HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_07 11 2002LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JULY 11,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number.
I I.Members Present:Judith Faust
Craig Berry
Fred Allen,Jr.
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Bob Lowry
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Members Absent:Rohn Muse
One (1)Open Position
City Attorney:Stephen Giles/Cindy Dawson
III.Approval of the Minutes of the April 25,2002 and May 23,2002
Meetings of the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes
were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
JULY 11,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.LU02-18-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District
from Low Density Residential to Multi-family —Located on the south side of West
Kanis Road at Rushmore Avenue
B.Capitol Hills Apartments Long-Form PD-R (Z-6120-E)—Located on the south side
of West Kanis Road at Rushmore Avenue
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-6120-F PRD Revocation and Rezoning to R-2
Tract C-1,Capitol Lakes Estates
MF-12 to R-2
Tract C-2,Capitol Lakes Estates
2.Z-7245 Harris Day Care Family Home —Special Use Permit
1903 S.Izard Street
3.Z-6378-A Blackthorn Subdivision PD-R,located north ofthe intersection of
Taylor Loop Road and Holmes Street
4.G-25-185 Rename Crenshaw Drive to Stanley Drive
5.Z-1652-B Horace Mann Magnet School-Conditional Use Permit
1000 East Roosevelt Road
6.Z-4463-D National CarWash —ConditionalUse Permit
8100 West Markham Street
7.Z-5579-A Pulaski Heights Elementaryand Middle Schools —Conditional
Use Permit
319 and 401N.Pine
8.Z-7243 Sanders Day Care —Conditional Use Permit
4202 East 35 Street (College Station)
9.Z-7244 St.Andrews A.M.E.Church Parking Lot —Conditional Use Permit
3000 —3004 M.L.King,Jr.Drive
Agenda,Page Two
I I.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.)
10.Z-6117-A Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
9101 Mabelvale Pike
11.Z-6125-B Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
4300 S.Shackleford Road
12.Z-6195-C Spring Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
8120 Scott Hamilton Drive
13.Z-7246 Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
711 S.Izard Street
14.G-23-315 Kentucky Street —Right-of-Way Abandonment
BA
R
R
E
T
T
RO
A
D
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
AR
K
A
N
S
P
g
It
e
m
s
04
0
0
,
'4
y
Z
43
«2
Cc
V
+
8
1-
4
3
0
KY
OI
7
-
6
2
WT
c
o.
IB
LE
E
Rl
is
a
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
MA
R
K
H
A
M
MA
R
K
M
1/
p
p
~g
ET
T
Y
UM
I
T
S
c*
1-
6
3
c
KA
N
I
S
I-
6
3
0
MR
S
12
T
H
I2
T
H
1
5
w
cc
E
ID
T
H
T"
cc
a
6
cP
'I
cc
WR
I
G
H
T
I
NW
A
c
TS
CI
R
I
M
,
1-
4
3
1
1
LA
W
S
O
N
+
I-
4
4
0
-4
IN
LA
WS
O
N
C
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
5 5
DA
V
I
D
5
3
IP
Lc
0
DO
D
D
65
T
H
i
65
T
H
RA
I
N
E
S
K
VA
L
L
E
Y
30
12
l
65
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
10
;
=
4.
A
EI
N
E
cc
TC
c
DI
X
O
N
36
5
0 YB
Q
OT
T
E
R
AB
E
L
V
A
L
E
MA
VA
CU
TO
F
F
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
~
ST
I
N
K
E
R
cc
45
VI
N
S
O
N
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
G
YE
R
SP
G
S
.
C
OF
F
CU
T
O
F
F
CU
T
O
F
F
OT
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
04
'
L
65
8
16
7
36
5
AS
H
E
R
PR
A
T
T
14
5
T
H
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
-
Re
z
o
n
i
n
g
—
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Us
e
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ju
l
y
21
,
20
0
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU02-18-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:West Kanis Road at Rushmore Avenue
Re&coast:Low Density Residential to Multi-family and Single Family
Source:Joe White,White -Daters 8 Associates
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Low
Density Residential to Multi-family and Single Family.The Multi-family category
accommodates residential development of ten (10)to thirty-six (36)dwelling
units per acre.The applicant wishes to develop the property for multi-family
housing.The Single Family category provides for single-family homes at
densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre.Such residential development
is typically characterized by conventional single family homes,but may also
include patio or garden homes and cluster homes,provided that the density
remain less than 6 units per acre.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include all of the area shown as Low Density Residential
along Cooper Orbit Road.The expansion of this application would amend the
Future Land Use plan to show Multi-family west of Cooper Orbit Road and Single
Family east of Cooper Orbit.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant land currently zoned MF-12 Multifamily and is
approximately 44.49+acres in size.The expanded area is vacant.land divided
into three different zones.Most of the area is zoned MF-12,the northeast corner
of the expanded area is zoned Planned Residential Development,while a strip of
land is zoned Open Space along the western boundary and extending east to
within 160 feet of Cooper Orbit Road.AII of the surrounding property is vacant
land zoned R-2 Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 3,2001,a change was made from Mixed Office Commercial,
Neighborhood Commercial,and Low Density Residential to Single Family in an
area bounded by Bowman Road,Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit Road,and Brodie
Creek starting about 2/3 of a mile east of the applicant's property.
On February 15,2000,a change was made from Single Family to Low Density
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-03
Residential at Westglen Drive about 1 mile northeast of the application area.
On March 2,1999,multiple changes were made from Low Density Residential,
Transition,and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family,Low Density
Residential,Mixed Office Commercial,and Suburban Office along Kanis Road
within a 1-mile radius of the study area.
On December 15,1998 a change was made from Single Family to Public
Institutional at 600 Kirby Road about 1 mile northeast of the amendment area.
On November 7,1996 a change was made from Single Family to Low Density
Multifamily resulting in the Low Density Residential currently shown for the
expanded area of review.
The applicant's property and the expanded area are shown as Low Density
Residential on the Future Land Use Plan.A strip of Park /Open Space is shown
along the flood plain of Brodie Creek and is located at the northeast corner of the
expanded area.The rest of the surrounding land is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
West Kanis Road is shown as an un-built Minor Arterial on the Master Street
Plan while Rushmore Avenue is an un-built standard residential street.Cooper
Orbit Road is shown as a Minor Arterial and is built as a rural two-lane road.A
Class III Bikeway is shown on Cooper Orbit Road from the Brodie Creek Trail to
Colonel Glenn Road.Brodie Creek trail is a dirt trail running parallel to the south
bank of Brodie Creek.Any development along Cooper Orbit Road would be
subject to half street improvements.West Kanis Road would be subject to half
street improvements while Rushmore Avenue would need to be built.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows the applicant's
property is located in a Service Deficit Area.Park facilities would need to be
developed to serve future developments located in this area.However,the
property in question is located near Brodie Creek,which is shown as a Potential
Greenbelt.This Potential Greenbelt serves as an area that may be used for
either recreational uses,and or open space opportunities.The Potential
Greenbelt also covers the flood plain of Brodie Creek,which is also shown as
Park /Open Space.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no City of Little Rock recognized historic districts that would be
affected by this amendment.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-03
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 property is located on top of a ridge in an undeveloped area at
the city limit.The nearest developments are located on Glisten Lane to the north
and Vista Drive to the south.New development located on the applicant's
property would be isolated from the neighboring developments due to
topography and vegetation.A change to Multi-Family would introduce
development at a location,which is isolated both physically and visually from the
nearest developments on Cooper Orbit Road.
Any development of this property would need to be sensitive to the topography of
the area and potential effects of storm run-off into Brodie Creek.Development
effecting Brodie Creek would influence the park and open space potential of the
Potential Greenbelt covering Brodie Creek.The land at the southeast corner of
Cooper Orbit Road and Brodie Creek is cleared where the Brodie Creek Trail
meets Cooper Orbit Road.However,most of the property along Brodie Creek is
undisturbed.Storm runoff from the applicant's property would flow into Brodie
Creek.
An increase in density will have an effect on area traffic by increasing the
number of trips generated in the area,increasing the use of Cooper Orbit Road.
An additional result of higher density could also increase the demand for utilities
in the area and place an extra burden on existing water,sewage,drainage,and
electrical lines in the area.The current utilities are designed to service the
current residential uses in the area and may need improvement to carry the extra
burden of higher density housing.However,higher density housing
developments generally have fewer occupants per unit and therefore have less
impact per dwelling unit on public services.
Originally the property in question was shown as Single Family when it was
annexed into the city.In 1996 the Future Land Use Plan was amended to Low
Density Multi-Family to accommodate a zoning request for MF-12 that was to be
——-located-at-the-intersection of the proposed Minor Arterial and Cooper Orbit Road.
When the land use categories were changed from Low Density Multi-Family to
Low Density Residential,the maximum allowable for LDR was set at 10 dwelling
units per acre.However,after the Land Use Plan categories were changed,the
zoning for the property in question remained MF-12 and allows a density of 12
dwelling units per acre for the applicant's property.A change to Multi-family
would increase the maximum density allowed to 36 dwelling units per acre.The
applicant wishes to develop multi-family housing west of Cooper Orbit Road with
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-03
a density of 16 dwelling units per acre.A change to single family east of Cooper
Orbit Road would reduce the maximum density allowed to 6 units per acre.A
change to Single Family east of Cooper Orbit Road would maintain a balance of
density so that the overall density of the entire area currently shown as Low
Density Residential would be maintained.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,and Spring
Valley Manor Property Owners Association.Staff has received two comments
from area residents.One is opposed to the change and one was neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.Due to the homogenous nature of the
housing in this area,a change to Multi-family west of Cooper Orbit Road would
diversify the types of residential land uses available for this area,while the
change to Single Family east of Cooper Orbit Road would maintain the overall
density of the entire amendment area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission.Donna
James made a presentation of items B and 1 so the discussion could coincide
with the discussion for item A.See item B for a complete discussion concerning
the Long Form Planned Development -Residential and item 1 for a Planned
Residential Development Revocation and zone change from MF-12 Multi-family
to R-2 Single Family.See items B and 1 for related information.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item was approved
with a vote of 8 ayes,1 no,1 absent,and 1 open position.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
NAME:Capitol Hills Apartments Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:South side of West Kanis Road at Rushmore Avenue
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
John W.Deldaren White-Daters and Associates
10605 Maumelle Blvd.¹24Rahling Circle
Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:31.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-12
ALLOWED USES:Multi-family;12 units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family;16.57 units per acre
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20,1996 the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone
42.58+acres from R-2,Single-family to MF-12,Multi-family.The rezoning
request was associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat,a 190 +acre
development (File No.S-1100).The property shown for Multi-family was located
in two tracts lying on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit
Road,south of a proposed minor arterial street.The application was the third
version of proposed multi-family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+acres at the southeast
corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF-18.Staff was not
supportive of the proposed density and the application drew opposition from the
residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision which is adjacent to the south.The
application was later withdrawn,at the Planning Commission,by the applicant.
