Staff noted
the existing building had a side yard setback of .8 feet and the applicants were
asking to maintain that setback. The applicants responded that the eastern
portion of the building was on a slab and they wished to use that existing slab.
The applicant stated there was a large tree directly adjacent to the west side of
the accessory building and moving the structure away from the side property line
would cause the tree to have to be removed. Staff noted that the abutting
property owner had called and expressed concerns about the proximity of the
accessory building to the common lot line.
The committee advised the applicants to meet with their neighbor and forwarded
the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property located at 5324 Sherwood Road is occupied by a two-
story, stucco, brick and frame, single-family residence and a dilapidated, 431.3
square foot accessory building. The accessory building was originally
constructed as a “servants quarters” and storage building and has some
plumbing and electrical service. The residential portion of the accessory building
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7511
3
has not been occupied for many years. The applicants propose to remove the
dilapidated accessory building and replace it with a new, 551 square foot
structure. The new structure will maintain the existing footprint on the south,
east and west sides but will be extended 2 feet to the north. By maintaining the
existing footprint, the structure will have a side yard setback on the east side of
0.8 feet. The new structure will be one story in height, with attic storage, and will
be designed in keeping with the traditional Tudor style of the house.
Approximately 80% or 440 square feet of the structure will be used as a
guesthouse for occasional out of town guests and family members. Since the
guesthouse will contain a kitchenette, it is classified as an accessory dwelling.
No separate utilities are requested for the accessory dwelling. The accessory
building will occupy 44% of the required rear yard; exceeding the allowable 30%
coverage limit (375 square feet) established by the Code.
Staff is supportive of the request. The proposed use is not out of character with
similar uses in the neighborhood. Other than for the 2 foot extension on the rear,
the proposed building will maintain the same side yard setback as the existing
accessory structure. Although the proposed structure exceeds the allowable
30% coverage, as does the existing structure, it again is not out of character with
development in the neighborhood. Replacing this dilapidated building with a new
structure should, in fact, be a benefit to the area.
The 1926 Bill of Assurance appears to still be in effect and includes the following
statements:
(a) all plots in said addition shall be limited to single family residences
(b) no more than one residence shall be erected on any plot in said addition
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. The structure is to be designed in a style compatible with the traditional Tudor
style of the house.
2. There are to be no separate utilities.
3. The eave of the structure is not to extend into the 0.8 foot side yard setback
on the east side.
4. If the pitch of the roof of the structure slopes to the east, guttering must be
installed to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7511
4
5. Use of the accessory dwelling is to be limited to guests and family members;
at no time is the structure to be rented out.
Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow the reduced side yard
setback of 0.8 feet and the rear yard coverage of 44%.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicants were 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. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7512
NAME: Interstate 620 Self Storage – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5700 West 10th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sidney Thom/Scott Richburg
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a mini-warehouse development on this
C-3 zoned, 4.7 acre tract.
STAFF REPORT:
On October 13, 2003, the applicant submitted a request that this item be
deferred to the December 18, 2003 commission meeting in order to pursue
resolution of the FEMA map revision issue. Staff recommends approval of the
deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the
December 18, 2003 meeting in order to pursue resolution of the FEMA map
issue. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred as recommended by
staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-7514
NAME: Jones Gun Store and Indoor Shooting Range –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: South end of Otter Creek East Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Otter Creek Development Company/
Larry Witherspoon and Mark Jones
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a new building containing a retail gun
store, shooting range and barbering and hair
replacement studio. The property is zoned I-2.
STAFF REPORT:
On October 17, 2003, the applicant submitted a request asking that this item be
withdrawn. Staff recommends approval of that request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had requested that the item be withdrawn.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal. The
vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-7515
NAME: Ault Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5 Ridgehaven Court
OWNER/APPLICANT: Laurence and Karen Ault/Patrick Anders, AIA
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an accessory dwelling on this R-2
zoned lot.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on Ridgehaven Court, north of Ridgehaven, west of
Napa Valley.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The neighborhood immediately adjacent to the site is comprised of large,
single family residences or larger tracts. The remainder of the
neighborhood in the larger area around the site contains single family
residences on patio lots and traditional sized residential lots. Although
there do not appear to be any other accessory dwellings in the immediate
area, allowing construction of such a structure on this .9± acre tract
should have minimal to no effect on other properties. Occupancy of the
structure is limited to guests and family members and the accessory
dwelling will never be a rental unit.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the St. Charles, Marlowe
Manor, Carriage Creek, Eagle Point, Glen Eagles and Hunters Green
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The existing house has a two-car garage. The proposed accessory
dwelling will also have a two-car garage. Access to the accessory
dwelling’s garage is off of the existing circular driveway. The principal
dwelling and accessory dwelling are each required to have one on-site
parking site.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
None required.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7515
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No objection.
Fire Department: All driveways shall be a minimum of 12’ in width.
On-site fire hydrant will be required, if the structure is over 300 feet
away from an existing fire hydrant.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: No Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 2003)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed on the building height and design. Staff noted that no
separate utilities were requested and the applicant had stated occupancy of the
accessory dwelling would be limited to family and guests. Staff also noted the
Fire Department’s Comments. Staff stated those comments would be confirmed.
Staff noted that there had been numerous telephone calls received from area
residents interested in what was being proposed. The applicant was advised to
meet with neighbors. There were no other comments. The applicant was
advised to respond to staff issues by October 15, 2003. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned, .9± acre tract located at #5 Ridgehaven Court is occupied by a
one-story, brick and frame, 3,500± square foot, single family residence. A
circular driveway provides access to the site from Ridgehaven Court. The
applicants propose to construct a 2,214 square foot accessory dwelling behind
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7515
3
the existing house. The new structure will consist of 1,503 square feet of living
space and a 711 square foot garage/storage space. The accessory dwelling is
to be occupied by the applicant’s another and a care giver. The structure will
later serve as a guest suite for visiting family members and other guests. No
separate utilities are proposed. The proposed one-story accessory building will
be designed to compliment the existing house; with matching brick, shingles and
paint. The structure exceeds all required setbacks and is not located in the
required rear yard area.
Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. Although the proposed accessory
dwelling is somewhat larger than those typically seen by the Commission, the
property is nearly an acre in size and contains a house that exceeds 3,500
square feet. The impact of the size of the accessory dwelling is reduced by the
larger scale of the property and existing house. The applicant has limited
occupancy of the structure to family and guests and has stated that a special
covenant could be filed on the property specifying that the structure will never be
a rental unit.
The site is covered by a valid bill of assurance that contains the following
statement:
(a) The land herein platted shall be held, owned and used only as building sites
for single, detached, single-family residences.
Staff has spoken with the Fire Marshall about the Fire Department Comments.
There is a fire hydrant located on the west side of Ridgehaven Court, directly
across from the subject property. If the proposed accessory structure/dwelling is
no more than 300 feet from the fire hydrant, no additional fire hydrant will be
required. The applicant must confirm this and receive written approval of the
plans from the fire department prior to issuance of a building permit. The gated
driveway to the new structure must provide a minimum of 12 feet of driveway
width and clearance.
On October 15, 2003, the applicant responded to issues raised at Subdivision
Committee and reflected in the analysis above. To staff’s knowledge, there are
no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. The structure is to be designed in a style compatible with the existing
structure, as proposed by the applicant.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7515
4
2. There are to be no separate utilities.
3. Occupancy of the structure is to be limited to family members and guests; at
no time is the structure to be rented out.
4. The gated driveway to the new structure must provide a minimum of 12 feet
of driveway width and clearance.
5. Written approval of the plans must be provided by the fire department prior to
issuance of a building permit for the accessory dwelling.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-7518
NAME: Sobel, Inc. Time Extension
LOCATION: 3820 West 65th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sobel, Inc./Lacy J. Kennedy, IV
TYPE OF ISSUE: Time extension to allow continued operation of a
sexually oriented business.
STAFF REPORT:
On January 17, 1989, the Little Rock Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
15,629 defining sexually oriented businesses and establishing criteria regulating
the location of such businesses. The ordinance established the following
classifications and location criteria for sexually oriented businesses:
SECTION 3. Classification.
Sexually oriented businesses are classified as follows:
(1) adult arcade;
(2) adult bookstores or adult video stores;
(3) adult cabarets;
(4) adult motion picture theaters;
(5) adult theaters.
SECTION 4. Location of Sexually Oriented Businesses.
(1) A person commits an offense if he operates or causes to be
operated a sexually oriented business within 750 feet of:
(a) a church or other religious facility;
(b) a public or private elementary, secondary or post-secondary
school;
(c) a boundary of a residential zone (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, MF-6, MF-
12, MF-18, MF-24, R-5, R-6, R-7, HR, MR, HDR or PRD or any
single family or multiple family residential use;
(d) a public park;
(e) a hospital or other medical facility; or
(f) properties listed on the National Register of Historical Places or
local Historic Districts as identified by in the Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
2
(2) A person commits an offense if he causes or permits the operation,
establishment, or maintenance of a sexually oriented business within 750 feet
of another sexually oriented business.
(3) For the purposes of Subsection (1), measurement shall be made in
a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the
nearest portion of the building or structure used as part of the premises
where a sexually oriented business is conducted, to the nearest property line
of the premises of a church or public or private elementary or secondary
school, or to the nearest boundary of an affected public park, residential
district, residential lot, hospital or other medical facility, or properties listed on
the National Historic Register or local Historic Districts as identified by the
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program.
(4) For the purposes of Subsection (2) of this section, the distance
between any two sexually oriented businesses shall be measured in a
straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the
closest exterior wall of the structure in which each business is located.
The Ordinance defined a sexually oriented business as:
an adult arcade, adult bookstore or adult video store, adult
cabaret, adult motion picture theater, or adult theater
whose inventory, merchandise, or performances are
characterized by a preponderance of “SPECIFICED
SEXUAL ACTIVITIES” or “SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL
AREAS”.
On December 3, 2002, the Board passed Ordinance No. 18, 791
amending the definition of a sexually oriented business and clarifying the
amortization period for such uses to relocate or to change the nature of its
operation after an annexation or an amendment to the code. The definition was
amended to read as follows:
(9) Sexually oriented business. An adult arcade, adult bookstore or
adult video store, adult cabaret, adult motion picture theater, or adult theater
which:
(a) Devotes a significant or substantial portion of its stock-in-trade
or interior floor space to;
(b) Receives a significant or substantial portion of its revenues
from; or
(c) Devotes a significant or substantial portion of its advertising
expenditures to the promotion of;
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
3
the sale, rental, viewing (for any form of consideration) of inventory,
merchandise, or performances that are characterized by “specific sexual
activities” or “specified anatomical areas.” An establishment may have other
principal business purposes that do not involve the offering for sale, rental or
viewing of materials, or performances, depicting or describing “specified
sexual activities” or “specified anatomical areas”, and still be categorized as
an adult arcade, adult bookstore or adult video store, adult cabaret, adult
motion picture theater, or adult theater. Such other business purposes will
not serve to exempt such establishment form being categorized as a sexually
oriented business so long as the provisions of this definition are otherwise
met.
The Ordinance established a 90 day amortization period for any sexually
oriented business found to be in violation of the provision of Section 17-214
or any amendment thereof. During that 90 day period, the sexually oriented
business may file for a two year time extension from the Planning
Commission. The Ordinance states:
However, any sexually oriented business covered by this
subsection whose activity involves the investment of money in
leasehold or improvements that cannot be used for any other
purpose other than those defined in section 17-212, and a longer
period of time to operate is necessary to prevent undue financial
hardship, are eligible for a prompt review by the planning
commission for a reasonable extension of the nonconforming
status, provided that the extension shall not be increased by more
than a period of two (2) years from the effective date of the
annexation, or of the amendment to section 17-214 which rendered
the business nonconforming.
The Emergency clause of Ordinance No. 18,791 also stated the Board of
Directors interest in adding licensed day care centers to the list of businesses
that should be included in the setback requirements of Article VII.
On August 4, 2003, the Board passed Ordinance No. 18,906 adding day care
centers to the list of uses from which sexually oriented business must maintain at
least a 750 foot setback.
In late 2002, Sobel, Inc. applied for and was approved for a privilege license to
operate a sexually oriented business on the C-3 zoned property located at 3820
West 65th Street. The zoning was appropriate for the use and the property
complied with the then separation requirements of Ordinance No. 15,629. A day
care center was located approximately 150 to 200 feet away from the site, at the
northwest corner of Scott Hamilton Drive and Wall Street. At that time, day
cares were not included in the separation requirements. When Ordinance No.
18,906 was passed on August 4, 2003, the business was rendered
nonconforming and the 90 day amortization period began. On September 3,
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
4
2003, Sobel, Inc., through its attorney Lacy J. Kennedy, IV, filed a request for
Planning Commission approval of a time extension. It is the applicant’s
contention that Sobel has a three year lease on the facility and equipment and
has made substantial renovations to conform the building to its purposes.
The property at 3820 West 65th Street is zoned C-3 General Commercial. The
site contains a one-story building that formerly housed a bank. The drive
through canopy was enclosed to create additional floor space for the business.
There are 33 parking spaces on the site.
The Planning Commission is to determine if it is appropriate to grant Sobel, Inc.
an extension for a period not to exceed two years from August 4, 2003.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were numerous objectors present. Numerous
letters of opposition had been received. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff
presented the item and gave a brief history of the various S.O.B. ordinances.
Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson clarified the issue as a “fact-driven inquiry”;
stating the Commission should apply reasonableness when deciding the issue.
Commissioner Rector asked if obligations under a lease contract should enter
into the decision. Ms. Dawson responded that leasehold investments can be
considered.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the Commission is to
determine what amortization period is appropriate to amortize the investment if
site improvements cannot be used for any other use. Chairman Nunnley stated
he did not know how the Commission could consider that. He questioned who
would locate a bookstore on 65th Street for any other purpose.
Commissioner Faust stated it was unclear in Ordinance No. 18, 791 what was
intended by the phrase “the investment of money in leasehold or
improvements…” Ms. Dawson responded that the Commission clearly could
look at both the lease and the improvements.
Commissioner Faust noted that the Commission could look at any extension up
to 2 years from August 4, 2003.
Chairman Nunnley informed the audience that the Commission was not going to
consider the merits of the ordinance or the appropriateness of S.O.B.’s; that the
discussion was to focus on the merits of granting the time extension.
Lacy Kennedy, attorney for Sobel, Inc.; addressed the Commission. He
presented a hand-out which included a summary of investments and a portion of
the lease on the property. Mr. Kennedy stated a privilege license had been
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
5
issued, building permits were approved and Arkansas Health Department
approval had been received; that the applicant had complied with all regulations
and the City then changed the rules. Mr. Kennedy stated some financial records
cannot be released due to privacy issues but the applicant would provide some
numbers. He stated the issue was whether or not there would be an undue
financial hardship. Mr. Kennedy stated the lease included a clause requiring the
lease to be paid in full if it is broken. He asked the Commission to look at the
City’s zoning map. He surmised that it could be exceptionally difficult to find
another location for the business. Referring to the handout, Mr. Kennedy stated
the lease was for 3 years. He estimated the remaining lease payments at
$30,000 - $40,000. Mr. Kennedy stated all leasehold improvements would go to
the landlord. He estimated the cost of those improvements at over $100,000.
Mr. Kennedy stated there were additional costs including display cases, shelves
and video equipment. He stated there was a 3 year lease on the equipment that
included acceleration provisions adding up to $10,000 - $12,000 that would be
immediately payable.