The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+acres at the
intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor
arterial street from R-2 to MF-12.The proposed multi-family property was in two
tracts,a 27+acre tract lying south of the arterial street and a 7+acre tract lying
north of the arterial.The multi-family property was moved well north of the
Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported
this version.Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application.The
density had been reduced from MF-18 to MF-12.The proposed Multi-family
property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only
a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street and
an arterial street.There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis
Renewal Center.The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on
April 25,1996.The applicant continued to work with the Oasis Renewal Center
with their concern of locating the 7+acres of Multi-family property adjacent to
their site.After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center,the applicant
withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors'genda and filed a
third version of the proposed rezoning request.
The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+acres on either side of
the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road from R-2 to MF-12.The
proposed Multi-family property was in two tracts on either side of the new
alignment of Cooper Orbit Road,south of the proposed new arterial street.The
27+acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road
is the same as in the second (approved)application.The 7+acres which was
approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property)was
moved to a point south of the arterial,on the east side of the proposed alignment
of Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres.The 7+acres on the north
side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property)was to remain zoned R-2 and
was shown as a "reserved"tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat.
The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.17,312 rezoning the property
——from-R=2-to MF-12,with conditions,on November 7,1996.The conditions were
as follows:Any development which occurs on the property described as Tract C,
that tract located on the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125
dwelling units,Three acres within the property described as Tract C was to be
dedicated as Open Space and not developed,Capitol Lakes Estates was not to
be developed prior to implementation of sanitary sewer service,whether brought
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
about through formation of a new sewer improvement district,expansion or the
existing sewer improvement district or some other more feasible cooperative
alternative,and with respect to that portion of property zoned MF-12 which would
front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road,a twenty (20)foot natural buffer
was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned Cooper Orbit Road.
If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone,the regraded area within the
twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50)percent
greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance.The
rezoning contained Tract A,27.77 acres,from R-2,Single-family to MF-12 and
Tract C,14.81 acres,from R-2,Single-family to MF-12.
Ordinance No.18,496,in June of 2001,established a PRD titled Village on the
Lakes Long-form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the
14.81 acres).The development was proposed to be an attached single-family,
townhouse development;11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential
dwellings on 11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue.(A
proposed density of 5.3 units per acre.)
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property to Planned Development—
Residential to allow the development of a 528 unit apartment
development.The applicant is proposing the placement of 904 parking
spaces with the development.The site is currently zoned MF-12 as is
property located to the east.The applicant has filed a separate rezoning
request to rezone the property to the east from MF-12 to R-2 (File No.
Z-6120-F).
The applicant proposes the development to be constructed in three
phases with 156 units being constructed in Phase of One and Two and
216 units in the third and final phase.West Kanis Road and Rushmore
Avenue are currently under construction and will be completed with
Phase I.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the
site.The property is currently zoned MF-12 as is a smaller tract to the
-east.The remainder of the area is zoned R-2 with the exception of a PRD
located just east of the site.The Oasis Renewal Center is located
northeast of the site and the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located
south of the site.Cooper Orbit Road borders the eastern boundary of the
property.The roadway is a narrow unimproved roadway with deep
ditches in several locations.
3
July 11,20ud
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls from area
residents.The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association,the
Gibraltar Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and
the Parkway Place Property Owners Association,along with all residents,
who could be identified,within 300 feet of the site,and all property owners
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.West Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 50 feet from centerline will be
required.
2.Rushmore Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be
required.
3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half of a divided 4-lane parkway,one-half of a 14-foot
median,and 5-foot sidewalks with Planned Development.
4.Construct off-site one-half arterial to connect to existing Cooper Orbit
Road.Show tie-in plan and/or public temporary turnarounds.
5.Dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way and construct right-turn
lanes per MSP at westernmost driveway and at Rushmore Avenue.
6.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA
standards.
7.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
8.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction,site
grading,and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved.
9.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Show
adequacy and phasing,if proposed.
10.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.
11.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed
or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in
right-of-way.
12.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as
required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic
Engineering at 340-4880 (Steve Philpott)for more information
regarding street light requirements.
13.Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
14.Show cross-sections of proposed development prior to Planning
Commission hearing.Conform to Land Alteration Ordinance,including
slopes and terraces.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
ENTERGY:Additional easements will be required.Can not be described
at this time.Will depend on developer wanting overhead or
underground service.Contact Entergy at 954-5165 for additional
details.
ARKLA:ARKLA has large high pressure main on the backside (west)of
this development.It is located in an existing easement.Contact
ARKLA at 377-4669 for additional details.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension will be required in order to serve this
property.On site fire projection will be required.An acreage charge of
$600 per acre currently applies in addition to normal charges in this
area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2428 for additional
details.
~gg d t:Pl ~htd t P d.E t tth Mttl R I
Fire Department for additional details at 918-3752.
~q I PI I:N t I d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI 0 I:Tht q I I I d th Rill M I Pl g
District.The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this
property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Development-
Residential for apartments.
5
July 11,20UZ
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
A land use plan amendment for a change to Multi-family is a separate
item on this agenda.(File No.LU02-18-03)
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is
not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized
neighborhood action plan.
~Landsca e:Interior landscape islands must be at least 300 square feet
in areas and 7 /2 feet in width.Some of the proposed parking lots
need additional interior landscaping to break up the large paved areas.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face
side directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings is required
along the southern and western perimeters of the site.Curb and
gutter will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.Because of the grade changes,it will be necessary to provide
cross-sections.
~Bildi Cd:N t t d.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:May 30,2002
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing
the application.Staff briefly described the project noting additions which
were needed on the proposed site plan.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to rezone the property to the
east to keep with an agreement previously made with the Spring Valley
Manor Neighborhood with regard to density.The applicant indicated a
rezoning application had been filed and the request would be heard by the
Commission at their July 11,2002 Public Hearing.
Staff questioned the building materials proposed for the development.
Staff stated this would be an issue with the area residents and
compatibility was a concern.Staff also stated building elevations would
be required.
Staff-stated the buffer to the south was a zoning buffer and the buffer to
the west would need to be increased to meet the ordinance requirement.
The applicant stated the interior islands would be increased as
recommended by staff and the developer would install dense evergreen
plantings along the west and south perimeters.
6
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
Public Works comments were addressed.Mr.White stated the developer
would construct /~street improvements as a part of the development.He
stated no streets were in place and the streets would have to be
constructed for the development to function.Mr.White stated a regional
detention facility was proposed and an area was set aside for detention
and shown on the owner's master plan.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee forward the
application to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted revised plans to staff indicating the requested
changes proposed by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The
applicant provided cross sections and building elevations to represent the
intensity of the development on the site.The buildings are proposed at
three story (not to exceed 35-feet in height)and each building have either
24 or 36 units.The applicant proposes the buildings to be constructed of
cement fiber siding and brick in selected locations.Due to grade
elevations some of the buildings are proposed with pedestrian bridges
from the parking area to the building.
In Phase I the applicant proposes to construct 156 units in six (6)
buildings.The proposal includes five (5)buildings with 24 units each and
one building with thirty-six units.Phase II is proposed with two (2)
buildings housing 24 units and three (3)buildings housing 36 units for a
total of 156 units.The third and final phase is anticipated to have six (6)
buildings of 24 units and three (3)buildings of 36 units for a total of 216
units.
The applicant proposes to construct 876 parking spaces within the
development.The minimum number required per the Zoning Ordinance
would be 792 spaces.The applicant's proposed number more than
exceeds the minimum required.Each phase of the development will also
have sufficient parking to meet the minimum parking requirement per the
Zoning Ordinance.
The density of the development is proposed at 16.6 units per acre.The
-----site-is-a-3-1.85 acre site currently zoned MF-12 or 12 units per acre.As
part of the rezoning request in 1996 a 14.81 acre site was zoned MF-12
but limited to 125 units.The rezoning in June of 2001 removed a portion
of the acreage allowable (8.28 acres)and zoned the site to PRD at a
density of 5.3 units per acre.
7
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
The applicant is proposing to rezone the entire area (50 acres)in two
separate zoning actions to PD-R and R-2,Single-family.The proposal
includes 31.85 acres of multi-family and the remainder as single family.
Based on previous 'llowable densities the developer is proposing a
similar density but is keeping the density on one site rather than on each
side of the proposed Rushmore Avenue.Had the developer developed
the site as previously approved in 1996 the developer would have been
allowed multi-family on 46.66 acres,(125 units on the 14.81 acre site and
382 units on the 31.85 acre site)and 507 units.The current proposal
includes 528 units of multi-family an addition of 20 units total units to the
area.
Staff is supportive of the requested Planned Development -Residential.
The density proposed is not greatly different than the density approved by
the City and agreed to by the neighborhood previously.The proposed
development would confine the multi-family to one site and not on each
side of Rushmore Avenue;developing the east side as single family which
is in keeping with the indicated desire of the area residents.Otherwise,to
staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and
F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
Mr.Jim Hathaway and Mr.Joe White were present representing the application.
There were two objectors present.Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions noted in
the "Staff Recommendation"above.
Mr.Hathaway stated he had met with the Directors of the Property Owners
Association and was aware of their concerns.He stated one of the concerns———was-the-limited-amenities the development offered;one clubhouse and one pool,
and the developer had agreed to add a second clubhouse and pool as well as a
fitness center.He stated Spring Valley Manor was 3/8 of a mile south of the
development and the Property Owners were concerned residents of the
development would "come down"and use the Association's lakes for recreational
activities.
8
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
Mr.Hathaway also stated the concept behind the use of the Planned
Development process was the additional controls the neighborhood received.
He stated the PRD as proposed did increase the overall number of units
previously approved for the entire Capitol Lakes development but the proposed
development concentrated the multi-family on one side of Rushmore Avenue;at
the intersection of two major streets.
Ms.Eulalia Araoz spoke in opposition of the development.She stated her
property adjoined the development to the east with frontage to Cooper Orbit
Road.She stated with the realignment of Cooper Orbit Road to the new
Rushmore Avenue her property would no longer have access to a public street.
Ms.Araoz stated according to Public Works staff her property would be provided
a pave access through the proposed development.
Mr.Hathaway stated he had been in contact with Ms.Araoz's attorney and
furnished him with copies of agreements made when the property was rezoned
to PRD.He stated the agreement at the time of preliminary platting for Capitol
Lakes Estates a commitment was made to allow the Araoz's access through a
deed and not just an easement.He stated upon completion of Phase I the
Araoz's would be given a deed to sufficient land to allow a road into their
property.He stated further more when Tract C was rezoned to PRD a second
agreement was made to allow access to the southern portion of their property
from Rushmore Avenue.He stated the Araoz's would have two (2)points of
access to their property both of which were tied to development of surrounding
land.
Mr.Rusty Sparks spoke in opposition of the application as filed.He stated he
was representing the Capitol Lakes Estates Property Owner's Association.Mr.
Sparks stated there were several concerns with the development.He stated
those were traffic,ingress and egress from the site,the existing narrow bridge
located in the County on Cooper Orbit Road and the lack of landscaping shown
on the site plan.He stated the developer had not furnished grading plans as
were previously provided.He stated the site was a difficult site to develop due to
the terrain.He stated grading plans were essential to determine the cuts and fills
required for building the site.
Mr.Sparks stated as a part of the previous approval a 20-foot buffer was
--required--aplong Rushmore Avenue.He stated the current proposal did not
indicate a buffer.He stated the residents desire was to maintain the rural
character of the area and the buffer was the only assurance the character of the
area would be maintained.
9
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
He stated the residents were unclear as to the height of the buildings.He stated
the residents had been told the maximum building height would be 35-feet but
the buildings proposed were three story.He stated stressed the importance of
clarification of building heights.
He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a major entrance onto Rushmore
Avenue.He stated the development would require two entrances but both those
should be located on West Kanis Road.
Mr.Hathaway stated the bridge was outside the confines of the Capitol Lakes
Estates property boundary.He stated currently off-site improvements were not
required by the City for a development to occur.He stated the buildings were to
be three stories in height and the terrain would determine the finished elevation.
Mr.Hathaway stated the proposed density of the development was not
significantly greater than previously approved.He stated a new traffic impact
analysis would not show any significant change from the previous analysis.
Mr.Hathaway stated the current proposal included a buffer along Rushmore
Avenue.He stated in some cases the buffer was well above the 20-feet but in
some places the buffer dropped below the 20-feet.Mr.Hathaway stated if the
developer were required to keep the 20-foot buffer some areas currently show
above the 20-feet would be eliminated.Mr.Hathaway stated the site was a
challenge to work with and the current proposal was designed to maximize the
green areas while still allowing for development to occur.
Mr.Hathaway stated two entrances were proposed for the site.He stated there
would be a grand entrance on West Kanis Road and a secondary entrance on
Rushmore Avenue.Mr.Hathaway stated West Kanis Road was proposed as a
principal arterial and Rushmore Avenue was proposed as a collector.He stated
the roadway design would lend itself amenable to the potential traffic produced
from the site.
Mr.Hathaway stated the current proposal with the addition of the clubhouse and
pool on the eastern perimeter made the appearance of two smaller
developments.He stated the massing of multi-family in one area was good
planning practice allowing the east side of Rushmore Avenue to develop as—-mingle-family-.—
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the bridge design and public safety.Public
Works Staff stated traffic was not an issue raised in the review by Traffic
Engineering.Staff stated redevelopment of the area would necessitate the
reconstruction of the bridge.Staff stated the roadway was approved in 1997 as
10
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-E
a five-lane roadway and at that time no mechanism was put in place to replace
the existing bridge.
There was a general discussion concerning the lack of a Capitol Improvements
Plan for the City.A question was raised concerning the 20-foot buffer not being
shown.Staff stated the 20-foot buffer was a condition of approval not a
Landscaping Ordinance requirement.
A motion was made to accept the proposed PD-R as filed.The motion carried
by a vote of 8 ayes,1 noe,1 absent and 1 vacant position.
11
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6120-F
Owner:Capitol Lakes Management,LLC
Applicant:The Hathaway Group
Location:Along Cooper Orbit Road,approximately 0.4 mile south of
Kanis Road
Request:To revoke a PRD (Tracts C-1 and D,Capitol Lakes Estates)
and rezone Tracts C-1 and C-2,Capitol Lakes Estates from
MF-12 to R-2.
Purpose:Single Family Residential Development
Existing Use:Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped;zoned R-2 and The Oasis development;
zoned R-2
South —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
East —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped;zoned R-2 and MF-12 (proposed PRD)
A.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Provide legal access to landowner to the east,with development of
thisproperty.
2.Previously approved uses of land for regional stormwater detention
and new arterial right-of-way must be maintained or alternatives
approved by Public Works.
B.PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6120-F
C.PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and the Spring
Valley Manor,Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber
Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
Staff could identify no residents within 300 feet of the site.
D.LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land
Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.The applicant
has applied for a zone change from Planned Residential Development
and MF-12 Multifamily to R-2 Single Family for new residential
development.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Single Family is an item on
this agenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood 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:
On November 7,1996 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,312 rezoning two (2)areas of the Capitol Lakes Estates development
from R-2 to MF-12.One of the MF-12 zoned areas (Tracts C-1 and C-2)
is 14.82 acres in size and was limited to a maximum of 125 dwelling units.
The rezoning ordinance also required three (3)acres of open space within
the 14.82 acres and a 20 foot natural buffer along the MF-12 frontage on
the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue).
On June 5,2001,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,496
which rezoned Tracts D and C-1,Capitol Lakes Estates (12.82 acres)
from R-2/MF-12 to PRD,for an attached single family residential
(townhouses)development.The approved development included 11
buildings with a total of 44 single family residential dwellings.
The applicant proposes to revoke the previously approved PRD,and have
Tracts C-1 and D revert to their previous zoning (Tract C-1 —MF-12,Tract
D —R-2).The applicant then proposes to rezone Tract C-1 (8.57 acres)
and Tract C-2 (6.25 acres)from MF-12 to R-2.The down-zoning of Tracts
C-1 and C-2 is proposed in order to transfer and concentrate all of the
multifamily units currently permitted within Capitol Lakes Estates to Tract
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6120-F
B,located west of this site.A PRD (Item B on this agenda)has been filed
for Tract B to address this issue.A Land Use Plan Amendment (Item A
on this agenda)has also been filed to change Tracts C-1 and C-2 from
Low Density Residential to Single Family Residential.
Staff is supportive of the PRD revocation and rezoning request.Staff
feels that the applicant's plan to concentrate all of the permitted
multifamily units within the Capitol Lakes Estates development to Tract B,
thereby resulting in the down-zoning of Tracts C-1 and C-2 to R-2,is
appropriate.The proposed R-2 zoning for Tracts C-1 and C-2 will be
compatible with all of the adjacent properties.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested PRD revocation and
rezoning of Tracts C-1 and C-2,Capitol Lakes Estates to R-2,subject to
compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A.
of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
Jim Hathaway and Joe White were present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the proposed rezoning with a recommendation of approval.
There were several persons present with concerns.
This application was discussed simultaneously with Items LU02-18-03 and
Z-6120-E.
Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission in support of the rezoning application.
Eulalia Araoz,property owner immediately east of Tract C,addressed the
Commission with concerns relating to access to her property with the
development of Capitol Lakes Estates.Mr.Hathaway noted that with the final
plat of Phase I,Capitol Lakes Estates,a portion of Tract D would be deeded to
the Araozes for access.He also noted that with the development of Tract C,a
public street would be constructed to the Araoz's property.
Rusty Sparks,representing the Spring Valley Manor property owners,discussed
the history of the Capitol Lakes Estates development.He noted support for the
downzoning of Tract C to R-2.He primarily discussed issues related to the PRD
zoning of Tract B.
Technical issues associated with the PRD zoning of Tract B,Capitol Lakes
Estates were discussed at length.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6120-F
There was a motion to approve the R-2 zoning as recommended by staff.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position.The
application was approved.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-7245
Name:Harris Day Care Family Home —Special Use Permit
Location:1903 S.Izard Street
Applicant:Stephanie Harris
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 1903 S.Izard Street.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Property owners within 200 feet of the site,residents within 300 feet of the site
who could be identified and the Downtown,East of Broadway and Wright
Avenue Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
1903 S.Izard Street is located on the east side of Izard Street,between West19'"and West 20"Streets.The properties to the north,south and east are
zoned R-4 and contain single family and two-family residences.The Capitol
Zoning District is located slightly further south and east.Rightsell Elementary
School is located across S.Izard Street to the west.
The applicant's home is a one-story frame structure and is typical of those in the
general area.There is a single car driveway from S.Izard Street,with parking
for two (2)vehicles.There is also on-street parking within this block of S.Izard
Street.The rear yard is enclosed by a wood screening fence and should provide
a safe play area.The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.
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 for a day
care family home for six (6)to ten (10)children.
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:
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7245
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family
home at 1903 S.Izard 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:(JULY 11,2002)
Stephanie Harris was present,representing the application.There were two (2)
persons present with concerns.Staff briefly described the special use permit,
with a recommendation of approval.
Diann Tooks,of 1904 S.State Street,addressed the Commission.She asked
several questions related to special use permits and questioned the effect this
special use permit would have on the neighborhood.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7245
The Commission briefly tabled the application so that staff could meet with Ms.
Tooks and Everlener Dyer,the other concerned neighbor,outside the Board
Room and answer their questions.
After the brief recess,the Commission re-convened the public hearing on this
application.Staff reported to the Commission that all of Ms.Took's and Ms.
Dyer's questions had been answered to their satisfaction,and that they had no
problem with the special use permit.
There was a motion to approve the special use permit,as recommended by
staff.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open
position.The application was approved.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
NAME:Blackthorn Subdivision PD-R
LOCATION:North of the intersection of Taylor Loop Road and Holmes Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Woodhaven Homes Civil Design Engineers,Inc.