Commissioner Floyd commented that every lease he had seen included a
“suitability and severability clause”. He noted the building permit for the major
renovation was obtained after the December 2002 Ordinance was passed.
During the ensuing discussion, it was stated that the January 2003 building
permit to enclose the former drive-through canopy area was obtained after the
December 2002 Ordinance but prior to the August 4, 2003 Ordinance.
Mr. Kennedy stated the map showing areas available for S.O.B.’s changes with
the opening of each new day care center. He stated the City won the
Ambasador Books case with 5.1% of the City being shown as available for such
uses. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Kennedy to focus on the issue. Mr.
Kennedy stated the rules changed midstream and the fair action would be to
grant the requested two-year extension.
Commissioner Allen stated he agreed that it appeared the rules changed. He
asked what the balance was; what profit has been made versus what the
expenses were. Mr. Kennedy responded that the business was still non-
profitable; that they have not yet recouped their investment. Commissioner Allen
asked Mr. Kennedy if the applicant could submit financial records corroborating
that statement. Mr. Kennedy stated the Commission was libel to the state’s
Freedom of Information Act and asked if the information could be submitted
under seal. Deputy City Attorney Dawson responded that it could not.
Commissioner Muse asked how much was needed to recoup the investment.
Spencer Elmen, of Sobel, Inc., responded that $150,000 was needed to recoup
the investment. Commissioner Muse asked how much could be recovered in the
requested 2 years. Mr. Elmen responded that he expected to make a profit in 2
years.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
6
Commissioner Rahman asked the applicant if he had looked at other sites.
Commissioner Rector stated that was not an issue. Commissioner Rahman
withdrew his question.
Commissioner Rector asked the applicant if the $150,000 investment could be
amortized in 2 years. The applicant responded that it could.
Chairman Nunnley asked the applicant if he had business interruption insurance.
The applicant responded that it would not apply to this issue.
Phyllis Day, operator of the day care located at 6320 Scott Hamilton Drive,
stated crime in the area had increased since the opening of the S.O.B. She
asked the Commission to deny the time extension.
Rev. James Alexander of 5603 Fisher Street asked that the time extension not
be granted. He asked the Commission to grant only a minimum extension, if one
was granted.
Pat Gee, president of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association, showed
a petition which she stated contained 477 signatures of persons asking the
Commission to uphold the Ordinance. Staff did not receive this petition.
Ms. Gee voiced her opposition to the time extension.
Ms. Gee stated a sex offender had been arrested in the area in possession of
child pornography. Deputy City Attorney Dawson asked Ms. Gee if there was
any evidence that the material had been purchased at this site. Ms. Gee
responded that there was not.
Nan Howard, of 3 Hogan Drive, spoke in opposition.
Alene Watson, of 4 Hogan Drive, stated the business’ parking lot was “packed”.
She surmised the business must be making money.
Herbert Dicker, president of Meadowcliff Neighborhood Association, vice
president of Neighborhood Connections and Secretary of SWLR United for
Progress, spoke in opposition and asked the Commission to consider how much
money the nearby day care center has lost since the S.O.B. opened.
Deputy City Attorney Dawson commented that the 8th Circuit Court has upheld
similar ordinances with amortization periods to either relocate or change the
nature of the business. She stated the business could have merchandise other
than that of a sexual nature. Ms. Dawson stated she did not believe the
applicant had proven that investments were such that they could only be used for
this specific use.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
7
During the following discussion, Commissioner Rector stated that the City
Attorney had told the Commission they could also include leasehold in
considering the extension. He stated leasehold refers to “the thing” not just the
obligation of rent.
Janet Berry, president of SWLR United for Progress, stated the membership of
her organization had voted to oppose the requested time extension. She stated
the applicant had made investments and improvements after December 2002,
when the Board of Directors had expressed its intent to include day care centers
in the list of protected uses.
Mr. Kennedy stated leasehold absolutely referred to the premises. He stated the
question was strictly one of financial hardship and asked the Commission not to
let the use cloud the issue.
Chairman Nunnley told the applicant that he, the applicant, had decided his right
of financial privacy exceeded the Commission’s right to know.
Commissioner Meyer asked the applicant what his monthly sales tax expense
was. There was no response.
Commissioner Muse asked the applicant if he could make a guess what a good
day was as far as net profits. Mr. Elmen responded that he could not.
Commissioner Muse stated he needed to know those numbers.
Commissioner Rector commented to the applicant that he was asking the
Commission to figure out what was a reasonable time to amortize the investment
without giving the Commission any numbers to work with. Mr. Elmen responded
that he had competition in Little Rock and had reasons not to release the
numbers.
Commissioner Muse stated that based on the figures stated earlier by the
applicant that it seemed $238 a day in net profit was needed to recoup the
investment. He asked the applicant if he could recoup the investment in 12
months. Mr. Elmen responded that 18-21 months would be more reasonable.
Commissioner Langlais asked Mr. Elmen if he realized that he would be out of
business in 21 months, assuming the Commission granted the extension, even if
his lease was not up. Mr. Elmen responded that his attorney might disagree.
Mr. Kennedy stated some investments had been made that cannot be used for
any other purpose.
Deputy City Attorney Dawson and Director of Planning Lawson both stated at
this point that it was not the City’s intention to put the applicant out of business;
that the business could modify its operations or relocate.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
8
Commissioner Rahman shared his personal experiences in having to pay out a
lease after having had a business close. He stated he saw this as an issue of a
business trying to recoup its investment. He commented that this was a
legitimate business and the City changed the rules.
In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Ms. Dawson stated the
applicant was in the midst of a 90-day amortization period and had asked for
additional time.
Commissioner Rahman commented that there was an issue of fairness; that a
business cannot recoup its investment in 90 days. Ms. Dawson responded that
the applicant was not willing to provide the information that the Commission
needed to arrive at a different time frame.
Jim Lawson stated the Commission should vote on the 21-month extension as
requested by the applicant and, if that motion fails, a motion could be made for a
shorter time.
Commissioner Faust stated she was surprised that the applicant and his attorney
showed up unprepared; without complete information. She stated she was not
comfortable with making a decision with such information.
Commissioner Rahman stated he understood the applicant not wanting his
competition to know his financial figures.
Commissioner Muse asked what the Board of Director’s reasoning was in setting
the maximum extension period at 2 years. Jim Lawson responded that the City
Attorney’s Office had arrived at that time frame. Ms. Dawson interjected that
there had been cases where a 90-day amortization period had been found to be
reasonable.
Mr. Lawson stated part of the problem was that the Commission did not know the
specific numbers (financial figures).
Ms. Dawson asked the applicant if the lease specified that use of the building
was to be limited to this use. Mr. Kennedy responded that the lease, as it is
written, does so.
Chairman Nunnley suggested voting on the application as filed and then having
further discussion if it fails. Commissioner Faust commented that she was not
comfortable with that proposal. After further discussion, Commissioner Faust
asked if there was anything in the ordinance that precluded the Commission
granting an extension and then revisiting the issue at a later date, up to a total of
2 years. Ms. Dawson responded that there was no language in the ordinance
permitting bringing the item back.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7518
9
Commissioner Rector stated he saw a two-fold problem. First, the Commission
did not have enough information to make a hard and fast decision on
amortization; and second, since the Commission was confused on the issue, it
was no wonder the applicant did not know what information to bring. He stated
he was grasping at how to vote on the issue without that information.
Mr. Lawson read the applicant’s request and stated it was his interpretation that
the applicant was asking for the maximum allowable time extension.
Chairman Nunnley stated this was a unique circumstance brought on by a
unique action of the Board. He stated he was willing to vote on the issue.
Ms. Dawson stated there was nothing to prevent the Commission from asking
the applicant if he was willing to provide additional information. In response to
that question from Commissioner Rector, Mr. Kennedy stated the applicant
would have to consider the request.
Commissioner Faust asked the applicant if he was willing to come back before
the Commission to make his case and to make it more clear. Chairman Nunnley
stated the applicant had made the case he wanted to make. He stated it was up
to the Commission to take the information they had and to vote.
Commissioner Floyd commented that this Ordinance had been drafted to
emulate Ordinances that had withstood court action. He stated the applicant had
made his presentation and the Commission should vote.
Commissioner Rector stated there had to be some period of time that was
reasonable. A motion was made and seconded to approve a 21-month time
extension from August 4, 2003. After a brief discussion, a vote was taken. The
vote was 5 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (Meyer). The motion failed.
A motion was then made and seconded to approve a 9-month extension from
August 4, 2003. After a brief discussion, the motion and second were withdrawn.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-7501 & Z-7502
Owner: Various
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Location: McLean to Bond Streets, North of 6th Street to Arkansas
River (less PZDs and PR zoned land)
Area: 46 acres more or less
Request: To rezone from I-3, I-2, C-3 and R-4 to UU
Purpose: Redevelopment to Office, Retail, Residential and
Mixed Uses
Existing Use: Industrial, warehouse, distribution, residential, commercial
and undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – The Arkansas River (not zoned) and Heifer International (POD)
South – Heavy Industrial (zoned I-3); Vacant land (zoned R4-A)
East – Churches, homes, vacant land (zoned R-4 and C-3)
West – Warehouse distribution (Zoned Urban Use)
A. STREET ELEMENT:
1. There is a Master Street Plan classified minor arterial with modified
standards, which goes along or near the area. In addition Bond Street
along the eastern edge of the zoning area is classified as a collector.
Dedication of right-of-way and street improvements to Master Street
Plan standard will be required upon redevelopment of the adjacent
land to these roads.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The area is located near Bus Route 12 – East Sixth.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7501 & Z-7502
2
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The forty-one (41) property owners in the affected area were notified. The
City published a map with the legal description of the changes. Notices
were mailed to surrounding residents and businesses as well as the
Hanger Hill and East Little Rock Neighborhood Association of the
proposed rezoning.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-30 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Mixed Use Urban for this property. The applicant has applied for
“UU” Urban Use for redevelopment of the area into office, retail,
residential and mixed uses.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area not covered by a City Recognized
Action Plan. However to East of I-30 Study presented by the Mayor to the
Little Rock Board of Directors in the summer of 2002 recommended the
area be reclassified to Urban Use. The study recommended a “pedestrian
oriented urban area with a mix of uses” for the area.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
The area under consideration for zoning to Urban Use is the remaining
two blocks east and south of the Presidential Park and Heifer International
sites. In 2000, the Urban Use classification was established and most of
downtown Little Rock was rezoned to Urban Use. The area west of
McLean to Interstate 30 was included in the 2000 rezoning.
With the selection of over 50 acres of industrial land for the Presidential
Park and Library as well as the world headquarters for Heifer
International, a significant land use change was made. The area between
Interstate 30 and Bond had historically been industrial. With placement of
these two major uses east of Interstate 30 increased interest in non-
industrial use of the area has begun.
In early 2002 under the direction of the Mayor, City Staff began a review
of the area east of Interstate 30 to the airport. The “East of I-30” Study
looked at land use, transportation and recreation. Particular attention was
placed on the areas south and east of the Presidential Park site. In order
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7501 & Z-7502
3
to allow property owners to take advantage of the new uses, an alternative
to the existing heavy industrial zoning needed to be found.
The “East of I-30” Study completed in mid-2002 recommended the heavy
industrial uses be kept south of 6th Street. Those industrial as well as
residential areas north of 6th were recommended for an “urban mixed use
pattern”. The intent was to extend the mix of uses developing just west of
I-30 around the Presidential Park and Heifer sites. Additional meetings
were held in both the Hanger Hill and East Little Rock neighborhoods on
the changes.
The Urban Use zoning does not forbid most of the current uses but rather
increases the redevelopment options to the current owners. With the
Presidential Library Park and Heifer International projects under
construction, individuals are seriously looking at this area for various new
uses. By approving the proposed change, the City is maximizing the
benefits of these two projects not only for the current property owners but
for the City as a whole.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff, reviewed the request to the reclassify Industrial
and R-4, Duplex zoned land to Urban Use. This is the two blocks east and south
of the Presidential Library and Heifer projects. These projects have started a
change from industrial. Today’s reclassification is to allow expanded
redevelopment options to the property owners. Mr. Malone reminded the
Commission that this was a continuation of the East of I-30 Study.
Cindy Sheridan of 507 Bond indicated she had questions; such as, would they
have to move. Mr. Malone indicated this item did not change her property, east
of Bond. Rather reclassified property across the street on the west side of Bond.
However Item 22 does affect her property. Chairman Nunnley asked Mr. Malone
to discuss the proposals with Ms. Sheridan.
Commissioner Rector moved the approval of the Urban Use reclassification. By
a vote of 9 for 0 against the item was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 21.1 FILE NO.: Z- 7501 CUP & Z-7502 CUP
Owner: Various
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Locations: 405 Shall Street, 409 Shall, 1609 E. 3rd Street, 1520 E. 4th
Street, 1515 E. 4th Street, 1500 E. 2nd Street
Request: Conditional Use Permit for I-2 Uses
Purpose: Continued use for Industrial, warehouse, and distribution
uses
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – The Arkansas River (not zoned) and Heifer International (POD)
South – Heavy Industrial (zoned I-3); Vacant land (zoned R4-A)
East – Churches, homes, vacant land (zoned R-4 and C-3)
West – Warehouse distribution (Zoned Urban Use)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The sites are in an area, which has been historically industrial in nature. The
areas to the west across interstate 30 have changed from industrial to
commercial, office and residential uses. A little over fifty acres of former
industrial land east of interstate 30 along the Arkansas River to 3rd Street is
being converted to public, open space and office uses. The remaining couple of
blocks to the south and east are predominately industrial warehouse in nature.
However, due to the recent changes described above the City has rezoned the
area from predominately I-3, Heavy Industrial and I-2, Light Industrial to UU,
Urban Use. This was done to encourage and allow further redevelopment, with
the hope of more office retail and residential development.
Though the City and many property owners would like to redevelop and further
reinvestment in the area, no one has suggested forcing the current uses to
move. Thus as part of the City’s effort to expand and encourage redevelopment,
current uses have been offered the opportunity to request a Conditional Use for
Industrial Uses. This has been done to try to protect the current owners
investments in the current uses of the land and buildings in the area.
The following are those property owners who have requested their property be
granted a Conditional Use Permit to continue the current use for their property.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7501 CUP& Z-7502 CUP
2
Z-7501-A Stephens CUP
This is a request for industrial, warehouse and outdoor storage of
equipment and materials. The property is located at 409 Shall Street. It
was zoned I3, Heavy Industrial prior to the City’s effort to zone the areas
north of 6th Street to Urban Use. The uses requested require a
Conditional Use under Urban Use zoning. This is an existing use and no
changes have been requested with the CUP request.
Z-7501-B Ace CUP
This is a request for fabrication of building materials as well as storage
and loading of these materials and supplies. The property is located at
405 Shall Street and between 409 Shall and 1330 East 6th Street. It was
zoned I3 Heavy Industrial prior to the City’s effort to zone the areas north
of 6th Street to Urban Use. The uses requested require a Conditional Use
under Urban Use zoning. This is an existing use and no changes have
been requested with the CUP request.
Z-7502-A TCT CUP
This is a request for freight storage and distribution. The property is
located at 1609 East 3rd Street. It was zoned I-2, Light Industrial prior to
the City’s effort to zone the areas north of 6th Street to Urban Use. The
uses requested require a Conditional Use under Urban Use zoning. This
is an existing use and no changes have been requested with the CUP.