3 Stone Haven Court 15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:1.60 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Single-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:A private street to serve the
development.
BACKGROUND:
This small parcel has a brief history for platting.A small lot single family plat with
a short cul-de-sac was approved in 1996 with six (6)lots.The project did not
—----—--work-and the-owner offered a proposal for multifamily.The applicant filed an
application for the September 1997,Public Hearing,a proposal to construct
eleven (11)multifamily units in four (4)buildings resulting in a density of 6.5 units
per acre.The applicant proposed the parking to be internalized using the
buildings to shield the parking.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
The neighborhood and Staff were not supportive of the proposed multifamily
development.The applicant requested the PD-R application be withdrawn from
consideration.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a single-family development on this 1.6
acre site to allow the construction of eight (8)garden style patio homes.
The homes are estimated to be 1800 to 2000 square feet in size and
accessed by a private street in the form of a cul-de-sac.The applicant
proposes the construction to be brick or frame with architectural shingles
and be of similar construction as the other homes in the area.
As a part of the Planned Development process the applicant is proposing
a preliminary plat for the site to create the eight (8)single-family lots.The
development is proposing minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet for Lots
2,3,6 and 7.Lots 1,4,5 and 8 are well above the 7000 square foot
minimum set by the Zoning Ordinance for a typical R-2 lot.The minimum
lot size proposed for these lots (2,3,6 and 7)averages fifty (50)feet by
one hundred thirty (130)feet.The applicant is proposing five (5)foot side
yard setbacks on all side property lines within the development.The
applicant is also proposing a private street to serve the development,
which will require a variance.
The applicant is proposing to construct "/~street improvements to Taylor
Loop Road complete with the installation of a sidewalk.The applicant is
proposing a 30-foot platted building line adjacent to a collector street as
required by the Subdivision Ordinance and a 25-foot platted front building
line on all the lots.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is almost flat with some grade to the northeast.Taylor Loop
Road is without curb,gutter and sidewalk on this side.There are a few
trees scattered about the site.All sides of the property abut single-family
subdivisions.The area for many blocks in all directions is zoned (and
developed)as R-2,Single family.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls and
letters in opposition to the proposed development from residents in the
area.The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association,all
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
residents located within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and all
property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public
Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Right-of-way and boundary street improvements are shown on the
proposed plat.However,existing curb and gutter on south side of
Taylor Loop appears to establish alignment.Verify that centerline is
18 feet from this curb.Replot proposed north side widening and 30-
foot half right-of-way accordingly.Horizontal curvature alignment may
be necessary.
2.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain
barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact
Traffic Engineering at 501-340-4854 (Derrick Bergfield)for more
information.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior
to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.(shown on
the plat)
5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as
required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic
Engineering at 340-4880 (Steve Philpott)for more information
regarding street light requirements.
7.Trees are to remain in the right-of-way.Meandering sidewalk is
required.
8.Correct the drawing scale and north arrow.
9.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA
standards.
10.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)8 (d).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A sewer main extension will be required,with easements if
service is required for project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater for
additional information at 376-2903.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
Water:A water main extension will be required to provide water service
to this property.An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges in this area.Contact Central Arkansas
Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
~yi C d t:Pl tl hyd t p «dl .C t tth Nttl
Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
~CI Pl I:N t I d.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI I Ct I I:yh p p d d I p t lt Iht th lil
Mountain Planning District and is shown as Single Family on the
Future Land Use Plan.The applicant is proposing a single family
development at 4.73 units per acre within the density allowable under
the Single Family classification.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The proposed development
lies in an area not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Bildi C d N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(June 13,2002)
James Dreher was present,representing the application.Staff briefly
described the proposed PD-R and preliminary plat,noting several items
which needed to be shown on the revised preliminary plat and site plan
drawings.Mr.Dreher noted that he had no issues with the Planning Staff
requirements.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed by the Committee.
In response to question from the Committee,Mr.Dreher explained that
-the-developer would relocate the utility easement at the northwest corner
of the property.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee forward the
application to the full Commission for resolution.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff on June 19,2002,
addressing most of the concerns raised by Staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The applicant has shown on the revised site plan,in the
general notes,the average lot size,the number of lots,the proposed
source of water and wastewater disposal,and indicated the development
will be developed in one phase.The applicant has also included a
vicinity map,to scale,on the proposed Planned Development site plan.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be made to Taylor
Loop at the time of final platting.The applicant has indicated on the site
plan proposed storm water detention to be located near the northern
boundary of the property.
Staff is supportive of the proposed development.The applicant has
indicated the homes will be of similar construction materials as the other
homes in the area.Although,the lot sizes are smaller than those in the
Deer Park Addition and the Heatherbrae Addition,the homes will have
similar square footages (1800 to 2000 square foot homes proposed).Lot
sizes and minimum lot widths are set by the Zoning Ordinance and since
the applicant has filed for Planned Development there will not be any
variances or waivers required to allow a reduced lot width (Lots 2,3,6 and
7)a reduced minimum square footage of the lot (Lots 2,3,6 and 7)or the
reduced side yard setback (proposed on all lots)since these issues are
associated with the Zoning Ordinance and not the Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant is however,requesting a private street to serve the
development,which will require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance
(Section 31-231);All lots shall abut a public street,except where private
streets are explicitly approved by the Planning Commission.Staff is
supportive of the request for a private street to serve the development.
The applicant has proposed a minimum pavement width of 24-feet,the
minimum pavement width required for a Minor Residential Street,a street
which services less than 35 lots.
As previously stated Staff,is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat
~nd1'larrned Residential Development as filed.The applicant has tried to
meet the intent of the required Ordinances and has worked with Staff to
minimize Staff's concerns of adverse impacts on the surrounding area.
As filed,the proposed development should have no adverse impact on
the surrounding residences and/or neighborhoods.The requested
variance,a private street,should have minimum to no impact on the area.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
Otherwise to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed Planned Development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and
F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat as related to
the Planned Development also subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow a private street to
serve the development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
Mr.Ronnie Clark was present representing the application.There were
objectors present.Numerous letters of opposition from neighborhood residents
opposed to the request had been received by Staff and forwarded to the
Commission.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation"
above.
Mr.Dane Walker of 9 Heatherbrae Court spoke in opposition of the proposed
development.He stated his property adjoined the site to the west.He stated
Heatherbrae and Deer Park Subdivisions were located on large lots and had
large setbacks.He stated the proposed development did not meet the character
of the surrounding neighborhoods and did not "fit-in".Mr.Walker stated the
proposed development would jeopardize the integrity of the existing
neighborhoods because of the proposed density.
Mr.Ronnie Clark addressed the Commission on the merits of his proposed
development.He stated the homes would average 2000 square feet.He stated
recent sales of homes in Heatherbrae ranged in square footages from 2200 to
230Mquwre~t.Mr.Clark stated the average cost per square foot of his
proposed homes was $100 per square foot.He stated recent sales comps
indicated the sales price of homes in Heatherbrae at $75 per square foot.
Mr.Clark stated with his development he would construct /~street improvements
to Taylor Loop Road including a 5-foot sidewalk.He stated the development
was proposing to leave as many trees as feasible on the site especially the trees
near Taylor Loop Road.
6
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6378-A
Commissioner Floyd questioned if the private street met with residential street
standard.Staff stated the developer had met all street standards for a minor
residential street even though the street would be maintained as a private street.
Commissioner Rector questioned the stormwater run off and the detention
ordinance.Staff stated the developer had indicated a storm water detention
basin and was in compliance with the ordinance.
Commissioner Floyd questioned the easement across Lot 4.The applicant
stated the easement was a telephone company easement,which was to be
relocated and a petition to abandon the utility easement would be forthcoming.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 vacant position.
7
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:G-25-185
Name:Rename Crenshaw Drive to Stanley Drive
Location:South of Baseline Road;between Lew Drive and Loetscher Lane
Petitioner:Michael S.Rushin,Sr.
~Re uest:Rename Crenshaw Drive to Stanley Drive
Abuttin Uses and Ownershi s:
Thirteen (13)apartment buildings and several vacant lots front onto Crenshaw Drive.
The apartment buildings range from one (1)to two (2)stories in height and contain from
four (4)to twelve (12)units per building.The applicant owns all of the apartment
buildings.One other individual owns the vacant lots.
Nei hborhood Effect:
Those families living in the apartments will be affected by the name change.The post
office will honor the old street name for one year.No other properties in the
neighborhood will be affected.
Nei hborhood Position:
The Upper Baseline and SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
proposed change.At its June 11,2002 meeting,Upper Baseline voted to approve the
name change.
Effect on Public Services:
No opposition has been voiced by public agencies or utilities.Two street name signs
will need to be changed.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Crenshaw Drive extends from Lew Drive to Loetscher Lane.The street is barricaded
on the Loetscher Lane end to prohibit through traffic.Thirteen apartment buildings are
located on the street.The buildings contain from four (4)to twelve (12)apartments
each.A few vacant lots are located on the south side of Crenshaw,at each end.The
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:G-25-185
owner of the apartment buildings has requested that the name of the street be changed
to Stanley Drive.
No opposition has been voiced by any public agency or utility.The Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Association has voted to support the proposal.Other than for these
residents of the apartments that front onto Crenshaw Drive,there will be no effect on
the neighborhood from the name change.The applicant states he is hopeful the name
change will eliminate some stigma that has become attached to the name "Crenshaw
Drive."
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends approval of the request to rename Crenshaw Drive,between Lew
Drive and Loetscher Lane,to Stanley Drive.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff briefly described the proposed street name
change.Staff noted that the only outstanding issue associated with the name change
was that the applicant needed to notify the owner of vacant lots along Crenshaw Drive
of the proposed street name change.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to the full
Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-1652-B
NAME:Horace Mann Magnet School —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1000 East Roosevelt Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District/Richburg Rickett Consulting
Engineers
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
expansion of the existing school and construction of
additional parking on this R-4,Two-Family residential
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The school is located on the north side of Roosevelt Road;one block east of
I-30.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has been part of this Mixed Use neighborhood for many years.