Z-7502-B Three State CUP
This is a request for a distribution and warehouse use. The property is
located at 1520 East 4th Street. It was zoned I-2, Light Industrial prior to
the City’s effort to zone the areas north of 6th Street to Urban Use. The
uses requested require a Conditional Use under Urban Use zoning. This
is an existing use and no changes have been requested with the CUP.
Z-7502-C Twin City Beverage CUP
This is a request for a distribution and warehouse use. The property is
located at 1515 East 4th Street. It was zoned I-3, Heavy Industrial prior to
the City’s effort to zone the areas north of 6th Street to Urban Use. The
uses requested require a Conditional Use under Urban Use zoning. This
is an existing use and no changes have been requested with the CUP.
Z-7502-D Dempsey CUP
This is a request for a distribution and warehouse use. The property is
located at 1500 East 2nd Street. It was zoned I-2, Light Industrial and I-3,
Heavy Industrial prior to the City’s effort to zone the areas north of 6th
Street to Urban Use. The uses requested require a Conditional Use
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7501 CUP& Z-7502 CUP
3
under Urban Use zoning. This is an existing use and no changes have
been requested with the CUP.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff, as part of the item 21 discussion indicated the
existing industrial (warehouse or light fabrication) businesses would be granted
conditional uses to remain “legal”. Though without this action they would have
been “grandfathered” as legally nonconforming.
Commissioner Rector moved the approval of the conditional use permits. By a
vote of 9 for 0 against and 2 absent the item was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 22 PRESIDENTIAL PARK OVERLAY
Owner: Various
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Location: The area bounded by the Arkansas River on the north to
Bond Street (including 150 east of Bond), hence south to 6th
Street (including 150 south of 6th Street), hence west to
College Street (including 150 east of College), hence north
to 9th Street, hence west to Interstate 30, hence north to the
Arkansas River
Area: 188.5± acres
Request: Implement a permanent Overlay for the area
Purpose: To assure redevelopment in the area is compatible and
additive to the Presidential Park and Heifer International
projects
Existing Use: Industrial, warehouse, distribution, residential, commercial
and undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – The Arkansas River (not zoned)
South – Heavy Industrial (zoned I-3) east of College; Single Family with a
small amount of Office and Commercial uses (zoned R-4)
East – Churches, homes, vacant land (zoned R-4)
West – Mix of urban uses (zoned UU)
A. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
2. There is a minor arterial with modified design standards, which goes
through the area (3rd and 6th Streets). In addition there are several
collectors: Bond Street along the eastern edge, 9th Street along the
northern edge, and College Street along the northeastern edge of the
area. Dedication of right-of-way and street improvements to Master
Street Plan standard will be required upon redevelopment of the
adjacent land to these roads.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) PRESIDENTIAL PARK OVERLAY
2
3. Existing public transportation is supplied by two bus routes: Bus Route
12 -- East Sixth, running through the area and Bus Route 20 – College
Station running along 9th Street to the south.
B. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
As part of the ‘East of I-30’ Study in late 2002, the proposal for an Overlay
in this area was presented to property owners in and around the area. A
group of Citizens representing various interests was formed in early 2003
to develop the Overlay. The group notified property owners within the
area of the concepts under consideration in mid-summer 2003. Notices of
this Public Hearing were mailed to all property owners. The Hanger Hill
and East Little Rock Neighborhood as well as the Downtown Partnership
were notified of the proposed Overlay.
C. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-30 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Mixed Use Urban for the property within the Overlay area. An
Overlay considers design not use of the land.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area not covered by a City Recognized
Action Plan. However the ‘East of I-30’ Study presented by the Mayor to
the Little Rock Board of Directors in the summer of 2002 recommended
the area have an Overlay to “develop a strong urban feeling with
streetscape…”.
D. STAFF ANALYSIS:
The area under consideration for the ‘Presidential Park Overlay’ is east of
I-30 surrounding the Presidential Park and Heifer International sites. In
early 2002 under the direction of the Mayor, City Staff began a review of
the area east of Interstate 30 to the airport. The “East of I-30” Study
looked at land use, transportation and recreation. Particular attention was
placed on the areas south and east of the Presidential Park site. The
desire was to create an atmosphere not unlike that in the ‘River Market’
District.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) PRESIDENTIAL PARK OVERLAY
3
In March of 2003 the Land Use and Master Street Plan changes
recommended in the ‘East of I-30’ Study were taken to the Board of
Directors for consideration. Due to concerns about land speculation
already occurring around the Presidential Park site, it was decided to
implement an overlay around the site immediately. The overlay restricted
heights to 35 feet and required a Planned Zoning District to assure
development did not hide, overshadow or negatively impact the
Presidential Park or surrounding areas. However the overlay was to be
temporary while a more thorough review was completed.
A committee of citizens representing various interests was put together.
The committee decided streetscape, building height, parking areas and
signage should be reviewed. The concepts for standards on each issue
were mailed to property owners in the area for their comments (mid-
summer 2003). With a few comments received the committee began
drafting an overlay with a couple of over-riding considerations guiding
them. The intent of the overlay is to create a quality vital pedestrian
friendly atmosphere for businesses and residents. Further the overlay is
to prevent potential developments, which might negatively impact the
area.
The streetscape proposed is intended to draw elements of the
Presidential Park out into the neighborhood thus helping connect the two.
Several streets were identified for special treatments: 3rd, 6th, 9th, Bond
and College Streets. These streets are considered gateways or entries
into the area and more particularly to the Presidential Park and Heifer
International sites. As a result there are some special requirements on
each of these streets on setback, delivery/service areas and parking.
Environmentally friendly surfaces are encouraged for paved areas and
signage is desired to include common elements.
The Overlay section “Purpose and Intent” spells out the reasons for the
Overlay and what it hopes to achieve. The “Boundaries” section outlines
the boundary of the area covered by the overlay. The “Application of
Regulations” section tells one when the standards outline come into play,
that these regulations have priority over other zoning regulations, and
conforming status. These sections are the general administrative
sections.
The “Sidewalks and Landscape” section provides the standards for Urban
Use and the ‘special corridor’ streets. There are three trees required for
the area. These trees are all found in the Presidential Park and on the
City approved street tree list. The street furniture required is the same as
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) PRESIDENTIAL PARK OVERLAY
4
that used in the Presidential Park. The sidewalk standards are the same
as those of the River Market District. The intent of this section is to help
provide a connection between the Presidential Park and neighborhood via
the streetscape.
The “Vehicular Use and Service Areas” section allows the option of using
porous material to conserve natural resources and minimize flooding and
pollution issues. This is in keeping with the design efforts of the Heifer
International site. The service and loading dock areas are not to be
placed on one of the “special streets”. This is to help keep them
pedestrian friendly and encourage continuous block faces.
The “Use Regulations” section is to allow outdoor seating areas in the
Urban Use zone. The “Height Regulations” section is designed to achieve
two things. First in the eastern two blocks, to limit building height to that
of the building height east of Bond. Since the area east of Bond is low
density residential these two blocks act as a transition to them from the
greater density allowed further to the west. Second in the areas south
and west of the Presidential Park and Heifer International sites, the base
height shall be two stories lower than that typical for Urban Use. Due to
the nature of these two major developments a slightly lower base height
was felt to be preferable. There was a desire to encourage residential in
the overlay area. To this end the height bonus for residential has a
threshold twice that in the typical Urban Use (40 rather than 20 percent).
The story maximum was removed from UU within the overlay area, using
only building height.
The “Setback” section first subsection is designed to make the areas of
mixed zoning Urban Use and something else have consistent setbacks
along these streets. The second subsection is to assure that
development east of the Heifer International site is setback from the
‘World Village’ proposed by Heifer International.
The “Parking” section is designed to keep a pedestrian friendly block face,
which is more likely to be continuous. The “Signage” section is designed
to keep some common themes in the signs throughout the overlay area.
Finally the “Exception” section calls for any development not wishing to
follow all the regulations in the overlay to use the Planned Zoning District
process. This will require that the applicant go before both the Little Rock
Planning Commission and Board of Directors if they wish to modify the
standards.