Uses immediately around the school site include a shopping center,large
cemeteries,an industrial park,a small pocket of residences and I-30.The
proposed additions and expansion are to take place within the existing school
site and should not affect the school's continued compatibility with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Community Outreach Neighborhood
Association were notified of the proposal.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Once this project is complete,the school will have 60 classrooms;the same
number of classrooms that existed prior to the demolition of several buildings in
—2001.This-project will result in an increase of on-site parking from 134 spaces
to 163.Middle schools are required one space per classroom and one space
for every teacher,employee and administrator (Ordinance 18,682,adopted
May 21,2002).There is sufficient parking proposed to accommodate the use.
Adequate bus loading/unloading spaces are indicated on the west and south
sides of the school.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-1652-B
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the
eastern perimeter adjacent to residential property.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit,it will be necessary to provide an Approved
Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Roosevelt Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
Dedication as shown appears excessive.
2.McAlmont Drive and East 24 Street are classified on the Master Street
Plan as commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged or
missing in the public right-of-way on McAlmont Drive and East 24 Street
prior to occupancy.Roosevelt Road requires sidewalk but missing curb and
gutter is acceptable where roadside ditch exists.
4.Driveway spacing ordinance requires only one driveway for proposed
parking lot on McAlmont Drive.
5.Build missing sidewalk segments on McAlmont Drive.
6.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic
Engineering at 501-340-4854 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information.
7.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
8.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
9.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
10.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area will be required per Sec.
8-283.
12.Existing topographical information at maximum 5-foot contour interval and
the 100-year base flood elevation will be required.
13.AII driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-1652-B
14.Complete McAlmont Drive half-street improvements along the western
boundary of the property.
15.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.
16.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area will be required per Sec.
8-283.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.
Fire Department:No Comments received.
N~PI i:N N N.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Doug Eaton and Barry Williams were present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the proposed C.U.P.,noting that additional project information was
needed and that several items needed to be shown on a revised site plan.Mr.
Williams noted that he would submit the additional information to staff as requested.
The Public Works requirements were discussed,including right-of-way dedication,
sidewalk construction and drainage issues.David Hamilton,of Public Works,noted
that sidewalk construction would be required along Roosevelt Road.The required
street improvements for McAlmont Drive were also discussed.
Traffic issues related to this immediate area were briefly discussed.Commissioner
a man no ed that traffic is very heavy in this area at peak times.
The driveway issues were also discussed.Mr.Williams noted that the northernmost
drive for the new parking lot along McAlmont Street would be eliminated.Mr.
Hamilton stated that the aprons for the circular drives could be asphalt and not
concrete.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-1652-B
The landscape and screening requirements for the new parking lot were briefly
discussed.Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that the areas set aside for
landscaping and buffers appeared adequate.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee forwarded the conditional
use permit to the full Commission for final action.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Horace Mann Magnet Middle School is located on the R-4 zoned,131 acre tract
located at 1000 East Roosevelt Road.Prior to 2001,the campus consisted of 15m
buildings housing classrooms and various activities.Due to structural instability,most
of the classroom buildings were demolished.The classes were relocated to 26
portable classroom buildings that have been located on the north perimeter of the
campus.The school district now proposes the construction of two new buildings to
replace those that have been removed.The resulting number of classrooms will equal
the number that existed prior to demolition,60.A new parking lot will be constructed
in the area on the north perimeter of the site where the portable classrooms are
located.The portable buildings will be removed after completion of the new buildings;
the parking lot will then be constructed.
On June 19,2002,the applicant submitted a more detailed site plan and additional
project information that addressed the issues raised by staff at the Subdivision
Committee meeting.The proposed additions will not exceed the allowable building
height of 35 feet.One driveway has been removed from the new parking lot located at
the north perimeter of the site.Bus loading/unloading areas have been clearly labeled
utilizing the driveways located off of Roosevelt Road and McAlmont Street,to the
south and east of the school.No changes are proposed to the school's signage.
However,staff suggests allowing signage as per the institutional and office zoning
standards;6 foot in height and 64 square feet in area.Appropriate,5 foot wide
sidewalks are shown on the Roosevelt Road and McAlmont Street frontages,with
handicap ramps.Dumpster screening and right-of-way dedication are shown.
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the approved site plan.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-1652-B
2.Compliance with staff comments outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6 of this report.
3.All new lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed away from abutting
properties.
4.Signage is to conform to the standards of the office/institutional district.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
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,1 absent and 1 open position.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-4463-D
NAME:National Car Wash —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:8100 West Markham Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Emmanuel Baptist Church and Make-A-Wish
Foundation/Development Consultants,Inc.
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of a car wash facility on this C-3 zoned
property.
STAFF REPORT:
On June 19,2002,the applicant submitted a request that this item be deferred to the
August 22,2002 commission meeting.Staff supports the request.There are minor
issues to be addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item.There was no
further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 22,2002
agenda.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-5579-A
NAME:Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:319 and 401 North Pine
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District/Polk,Stanley,Yeary Architects
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an addition onto the existing school building
and construction of a new parking lot on this R-3 Single
Family Residential zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located at the southeast corner of N.Pine Street and Lee Avenue;in
the Hillcrest Neighborhood.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school(s)have been an integral component of this residential
neighborhood for many years.The proposed addition and small parking lot
expansion will not affect the school's continued compatibility with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest and Capitol View/Stifft Station
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the proposal.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site currently has 71 on-site parking spaces in 3 parking lots;a small lot off
of Pine Street,a slightly larger lot off of Colonial Court and a large lot off of Lee
Avenue.The lot on Pine Street is to be removed and the lot on Colonial Court
will be expanded,resulting in a total of 79 on-site parking spaces.Elementary
q I «qtdtp tdpp I pl
space for every teacher,employee and administrator (Ordinance 18,682;
May 21,2002).There are 64 classrooms total on the site.Since there is to be
no increase in the number of classrooms and an increase in on-site parking,
staff supports a variance to allow reduced on-site parking.Staff does not
support allowing the proposed spaces that back onto Pine Street.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-5579-A
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements
with the flexibility allowed within the designate "mature area"of the City.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Pine and Lee and Lee and Colonial.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged or
missing in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to the property.
5.Head-in or angled parking on Pine Street not allowed.Parallel (and
handicapped,if desired)is allowed.
6.Public Works recommend that bus accessibility along Lee Avenue be
verified at driveways due to narrow,tight radius conditions.With future
Building Permit,proof of smooth turning capability is required to ensure
proper egress from city streets.
7.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
8.Tree preservation provisions of City Ordinances apply to this property.
9.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec.29-186(e).
10.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186(c)and (d).
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Seweravailable,notadverselyaffected.Existing seweron site,
contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility prior to construction.
Entergy:No Comment received.
Reliant:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Locate all underground utilities before beginning work.
Water:No objection.
Fir@Department:No Comment received.
N~IPI I:N N
CATA:No Comment received.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-5579-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Doug Eaton and Jim Yeary were present,representing the application.Staff
described the conditional use permit,noting that additional project information needed
to be supplied to staff.
The five (5)proposed head-in parking spaces along Pine Street were discussed.Mr.
Eaton noted that three (3)of the spaces would be designated for handicap parking.
He explained that the handicap elevator for both schools was located on the west side
of the new building addition,thereby the need for the parking spaces along Pine
Street.Mr.Eaton noted that he had met with Bill Henry,City Traffic Engineer,and that
Mr.Henry had approved this parking design.
Mr.Eaton described the bus drop-off/pick-up for the schools.This issue was briefly
discussed.
The sidewalk from the parking area along Colonial Court to the school buildings was
discussed.Mr.Eaton explained that a new sidewalk would be constructed.
The Public Works'equirement for a sketch grading and drainage plan was discussed.
David Hamilton,of Public Works,noted that a preliminary plan would be needed by
June 19,2002.The drainage problem at the southeast corner of the property was
also briefly discussed.
Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that the areas set aside for landscaping and
buffers appeared adequate.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee forwarded the conditional
use permit to the full Commission for final action.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The shared Pulaski Heights Elementary and Middle Schools campus is located on the
R-3 zoned,6.6a acre tract located at 319 and 401 N.Pine Street.The campus
currently includes an elementary school classroom building and a middle school
classroom building which are tied together by a shared auditorium and cafeteria dining
~uilding;a~and buiIChng;a gymnasium building;3 parking lots;2 portable classroom
buildings;and playgrounds.The Little Rock School District proposes several
improvements to the campus.The 16 space parking lot located off of Pine Street,
between the two schools,is to be removed and a new addition will be built in its place.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-5579-A
The addition will create a new "face"for the campus.The addition will contain
classrooms,a media center,elevator and stairs.The portable classrooms are to be
removed and the parking lot located on the back side of the campus,off of Colonial
Court,will be expanded to make up for the loss of the spaces off of Pine Street and to
add 8 additional parking spaces.On-site parking will increase from 71 spaces to 79.
The total number of classrooms on the site will remain at 64.The addition will "stair-
step"down from the height of the existing Middle School (50 feet)to the height of the
Elementary School (37 feet).The maximum height allowed in R-3 is 35 feet.
The school district also proposes the construction of 5 parking spaces,2 of which are
designated for handicap use only,which would back into Pine Street in front of the
new addition.The district states the handicap entrance to the building and the
elevator are located in this area.Staff does not support allowing parking spaces to
back directly out into this heavily traveled collector street.If indeed the need is to
provide ease of access for handicapped visitors,2-3 parallel spaces could be
constructed in this area.Additionally,the bus loading/unloading for the elementary
school takes place on Pine Street,directly in front of the elementary school.An
individual parked in the proposed spaces would have to back into the street,past a
row of buses that would be blocking one lane of the street.
On June 19,2002,the applicant submitted a more detailed site plan and responses to
issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.A sketch grading and drainage
plan has been submitted to Public Works.The portable classroom buildings will be
removed once the addition is complete.The parking lot expansion will then be
constructed where the portable buildings are now located.As was previously
mentioned,the bus loading/unloading area for the Elementary School is shown along
Pine Street,in front of the school.Bus loading/unloading for the Middle School is
shown in the parking area north of the school,off of Lee Avenue.Dumpster screening
and sidewalk improvements,including handicap ramps,are shown.The district is still
requesting approval of the 5 parking spaces that are proposed to back into Pine
Street.
Other than for the outstanding issue of these parking spaces,staff is supportive of the
conditional use permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the approved site plan.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-5579-A
2.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6 of
this report.