The Committee’s hope is that the Overlay together with Urban Use zoning
will encourage redevelopment of the blocks surrounding the Presidential
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) PRESIDENTIAL PARK OVERLAY
5
Park and Heifer International sites. In this redeveloped area there would
be a mix of uses: office, commercial and residential. The area would
have a vital active urban feel to complete the 50-acre development known
as the Heifer International headquarters and Presidential Library and
Park.
After weeks of debate the committee developed a draft for the
Presidential Park Overlay. The draft has been distributed to property
owners prior to the Public Hearing on the issue before the Little Rock
Planning Commission.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval, with the removal of the requirement of
signage font type.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff, gave a general overview. Mr. Malone indicated
most of the issues were related to the “signage” section of the overlay. The
Committee had wanted a “common signage” in the area. The type of font and
letter size seems to be the main issues.
In addition, the property at the southeast corner of Bond and 6th Streets has
asked to be removed from the overlay. Staff is supportive of this request. Staff
further recommends approval of the overlay with the removal of the sentence
requiring a specific font type.
Commissioner Muse, indicated as one on the committee, he would like to see
the font stay in the overlay. Maybe above a certain height, the overlay
requirements would not take effect. Mr. Malone elaborated some on this point.
Commissioner Rector asked to explain the sign requirements beyond the
citywide requirements. Mr. Malone indicated they were listed as “A” through “D”
in the sign section.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the “in-lieu” requirements within the
landscape section. Mr. Malone indicated the dollar amounts still had to be
generated and would be prior to submission to the Board of Directors.
Mrs. James Spears, owner of the northeast corner Bond/6th Street, asked to not
have the signage requirements placed on his property. Mrs. Spears reviewed his
efforts to “clean-up” the property and area. He indicated this requirement would
make it harder to sell his “C-3” zoned property.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) PRESIDENTIAL PARK OVERLAY
6
The property has become more valuable and these regulations will make it
harder to sell the land thus negatively impacting the value.
Commissioner Muse pointed out the PZD section of the overlay to allow for
exceptions. Mrs. Spears indicated that would help.
Mr. Clay Stone, an attorney representing Arkansas Democrat Gazette reviewed
the issues from their letter. There is agreement with Staff on the following,
existing loading dock can stay (grandfather) and “grandfather” principal in
general will occur and finally that Staff recommends “Franklin Gothic”
requirement be removed. The fourth issue in the letter is the height of lettering
for signage. Mr. Malone clarified that a new sign would have to meet the new
requirements.
Commissioners Faust and Muse discussed with Mr. Stone the use of PZD
process for exceptions. Chairman Nunnley questioned replacing signs. There
was discussion with staff on this issue. Mr. Stone asked to keep the signage
section at the Commission now and approve only the other sections currently.
Commissioner Muse stated that the signage requirements should be kept at the
street level. Commissioner Faust agreed with the height change and reminded
everyone to remember there are remedies available. There was some
discussion among the Commissioners on the sign issue and involvement.
Richard Hall, owner at the southeast corner of Bond and 6th Street, wishes to be
excluded from the overlay.
Mr. Malone reviewed staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Rector indicated
new wording of the height section. Commissioner Rector moved approval with
the change he previously read and excluding Mr. Hall’s property. By a vote of
8 for 0 against the amended overlay was approved.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 23 MIDTOWN OVERLAY
Owner: Various
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Location: The area bounded by McKinley on the west to Father
Tribou/Lee Avenue, hence east to Fillmore Street, hence
south to Markham Street, hence west to University Avenue,
hence south to Interstate 630, hence west to the McKinley
Area: 10.1± acres
Request: Establish an Overlay for the area
Purpose: To assure redevelopment in the area is of a neo-traditional
pedestrian friendly form and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods
Existing Use: Commercial (zoned C3), residential (zoned R3 and R5) and
medical related uses (zoned C3)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Catholic High School (zoned R2 with CUP) a few small office uses
(zoned O3) and single family homes (zoned R3)
South – St Vincent Medical Center (zoned O2), War Memorial Park (zoned
PR), Hotel and commercial uses (zoned I2 and C3) with a few
single family homes (zoned R2)
East – Single Family (zoned R3) and Multi-family homes (zoned R5) and
War Memorial Park (zoned PR)
West – Multi-family (zoned R5 and R4) and single family homes (zone R2)
A. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
1. Both Markham and University Avenue are classified as Arterials.
Markham is a Minor Arterial and University Avenue is a Principal
Arterial. Lee Avenue is classified as a Collector. Dedication of right-
of-way and street improvements to Master Street Plan standard will be
required upon redevelopment of the adjacent land to these roads.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) MIDTOWN OVERLAY
2
2. Existing public transportation is supplied by four bus routes: Bus Route
5 – West Markham, running through the area and Bus Route 17 –
Mabelvale-downtown running through the southern part of the area,
and Bus Route 21 – University running along University Avenue.
B. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The citizen group working on setting up a redevelopment district for the
University/Markham area began work on a set of design standards for the
area. Two public meetings were held at Fletcher Library on H Street to
receive comment from property owners of the area. Notice of the Public
Hearing before the Planning Commission was sent the property owners
within the area as well as the Neighborhood Associations surrounding the
area.
C. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Heights-Hillcrest and West Little Rock
Planning Districts. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use north of
Markham and west of University, Commercial south of Markham and west
of University and Mixed Use, Office and Multifamily north of Markham and
east of University. An Overlay considers design not use of the land.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by three plans: the
Midtown Neighborhoods Plan, Briarwood Area Neighborhood Plan and
Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan, a blueprint of our community.
The Midtown Neighborhoods Plan includes a recommendation to work
toward the implementation of the ULI Midtown Study, which recommends
special design considerations for this area. The Briarwood Area
Neighborhood Plan does not include any recommendations, which directly
relate to this issue. Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan calls for development in
this area that is in character with the Hillcrest area, and strengthens
adjacent residential areas.
D. STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Board of Directors established a redevelopment district for the
midtown area in March of 2003. The working group, who had been
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) MIDTOWN OVERLAY
3
meeting to develop boundaries for the Midtown Redevelopment District,
also had developed some general design concepts for the area. These
concepts were based on the ULI—Midtown Study.
The group decided they needed to develop recommendations on
governance for the district and design standards. A sub-committee was
formed to develop a draft overlay based on the concepts. After several
weeks the sub-committee had a draft ready for comments.
Two public meetings were held at Fletcher Library on H Street to receive
comment from property owners of the area. These meeting were held in
August 2003. Representatives of the committee and City Staff were
available to discuss issues related to the district and overlay. Minor
changes were made to the draft overlay over the next month or so.
The intent of the overlay is to assure that if and when the area redevelops
it will have a character similar to that recommended in the ULI-Midtown
Study. That is, pedestrian neo-traditional in character. The draft is based
on the assumption that the district will help provide common public areas,
both transportation/parking and open space/recreation.
The design of any new development in the area needs to not only be
pedestrian friendly but also compatible with the neighborhoods to the
north, east and west. Scale of buildings, connections to the
neighborhoods as well and other aesthetic issues are important. The
overlay is an attempt to address this issue.
The ‘Purpose and Intent’ section describes why the overlay is needed and
what it is designed to achieve, a more pedestrian vital area. The
‘Boundaries’ section outlines the area within which the overlay is effective,
McKinley to Fillmore between I-630 and Lee Avenue except for the St
Vincent/War Memorial area. The ‘Application of Regulations’ section
indicates when the regulations take effect and grandfather issues.
The ‘Sidewalk’ section clarifies that all sidewalks shall be five foot wide
and on both sides of roads. The ‘Streets’ section is designed to keep
roads narrow and blocks short. It also encourages alleys and minimizes
curb cuts.