3.Signage is to conform to the standards of the office/institutional district.
4.Any new site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed away from adjacent
properties.
Staff recommends approval of variances to allow a reduced number of on-site parking
spaces and to allow the addition to have the height proposed.
Staff does not support the request to have the parking spaces proposed to back into
Pine Street.Staff would support allowing 2-3 parallel handicap only parking spaces to
be located in this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had failed to complete the required notification and the
item needed to be deferred.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed,on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the
August 22,2002 agenda.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7243
NAME:Sanders Day Care —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:4202 East 35 (College Station)
OWNER/APPLICANT:George E.Kelly,Sr./LaJuana Sanders
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
conversion of the residence located on this R-3 zoned
property into a day care center.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the north side of East 35'treet,west of Bankhead
Drive;in the College Station Community.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is virtually surrounded by undeveloped,heavily wooded tracts.A
couple of other single family residences are located along 35'treet although
none are directly adjacent to this site.With proper development of the site,this
relatively small day care center should be compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the College Station Neighborhood Association
were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The day care is proposed to have a capacity of 28 children,with 3 employees;
requiring 5 on-site parking/drop-off spaces.The site currently has a paved
driveway.The applicant will construct a circular driveway,tying into the existing
driveway.The circular driveway will be wide enough to accommodate parallel
parking and a drop-off/pick-up lane.The applicant is asking that the new
driveway be gravel until she is able to afford paving it.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The layout of the proposed parking area submitted does not allow for the
minimum 6.7 foot wide street buffer and landscape strip required by both
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7243
zoning and landscaping ordinances.Also,the land use buffer and landscape
strip along the eastern perimeter is short of this requirement.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Parking lot arrangement that involves backing out into right-of-way is not
acceptable.Provide on site parking with circle drive or the equivalent.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer Service not available at this time for this project.Sewer
system being constructed by College Station Improvement District but have
not been accepted by Little Rock Wastewater Utility.
Entergy:If customer requires/requests night watcher pole to be relocated,
there will be a charge;contribution amount to be determined.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding meter size and location.
Fire Department:No Comments received.
C~tPI i:8 ildi gU Adh:A i"''I t tb
submitted to Pulaski County for the 40 foot setback ordinance for
commercial property which abuts residential property lines.
Easements/Right-of-Way:No structures,parking lots,playgrounds,dogpens,
etc.may be within the right-of-way.
Driveway:A driveway permit must be requested from road and bridge.
Parking Lot:The parking for employees,visitors must be constructed on site,
not within the right-of-way,and one ingress/egress from East 35 Street.
CATA-.No Comments received.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7243
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
The applicant was not present.Jim Narey was present,representing the Pulaski
County Planning.
Staff described the proposed day care use,noting that the proposed parking at the
southeast corner of the property needed to be redesigned as to eliminate parking that
backs into the street.David Hamilton,of Public Works,and Mr.Narey were in
agreement with the need to redesign the parking area.
Mr.Narey noted that the County has a minimum setback requirement for commercial
buildings of 40 feet from abutting residential property lines.He stated that the
applicant would need to appear before the Pulaski County Planning Commission to
seek a waiver of this requirement.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee forwarded the application
to the full Commission for final action.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-3 zoned lot located at 4202 East 35 Street is occupied by a one-story,2,500m
square foot,single family residence.The site has a single driveway off of East
35'treet.The property is located outside of the Little Rock city limits,in the College
Station Community.This area was zoned,under Little Rock's Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction,on November 16,1999 (effective date of December 16,1999).The
applicant proposes to convert the residence into a day care center with a maximum
enrollment of 28 children,with 3 employees.Hours of operation are proposed to be
6:00 a.m.—12:00 midnight,Monday —Friday.The applicant constructed four gravel
parking spaces in the front yard that back into the street.She has been advised that
this situation is not acceptable and has agreed to install a one-way,circular driveway
off of East 35'"Street,tying into the existing paved driveway.She is asking approval
of a deferral of the requirement to pave the new driveway.A new,fenced playground
has been constructed in the front yard.A sign has been placed on the fence.This
sign must be removed and properly mounted in the yard or on the wall of the building.
It is staff's understanding that the applicant has been approved by the State child care
licensing office to keep no more than 16 children,but she would like to be able toPPPZHhld
Staff is supportive of the proposed conditional use.This relatively small day care
operation should not impact the surrounding properties,most of which are vacant.
Staff did meet with the applicant subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting to
address any outstanding issues.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7243
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the approved site plan.
2.Construction of an 18 foot wide,circular,one-way driveway,entering from the east
and exiting from the existing paved driveway.
3.The driveway is to be labeled one-way only enter and exit.The directional signs
are not to exceed 4 square feet in area and 6 feet in height.
4.Signage is not to exceed that allowed in office/institutional districts.
5.The sign is to be removed from the fence.
6.All outdoor activities are only to take place during daylight hours.
7.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6 of
this report (including County Planning Comments).
Staff supports a deferral of the paving requirement for the gravel driveway for a period
not to exceed 2 years.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff also recommended approval of a
two-year deferral of the paving requirement for the circular driveway.There was no
further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff,
including the paving deferral.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open
position.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7244
NAME:St.Andrews A.M.E.Church parking lot —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:3000-3004 M.L.King,Jr.Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:St.Andrews A.M.E.Church/Ron Woods
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of a church parking lot on these two vacant,
R-3 zoned lots.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located at the southwest corner of M.L.King,Jr.Drive and
West 30'"Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
Although the surrounding properties are primarily residential in zoning and use,
there are a few non-residential uses in the area,including the church adjacent
to the west.The M.L.King Neighborhood Resource Center is located one lot
to the south.The Little Rock School District's Ish Instructional Resource Center
is located across M.L.King,Jr.Drive to the east.The area is also
characterized by several vacant lots,remnants of the tornado that destroyed
many homes in this South Little Rock Neighborhood.The proposed parking lot
should be compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the South End and M.L.K.Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the proposed.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
church-proposes to-construct a-32 space parking lot.Two driveways,one
a one-way entry and the other a one-way exit,will provide access to and from
West 30'"Street.Staff believes allowing the two drives is the most efficient way
to maximize the number of parking spaces.The driveways must be designed
to clearly be one-way exit and entrance.Signage must clearly identify the
driveways as one-way.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7244
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements
with the flexibility allowed within the designated "mature area"of the City.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
M.L.King and West 30'"Street.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3.Remove existing driveways on M.L.King and re-establish curb and
sidewalk.
4.Sidewalks on West 30'treet shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175
and the "MSP".
5.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts and curb cuts.Obtain
barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact
Traffic Engineering at 501-340-4854 (Derrick Bergfield)for more
information.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
7.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186(c)and (d).
8.Two driveways will be acceptable with one-way traffic in parking lot.
9.West 30'treet and M.K.King Drive are classified on the Master Street
Plan as commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
10.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
11.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Reduce new
one-way driveways to 18-foot width.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Existing sewer on site,contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility prior
to construction.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Comments ~eceived.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7244
Fire Department:No Comments received.
~PI Pl:N N
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Ernest Dockery was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed church parking lot,noting that a small amount of additional information was
needed.
The main topic of discussion was staff's requirement to redesign the parking plan to
more clearly define a one-way entrance and exit.Staff suggested reducing the drive
widths and providing good directional signage,or switching to angled parking as
possible solutions.Mr.Dockery noted that if the site plan were changed to angled
parking,too many parking spaces would be lost.This issue was briefly discussed.
David Hamilton,of Public Works,indicated that a reduction in the drive widths with
good directional signage would be acceptable by Public Works.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.Hamilton explained the
sidewalk construction requirements.
Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that the areas set aside for landscaping and
buffers met the ordinance requirements.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the conditional use permit to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
St.Andrews A.M.E.Church is located at 3003 Bishop Street.The church has
acquired two vacant lots located directly behind it,at the southwest corner of Martin
Luther King,Jr.Drive and West 30 Street.The vacant lots are zoned R-3.The
property lies in the path of 1999 tornado.Several structures in the area were
damaged or destroyed,including a home that was located on one of the two subject
lots.St.Andrews proposes to construct a 32 space parking lot on the lots.Access to
the parking lot will be via driveways off of West 30'"Street.Two driveways are
proposed;a one-way only entry and a one-way only exit.Screening will be installed
along the south perimeter of the site where it is adjacent to a vacant residential Iot.No
signage is proposed other than for small directional "enter and exit"signs at the
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7244
On June 21,2002,the applicant submitted a site plan incorporating those issues
raised by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The driveways have been
narrowed to be more clearly one-way entry and exit.Signage will consist of lettering
on the pavement labeling the driveways one-way and directional "enter"and "exit"
signs at each driveway.A 5 foot wide sidewalk has now been shown on the West 30'"
Street frontage.Landscaping and screening meet or exceed ordinance requirements.
To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the approved site plan.
2.Directional signs,not to exceed 4 square feet in area and 6 feet in height,are to be
placed at each driveway clearly labeling each as "enter only"or "exit only".
3.Directional signage is to be placed on the pavement as proposed by the applicant.
4.Compliance with the staff comments outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6 of this report.
5.Any site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed away from adjacent
properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
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,1 absent and 1 open position.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-6117-A
Name:Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
Address:9101 Mabelvale Pike
Applicant:Sprint Spectrum/Tracy E.Gill
Request:Sprint Spectrum is requesting approval of a deferral of the
requirements to install a landscape strip around the
perimeter of this existing Wireless Communications Facility.
The property is zoned C-3,General Commercial.
Public Works Comments:No Comments.
Landsca e/Screenin:
Landscaping is not required by the landscape and tree protection ordinance.
Only WCF landscape and screening standards apply.
Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Town and Country and SWLRUP
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this issue.
N~ICF tN t
Prior to January 1998,cellular towers were permitted by-right in Open Space and
Industrial Districts with a maximum height of 75 feet.Variances for towers
exceeding 75 feet in height in the Open Space and Industrial Districts were
approved-by-the Board of Adjustment.Cellular towers proposed for placement in
other zoning districts required approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission.