The ‘Parking’ section reduces the parking standards in the district and
alters the off-site parking standards. Parking facilities, surface or
structure, are provided with additional standards. Surface parking may
not be in front, while structure parking is to have a first level, which is non-
vehicular in nature.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) MIDTOWN OVERLAY
4
The ‘Utilities and Services’ addresses the location and standards for
dumpsters. Screening is addressed, as is the requirement for
underground utilities. The ‘Building Form’ section delineates the front
faced requirements as well as the reduced setback requirements.
The ‘Large Building Requirement’ is designed to allow large mass
structures, while requiring that the mass be architecturally divided up to
appear less massive. The roofline, flat walls, colors and materials are all
reviewed in an attempt to minimize the impact of massive structures and
large amounts of parking.
The ‘Landscape’ section reduces some of the landscape requirements in
favor of the ‘authority’ providing larger open space areas. The ‘Signage’
section is designed to produce more pedestrian oriented signage. The
‘Lighting’ section requires that outdoor lighting be designed to light only
their site and not ‘wash over’ on to adjacent properties,
In general, the overlay standards should alter the commercial and office
development standards of the zoning ordinance in such a way as to
produce a more pedestrian oriented ‘traditional’ development pattern.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Mr. Richard Downing, chair of Midtown Group, described the location of the
Midtown area, Markham/University area. He provided background on the effort,
with two items for today, overlay and governance. Mr. Berry and Mr. Malone will
discuss the overlay and Mr. Spradley and Commissioner Rector will present the
governance recommendations. Mr. Downing then reviewed the process of public
involvement used in their development.
Walter Malone, Planning Staff, reviewed the intent of the overlay. Mr. Malone
indicated what an “overlay” was and was not. In this case, the overlay tries to
create a redevelopment atmosphere which is more pedestrian oriented such as
suggested in the “ULI” Report.
Craig Berry, chair of Design Sub-Group of the Midtown Group, presented several
slides. These slides indicated the things trying to be achieved, some
cost/benefits of the regulations and illustrations of some of the standards.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) MIDTOWN OVERLAY
5
Mr. Mark Spradley, Midtown Group, presented the governance proposals to the
Commission – reviewing a draft “Resolution”. Mr. Spradley reviewed the
membership makeup of the proposed seven member board.
Commissioner Allen asked the makeup of the Committee. Mr. Spradley
described the seven members (4 business owners, 1 city official, 1 school, and
1 citizen within 2 miles).
Commissioner Faust commended the group who worked on this effort by saying
these are good proposals.
Commissioner Rector moved approval of the overlay. By a vote of 9 for
0 against (2 absent) the Overlay was approved. Commissioner Rector moved
the approval of the governance resolution. By a vote of 9 for 0 against the
motion was approved.
October 30, 2003
1
ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: 299
NAME: Dyke Annexation
REQUEST: Accept the annexation of 368± Acres
LOCATION: West of I-430 between David O Dodd and Crystal Valley Roads
SOURCE: The Hathaway Group agent for property owner
GENERAL INFORMATION:
• The County Judge approved the annexation on August 28, 2003.
• The area requested for annexation currently is wooded with an 18.5+ acre
lake in the northern section of the area.
• There is only one owner, Dyke Industries, Inc.
• The annexation request is to obtain City Services (sewer).
• The Site in question is generally rectangular in shape. North-south it
covers over a section and east-west it extents three-quarters of a section.
Total area is approximately 368 acres.
• No Islands would be created by this annexation.
• Currently the property is zoned R-2 Single Family. The applicant has
indicated that the future development will be residential.
• The property owner has expressed a desire to develop the site.
AGENCY COMMENTS:
Public Safety:
Fire: The Fire Department reports that the area is beyond the limits for driving
distance from any existing station. To annex this property could cause a
reduction in the City of Little Rock’s ISO rating, thus effecting the fire
insurance rates of all those in the City. The Department can not
recommend the annexation of this area.
The closest stations are Station 14, 8121 Colonel Glenn Road (Asher
Avenue) and Station 18, 11500 Mabelvale West Road. Each of these
stations is over 4 driving miles from the area requested for annexation. In
fact, Station 18 is almost five driving miles from the closest part of the site.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299
2
Police: No comment received. The annexation area would be part of the
southwest patrol area if annexed. More particularly the area would
become part of Patrol District 90. If the patrol car for this district were to
travel along Colonel Carl Miller Road (to the southwest) as well as the
Crystal Valley Manor Subdivision (to the southeast), it would currently
have to pass by the annexation area. Until development, there will only
be 266 feet for street or street frontage in the annexation area.
Infrastructure and Community Facilities:
Central Arkansas Transit: No comment received. There is not a Bus route near
the site of the proposed annexation. Two bus routes exist approximately 2
miles from the area. One (Route 14) is to the northeast, with the closest
point the Colonel Glenn/Shackleford intersection. The second (Route 17)
is to the southeast, with the closest point Southwest Hospital across I-430
and I-30 from the area.
Parks & Recreation: No comment received. The 2001 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan designates McHenry Creek area for the “Take it to the
Extreme Trail” for hiking, biking and equestrian trails. Currently the area
requesting annexation is outside the ‘8 Block’ radius to an open space or
recreational area. If the “Take it to the Extreme Trail” is developed
through the area, part of the deficiency will be handled. There will be a
need for additional recreational areas within or near the annexation area
to achieve the ‘8 Block’ strategy of the 2001 Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
Public Works: The Solid Waste Division of Public Works has no issues or
concerns about the proposed annexation. The Traffic Engineering
Division reports that at full development there would be an annual cost to
the City of $11,400 for streetlights. This assumes a density of 4 units per
acre, with the developer indicating a density closer to 1 and a quarter units
per acre.
No structures currently exist, therefore there will be no garbage pick-up
required initially. Since there are no roads within the annexation area,
initially there will be no street maintenance required initially.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299
3
Utilities:
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water indicates that the development
should have only minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
New facilities to serve the area will have to be sized and built per CAW
requirements by the developer. This may include some off-site
improvements.
There is an existing 16-inch water line at David O Dodd to the northeast of
the site. Several 12-inch lines exit to the south and southeast of the site.
The developer will have to extend service lines to and into the annexation
to provide service.
Entergy: No comment received. There are utility poles along the roads adjacent
to the annexation area.
Reliant-Energy: No comment received.
Wastewater Utility: The Wastewater Utility indicated they have no objection to
the annexation and that sewer main extensions would be required at the
developer’s expense to serve this area.
The area is within sewer basin 142. A 12-inch sewer main is along
McHenry Creek as it passes under Interstate 430. The developer of the
area would have to extend the McHenry line to and into the site at their
cost.
Schools:
Little Rock District: The Little Rock School District has no concerns or
issues about the requested annexation. The area is not within the Little
Rock School District.
Pulaski County Special District: No comment received. The area is within
the Pulaski County Special School District. Attendance zones for this
area are: Baker Elementary, Joe T Robison Middle School and Joe T
Robinson Senior High School.
ANALYSIS:
This site is within the City of Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction. The City currently
exercises both subdivision and zoning jurisdiction over this land. The area is
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299
4
zoned R2, Single Family. Whether annexed or not with the area zoned as it
currently is, one could legally subdivide this acreage into over 2000 single-family
lots (7000 square foot lots). If the area were not annexed, due to limitations of
septic systems the site would likely only be divided into between 70 to 120 lots (3
to 5 acre tracts). Due to the topography and natural features of the land the
owner has indicated that the area would be developed into only single family
homes with a maximum number of units in the neighborhood of 500.
The site is currently heavily wooded, with two ridgelines in a northwest to
southeast orientation. Gardner Company Lake is in the northern section of the
annexation area, it lies between the two ridgelines. The stream that flows from
Gardner Company Lake moves northeast to empty into McHenry Creek.
McHenry flows to the southeast moving under I-430 and Stagecoach Road
before emptying into the Fourche Creek. Two smaller tributaries of Fourche
Creek flow parallel to McHenry Creek with a ridgeline separating each stream.