On January 20,1998,the Little Rock Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,664 which added a new article to the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Wireless
Communications Facilities"and which established standards and development
criteria for the various types of WCF's to be erected within the City and its
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6117-A
jurisdiction.Under that Ordinance,new WCF were to be landscaped in
accordance with Chapter 15,the Landscape Ordinance.This resulted in few
WCF sites being landscaped since the landscape requirements of Chapter 15
are tied to parking lots and WCF sites typically have no parking or driveways.
In early 1999,it was brought to the attention of the Board of Directors that
numerous WCF sites lacked landscaping and screening.These sites were
typically located such that abutting zoning or use didn't require screening or
landscaping.It was clear that the landscaping and screening requirements
within the City Code at that time were insufficient to specifically address the
issue of WCF lease sites.Staff was directed to develop new language for
WCF's that addressed the specifics of WCF sites but incorporated some of the
minimum tree spacing,shrub placement and opaque screening employed on
commercial sites.
On October 14,1999,the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of an Ordinance establishing landscaping and screening
requirements for all new or amended WCF with support structures (towers).
While recognizing the impossibility of screening a 75 foot —150 foot tower,it was
felt that it would be appropriate to screen the base of a tower site including
equipment facilities and cabinets.The basic landscaping and screening
requirements proposed by the Planning Commission for all new or amended
WCF were as follow:
a.All WCF subject to this section shall contain a permanent six (6)foot
landscape strip parallel with all sides of the primary use area and outside
of the opaque fence,except for a space for ingress and egress to the
primary use area.
b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use area to provide screening and a
background for required landscaping within the six (6)foot landscape
strip.
c.The opaque fence shall also satisfy the security fence requirement of
section 36-593(f).
d.The landscape strip on each side of the primary use area shall be planted
~wi ~o2)trees of a 2"caliper which will grow to a minimum twenty (20)
feet in height at maturity.The space between trees shall be planted with
evergreen shrubs of thirty (30)inch height on 30 inch centers at planting,
sufficient to cover at maturity the entire ground area within the landscape
strip.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6117-A
On December 20,1999,the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.18,173
which incorporated the landscape and screening requirements proposed by the
Commission for new or amended WCF's but,which also added a 2 year
amortization period for those WCF in existence on January 20,2000 to be
brought into compliance with the new standards.The Board retained sole
authority to grant waivers or deferrals of the landscape and screening
requirements for those WCF sites covered by the amortization schedule.All new
or amended WCF's still went to the Planning Commission.Subsequent to
January 2000,numerous applications for deferral or conditional waiver of the
standards have been approved by the Board.There are only a few remaining
WCF sites that have not been dealt with during the past two years either through
a collocation amendment or as a deferral/waiver by the Board.
On May 21,2002,Ordinance No.18,682 was passed by the Board of Directors
which amended the landscape standards for WCF by requiring that the 6 foot
landscape strip be located within the WCF lease area and by changing the
spacing of trees and shrubs in each landscape strip to a minimum of 15 feet for
the trees and a maximum of 48 inches for the shrubs.
Also on May 21,2002,the Board passed Ordinance No.18,683 which passed to
the Planning Commission the authority to grant a deferral of the landscaping and
screening requirements for those WCF that were in existence prior to
January 20,2000 and which also extended the amortization period an additional
30 days.Rather than going directly to the Board of Directors,deferrals for those
pre-existing WCF are now to be handled through the Tower Use Permit process.
The new language in the Code now reads as follows:
Existing WCF shall be landscaped and screened in accordance
with this section within thirty (30)days of the effective date of this
ordinance unless compliance is deferred by the Planning
Commission through the TUP process because the WCF is not
currently located within 100 feet of any occupiable structure.
Provided,however,the WCF shall be landscaped and screened in
accordance with this article within ninety (90)days of final
inspection for any occupiable structure subsequently constructed
within 100 feet of the WCF.
g1)In such cases where the Planning Commission has granted a
deferral of the landscape and/or screening requirements of this
article,the Planning Commission may modify the deferral or
impose the landscape and screening requirements if,in the future,
a major change in circumstances occurs.
(2)For purposes of this section,a "major change in circumstance"
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6117-A
means that:
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower site
has developed to the point that there is a virtually unobstructed
view of the tower site from any adjoining occupiable residential
structure or from public property or right of way,and
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site that
the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC g 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,but
no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional space
around the site has been acquired to meet the landscaping,
setback and screening requirements of LRC g 36-593.
~SR ~
The Sprint Spectrum WCF located on the C-3 zoned property at 9101 Mabelvale
Pike (10201 l-30)consists of a 110 foot tall monopole tower and an equipment
cabinet within a 50 foot by 50 foot lease area.The lease area is enclosed by an
8 foot tall chain-link fence topped with barbed wire.The lease area is located
within the paved parking lot located behind Jones Harley-Davidson dealership.
The WCF is situated so that it is behind a liquor store and a hotel which front
onto 1-30.Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Facilities are
located adjacent to the north and across Mabelvale Pike to the west.The WCF
is not visible from any residentially occupied properties.The facility was
approved as a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission April 23,
1996.
Since the WCF is located within a paved parking lot surrounded by commercial
and industrial uses,the applicant is requesting approval of a deferral of the
landscaping requirements on all four perimeters of the site.Sprint Spectrum will
replace the chain-link fence with the required 8 foot tall solid wood fence.
Staff is supportive of the request.Due to the nature and location of the WCF
site,it is reasonable not to require landscaping.The proposed 8 foot tall wood
fence will provide screening of the base of the site and is compatible with uses in
the area.
4
July 11,200M
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6117-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Tracy Gill was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed tower use permit.The four (4)Sprint Spectrum T.U.P.'s (Items 10,11,
12 and 13 on this agenda)were discussed simultaneously.
There was a general discussion relating to the basic requirements for screening
and landscaping tower sites.The intent of and reasons for these specific
ordinance requirements were discussed.Commissioner Berry asked that staff
provide the Commission with this information.There was additional discussion
pertaining to the number of Sprint towers in Little Rock.Mr.Gill provided the
Committee with this information.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the tower use permit to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral of the landscaping
requirement on all four perimeters of the WCF site until such time as a "major
change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval of the deferral 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,1 absent and 1 open position.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-6125-B
Name:Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
Address:4300 South Shackleford Road
Applicant:Sprint Spectrum/Tracy E.Gill
Request:Sprint Spectrum is requesting approval of a deferral of the
requirement to install a landscape strip around the perimeter
of this existing Wireless Communications Facility.The
property is zoned l-1,Industrial.
Public Works Comments:No Comments.
Landsca e/Screenin:
Landscaping is not required by the Landscape and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Only WCF landscape and screening standards apply.
Notification:
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 SWLRUP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of this issue.
W~CF ~
Prior to January 1998,cellular towers were permitted by-right in Open Space and
Industrial Districts with a maximum height of 75 feet.Variances for towers
exceeding 75 feet in height in the Open Space and Industrial Districts were
~pprovedjsydhe Board of Adjustment.Cellular towers proposed for placement in
other zoning districts required approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission.
On January 20,1998,the Little Rock Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,664 which added a new article to the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Wireless
Communications Facilities"and which established standards and development
criteria for the various types of WCF's to be erected within the City and its
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6125-B
jurisdiction.Under that Ordinance,new WCF were to be landscaped in
accordance with Chapter 15,the Landscape Ordinance.This resulted in few
WCF sites being landscaped since the landscape requirements of Chapter 15
are tied to parking lots and WCF sites typically have no parking or driveways.
In early 1999,it was brought to the attention of the Board of Directors that
numerous WCF sites lacked landscaping and screening.These sites were
typically located such that abutting zoning or use didn't require screening or
landscaping.It was clear that the landscaping and screening requirements
within the City Code at that time were insufficient to specifically address the
issue of WCF lease sites.Staff was directed to develop new language for
WCF's that addressed the specifics of WCF sites but incorporated some of the
minimum tree spacing,shrub placement and opaque screening employed on
commercial sites.
On October 14,1999,the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of an Ordinance establishing landscaping and screening
requirements for all new or amended WCF with support structures (towers).
While recognizing the impossibility of screening a 75 foot —150 foot tower,it was
felt that it would be appropriate to screen the base of a tower site including
equipment facilities and cabinets.The basic landscaping and screening
requirements proposed by the Planning Commission for all new or amended
WCF were as follow:
a.All WCF subject to this section shall contain a permanent six (6)foot
landscape strip parallel with all sides of the primary use area and outside
of the opaque fence,except for a space for ingress and egress to the
primary use area.
b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use area to provide screening and a
background for required landscaping within the six (6)foot landscape
strip.
c.The opaque fence shall also satisfy the security fence requirement of
section 36-593(f).
d.The landscape strip on each side of the primary use area shall be planted
wlt~og2)trees of a 2"caliper which will grow to a minimum twenty (20)
feet in height at maturity.The space between trees shall be planted with
evergreen shrubs of thirty (30)inch height on 30 inch centers at planting,
sufficient to cover at maturity the entire ground area within the landscape
strip.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6125-B
On December 20,1999,the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.18,173
which incorporated the landscape and screening requirements proposed by the
Commission for new or amended WCF's but,which also added a 2 year
amortization period for those WCF in existence on January 20,2000 to be
brought into compliance with the new standards.The Board retained sole
authority to grant waivers or deferrals of the landscape and screening
requirements for those WCF sites covered by the amortization schedule.All new
or amended WCF's still went to the Planning Commission.Subsequent to
January 2000,numerous applications for deferral or conditional waiver of the
standards have been approved by the Board.There are only a few remaining
WCF sites that have not been dealt with during the past two years either through
a collocation amendment or as a deferral/waiver by the Board.
On May 21,2002,Ordinance No.18,682 was passed by the Board of Directors
which amended the landscape standards for WCF by requiring that the 6 foot
landscape strip be located within the WCF lease area and by changing the
spacing of trees and shrubs in each landscape strip to a minimum of 15 feet for
the trees and a maximum of 48 inches for the shrubs.
Also on May 21,2002,the Board passed Ordinance No.18,683 which passed to
the Planning Commission the authority to grant a deferral of the landscaping and
screening requirements for those WCF that were in existence prior to
January 20,2000 and which also extended the amortization period an additional
30 days.Rather than going directly to the Board of Directors,deferrals for those
pre-existing WCF are now to be handled through the Tower Use Permit process.