The streams as well as the ridges run in a northwest to southeast direction.
The land varies from a low of around 320 feet to a high of approximately 460
feet. The southwestern ridge reaches highs of around 460 feet with the
northeastern ridge reaching heights of around 450 feet. Each of the ridgelines
has steep slopes. There is a Floodplain along McHenry Creek, which includes
the northeast corner of the annexation area. Since the area is outside the City
Limits there is no defined Floodway. There may well be a very small amount of
Floodway at the extreme northeast corner of the annexation area.
The only current street access shall be Crystal Valley Road approximately a half-
mile east of Colonel Carl Miller Road. The Master Street Plan however shows
several additional roads, which would provide access to the area under
consideration. First the Master Street proposes a north-south arterial
approximately along the eastern boundary of this property. This road would be a
continuation of David O Dodd to Crystal Valley Road at Stagecoach Road. The
resulting road would start at Hinson Road as Napa Valley Road changing to
Bowman Road at MaraLynn Road, again changing name just at Colonel Glenn
Road to David O Dodd Road and finally Crystal Valley Road at Stagecoach
Road. An east-west arterial is proposed to intersect the David O Dodd/Crystal
Valley Road arterial in the southeast section of this annexation area. The road
would be an extension of Crystal Valley Road, which runs along the northern
section lines of Sections 31 & 32 Township 1 North, Range 13 West.
The City Land Use Plan recommends Single Family development of the area
under consideration. The Plan has not been reviewed in this area in some time.
The current zoning for the area is R2, Single Family. The property owner has
indicated that the development plan for the area is residential.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299
5
This annexation area is adjacent to sections of Little Rock, which though in the
City Limits for several decades, have not development significantly. Over the
last couple of years interest in development has began. Several preliminary and
final plats for residential subdivisions have been filed with the City for areas to
the northeast and east of this annexation area. A new multi-screen theater and
other commercial uses have been built about a mile and half to the north east of
the area. Development interest and pressure appears to be building in the areas
to the northeast and east.
To the south and southwest, the Otter Creek Subdivision and related
subdivisions have experienced significant increases in the number of units
permitted in the last decade. Several apartment developments have been
constructed along Stagecoach Road to the south and Colonel Carl Miller Road at
Baseline Road to the southwest of the annexation area. In addition to these
residential developments there has been retail and shopping development both
at Baseline and Stagecoach Roads as well as around Otter Creek Boulevard and
Stagecoach Road.
The roads that service the annexation are currently two lane rural construction
type roads. Crystal Valley Road is well below the design capacity of the current
road. However Baseline Road, which Crystal Valley Road feeds, is nearing
capacity. David O. Dodd Road is at less than a quarter of the capacity of its
current design – 2 lanes. Both of these roads are beyond the annexation area,
but are the route anyone would have to take either to or from the area.
Since the developer is still determining the type of homes they will build, only an
approximate impact on the roads and other services can be determined. We will
assume that the 500 maximum indicated by the developer will be the
development density for the annexation area. To determine the development
rate, development in Planning Districts 16, 17 and 18 (Otter Creek, Ellis
Mountain and Crystal Valley Planning Districts) since 1990 was review versus
the development total for the City.
Just under a quarter of the new residential homes have been constructed in the
area south of Kanis Road and West of Bowman Road, including the Otter Creek
area. If we assume that no more than this level of activity will continue and that
no more than half of the activity from the overall area would occur in the
annexation area, an average of fifty homes per year would be built in the
annexation area.
Since there is no approved preliminary plat and the utilities and roads to connect
the annexation area to the ‘world’ must still be built, development of homes
should still be several years off. New home construction is not likely to start until
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299
6
at least 2005. At a rate of 50 units per year, with a maximum of 500 units, it
would take ten years for build-out.
If the annexation were approved, the area within Little Rock would increase
approximately 0.5 percent to 119.47 square miles.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral to allow additional time to review the fire safety and other issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
The item was placed on Consent Agenda for deferral to December 4, 2003. By
a vote of 9 for, 0 against (2 absent) the item was deferred.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 25
Name: 15901 Cantrell Road, lot 1,
Appeal Land Alteration Violation,
Chap 29-166
Location: Undeveloped lot at 15901 Cantrell Rd
in Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Bank of Little Rock, owner.
Request: Appeal Notice of Violation #117 for
conducting land alteration activities
without a grading permit.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Cantrell Road is a principal arterial. Seven Acres Drive is a
commercial street.
2. Development Potential and Land Use
This approximate 2.4 acre site fronts Cantrell Road and Seven Acres
Drive. The subject property is within a POD. The property to the west is
zoned R2. The adjacent businesses to the east and south are within the
same POD.
3. Neighborhood Position
Public Works has not received any inquiries.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In the middle of August, Public Works responded to a complaint that fill material
had been placed on property along Cantrell Road. Upon investigation, it was
discovered that approximately 1000 to 1500 yards of dirt and concrete debris
had been dumped on a lot owned by the Bank of Little Rock (the “Bank”).
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) Enforcement of the Land Alteration Regulations Sec 29-166
2
On August 20, 2003, Notice of Violation #117 (“NOV”) was issued to the Bank for
constructing more than 1000 cubic yards of fill material on the property without a
grading permit in violation of Little Rock Code Section 29-186(d)(2). As required
by Section 29-170(c), the NOV requires the property to be restored to its original
condition to the maximum extent practicable which would require removal of the
fill material.
The Bank has chosen to appeal the issuance of the NOV and the requirement to
remove the fill. The Bank has also asked that this item be deferred until the
December 4, 2003 Planning Commission meeting so that it can be considered
along with a proposed revision to the POD allowing a lot split.
Public Works supports the deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the
December 4, 2003 Agenda to correspond with a Planned Zoning Development
filed for the property.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 4, 2003 agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
The item was deferred.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: Z-7519
Owner: Judy Houser
Applicant: Jon Luer and Rollin Caristianos
Location: 10118 Colonel Glenn Road
Area: 1.967 acres
Request: Rezone from R-2 to I-1
Purpose: To recognize existing industrial development.
Existing Use: Office/Warehouse
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Office/warehouse; zoned I-1
South – Office/warehouse and undeveloped property (across Colonel
Glenn Road); zoned I-2 and R-2
East – Single family residences; zoned R-2
West – Industrial uses and single family residences; zoned I-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline
will be required.
2. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Sec. 8-283 prior to any future construction or improvements.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14 (Rosedale Route).
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow and
Westbrook Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7519
2
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for I-1
Industrial Park to recognize an existing industrial warehouse use.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Business and Commercial Goal
encourages the retention of existing businesses.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Judy Houser, owner of the 1.967 acre tract located at 10118 Colonel
Glenn Road, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family
Residential to “I-1” Industrial Park District to recognize the existing
office/warehouse building on the property. The property is located on the
north side of Colonel Glenn Road, approximately 0.17 mile east of
Shackleford Road.
The general area contains a mixture of residential and industrial uses.
There is an office/warehouse development immediately north of the site,
and to the south across Colonel Glenn Road. Single family residences
are located to the east, with additional residences and an industrial use
(landscape constructor) located to the west. There is also a large amount
of undeveloped property in the general area.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Light
Industrial. The requested I-1 zoning does not require a change to the
Land Use Plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to I-1. Staff feels that it is
appropriate to rezone the property to recognize the existing
office/warehouse use. The I-1 zoning district is a site plan review district,
and any redevelopment of the property must be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission. Staff feels that this is important given the
narrow width of the property and the fact that there is floodway/floodplain
located to the east and northeast. Issues related to drainage, storm water
detention, building setbacks, etc. can be addressed at the time of site plan
review. Staff feels that the requested I-1 zoning will be compatible with
October 30, 2003
ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7519
3
the general area, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-1 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 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 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The
application was approved.