The new language in the Code now reads as follows:
Existing WCF shall be landscaped and screened in accordance
with this section within thirty (30)days of the effective date of this
ordinance unless compliance is deferred by the Planning
Commission through the TUP process because the WCF is not
currently located within 100 feet of any occupiable structure.
Provided,however,the WCF shall be landscaped and screened in
accordance with this article within ninety (90)days of final
inspection for any occupiable structure subsequently constructed
within 100 feet of the WCF.
a.In such cases where the Planning Commission has granted a deferral
of the landscape and/or screening requirements of this article,the
Planning Commission may modify the deferral or impose the
landscape and screening requirements if,in the future,a major change
in circumstances occurs.
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6125-B
b.For purposes of this section,a "major change in circumstance"means
that:
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower site
has developed to the point that there is a virtually unobstructed
view of the tower site from any adjoining occupiable residential
structure or from public property or right of way,and
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site that
the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC g 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,but
no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional space
around the site has been acquired to meet the landscaping,
setback and screening requirements of LRC g 36-593.
~St ff ~
The Sprint Spectrum WCF located on the l-1 zoned property at 4300 South
Shackleford (10700 Colonel Glenn Road)consists of a 180 foot tall monopole
tower and an equipment cabinet within a 70 foot by 70 foot lease area.The
lease area is within a heavily wooded 5 acre tract.Access is from a gated,1,000
foot,gravel driveway off of Shackleford Road.The actual primary use area of
the WCF lease area (that area containing the tower and equipment)is 35 feet by
35 feet and is enclosed by a 6 foot tall,chain-link fence topped with barbed wire.
There are numerous trees within the remainder of the overall lease area,
between the fence enclosing the primary use area and the overall lease area
boundary.The properties to the north,west and east are undeveloped and
heavily wooded.Some 1401 feet of the wooded,5 acre parent tract extend to
the south of the WCF site.Further south,fronting onto Colonel Glenn Road,are
two large office-warehouse buildings and the large tract occupied by Clear
Channel Corporation (the former Sam's Club building).The nearest single family
residence is located 6601 feet northeast of the WCF,through an area of dense
woods.On April 29,1996,the Board of Adjustment granted a height variance
which allowed this facility,including a 140 foot tall tower.On September 30,
1996,the Board approved an increase in the tower height from 140 feet to 180
feet.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6125-B
Since the WCF is located within a heavily wooded tract surrounded by other
heavily wooded or industrially developed tracts,the applicant is requesting
approval of a deferral of the landscaping requirements on all four perimeters of
the site.Spring Spectrum will replace the chain-link fence with the required 8
foot tall solid wood fence.
Staff is supportive of the request.Due to the nature and location of the WCF
site,it is reasonable not to require additional landscaping.If the 35 foot by 35
foot primary use area is ever expanded,staff suggests that it be limited so that
the required 6 foot wide perimeter landscape strip is retained within the 70 foot
by 70 foot lease area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Tracy Gill was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed tower use permit.The four (4)Sprint Spectrum T.U.P.'s (Items 10,11,
12 and 13 on this agenda)were discussed simultaneously.
There was a general discussion relating to the basic requirements for screening
and landscaping tower sites.The intent of and reasons for these specific
ordinance requirements were discussed.Commissioner Berry asked that staff
provide the Commission with this information.There was additional discussion
pertaining to the number of Sprint towers in Little Rock.Mr.Gill provided the
Committee with this information.
Mr.Gill explained the reasons for deferral of the landscape requirements for this
specific site.He noted that there was wooded property surrounding the site.He
also noted that the site was located in industrial zoning.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the tower use permit to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral of the landscape
requirement on all four perimeters of the WCF site subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1.The deferral is until such time as a "major change in circumstance"as
defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6125-B
2.A 6 foot wide perimeter landscape strip is to be retained within the 70 foot
by 70 foot lease area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
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,1 absent and 1 open position.
6
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-6195-C
Name:Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
Address:8120 Scott Hamilton Road
Applicant:Sprint Spectrum/Tracy E.Gill
Request:Sprint Spectrum is requesting approval of a deferral of the
requirement to install a landscape strip around the perimeter
of this existing Wireless Communication Facility.The
property is zoned l-2,Industrial.
Public Works Comments:No Comments.
Landsca e/Screenin:
Landscaping is not required by the Landscape and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Only WCF landscape and screening standards apply.
Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Upper Baseline and SWLRUP
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this issue.On June 11,2002,the
Upper Baseline Association voted to approve the landscape deferral,with the
8 foot fence to be installed.
N~fCF ~i t
Prior to January 1998,cellular towers were permitted by-right in Open Space and
——--——-AvdustriaVDistricts-with a maximum height of 75 feet.Variances for towers
exceeding 75 feet in height in the Open Space and Industrial Districts were
approved by the Board of Adjustment.Cellular towers proposed for placement in
other zoning districts required approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission.
On January 20,1998,the Little Rock Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,664 which added a new article to the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Wireless
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6195-C
Communications Facilities"and which established standards and development
criteria for the various types of WCF's to be erected within the City and its
jurisdiction.Under that Ordinance,new WCF were to be landscaped in
accordance with Chapter 15,the Landscape Ordinance.This resulted in few
WCF sites being landscaped since the landscape requirements of Chapter 15
are tied to parking lots and WCF sites typically have no parking or driveways.
In early 1999,it was brought to the attention of the Board of Directors that
numerous WCF sites lacked landscaping and screening.These sites were
typically located such that abutting zoning or use didn't require screening or
landscaping.It was clear that the landscaping and screening requirements
within the City Code at that time were insufficient to specifically address the
issue of WCF lease sites.Staff was directed to develop new language for
WCF's that addressed the specifics of WCF sites but incorporated some of the
minimum tree spacing,shrub placement and opaque screening employed on
commercial sites.
On October 14,1999,the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of an Ordinance establishing landscaping and screening
requirements for all new or amended WCF with support structures (towers).
While recognizing the impossibility of screening a 75 foot —150 foot tower,it was
felt that it would be appropriate to screen the base of a tower site including
equipment facilities and cabinets.The basic landscaping and screening
requirements proposed by the Planning Commission for all new or amended
WCF were as follow:
a.All WCF subject to this section shall contain a permanent six (6)foot
landscape strip parallel with all sides of the primary use area and outside
of the opaque fence,except for a space for ingress and egress to the
primary use area.
b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use area to provide screening and a
background for required landscaping within the six (6)foot landscape
strip.
c.The opaque fence shall also satisfy the security fence requirement of
section 36-593(f).
d.The landscape strip on each side of the primary use area shall be planted
with two (2)trees of a 2"caliper which will grow to a minimum twenty (20)
feet in height at maturity.The space between trees shall be planted with
evergreen shrubs of thirty (30)inch height on 30 inch centers at planting,
sufficient to cover at maturity the entire ground area within the landscape
strip.
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6195-C
On December 20,1999,the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.18,173
which incorporated the landscape and screening requirements proposed by the
Commission for new or amended WCF's but,which also added a 2 year
amortization period for those WCF in existence on January 20,2000 to be
brought into compliance with the new standards.The Board retained sole
authority to grant waivers or deferrals of the landscape and screening
requirements for those WCF sites covered by the amortization schedule.All new
or amended WCF's still went to the Planning Commission.Subsequent to
January 2000,numerous applications for deferral or conditional waiver of the
standards have been approved by the Board.There are only a few remaining
WCF sites that have not been dealt with during the past two years either through
a collocation amendment or as a deferral/waiver by the Board.
On May 21,2002,Ordinance No.18,682 was passed by the Board of Directors
which amended the landscape standards for WCF by requiring that the 6 foot
landscape strip be located within the WCF lease area and by changing the
spacing of trees and shrubs in each landscape strip to a minimum of 15 feet for
the trees and a maximum of 48 inches for the shrubs.
Also on May 21,2002,the Board passed Ordinance No.18,683 which passed to
the Planning Commission the authority to grant a deferral of the landscaping and
screening requirements for those WCF that were in existence prior to
January 20,2000 and which also extended the amortization period an additional
30 days.Rather than going directly to the Board of Directors,deferrals for those
pre-existing WCF are now to be handled through the Tower Use Permit process.
The new language in the Code now reads as follows:
Existing WCF shall be landscaped and screened in accordance
with this section within thirty (30)days of the effective date of this
ordinance unless compliance is deferred by the Planning
Commission through the TUP process because the WCF is not
currently located within 100 feet of any occupiable structure.
Provided,however,the WCF shall be landscaped and screened in
accordance with this article within ninety (90)days of final
inspection for any occupiable structure subsequently constructed
within 100 feet of the WCF.
a.In such cases where the Planning Commission has granted a deferral
oANe landscape and/or screening requirements of this article,the
Planning Commission may modify the deferral or impose the
landscape and screening requirements if,in the future,a major change
in circumstances occurs.
b.For purposes of this section,a "major change in circumstance"means
that:
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6195-C
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower site
has developed to the point that there is a virtually unobstructed
view of the tower site from any adjoining occupiable residential
structure or from public property or right of way,and
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site that
the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC g 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,but
no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional space
around the site has been acquired to meet the landscaping,
setback and screening requirements of LRC g 36-593.
d~t ~
The Sprint Spectrum WCF located on the 1-2 zoned property at 8120 Scott
Hamilton Road consists of a 100 foot tall monopole tower and an equipment
cabinet within a 25 foot by 40 foot lease area.The lease area is located on the
paved parking lot of a 6+acre,multiple building,office-warehouse development.
The WCF site is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain-link fence topped with barbed
wire.The WCF site is adjacent to one of the warehouse buildings.It is some
300+feet off of Scott Hamilton.The site is somewhat visible from Scott
Hamilton,through a gap between the two warehouse buildings that front onto the
street.Two landscape islands are located in that "gap"between the street and
the WCF,including one landscape island directly in front of the WCF.The site is
located in an area of mixed industrial,commercial and institutional uses including
the surrounding office-warehouse development,the Arkansas Electric
Cooperative complex,several hotels and the Metropolitan Vo-Tech campus.
The site is not visible from any residential properties.
The tower was originally constructed in the early 1990's at 70 feet in height.No
variance or special approval was needed.In September 1996,the Board of
Adjustment approved increasing the height of the tower to 100 feet.No
tt dd,
Since the WCF is located within a large office/warehouse development and is
buffered from other properties by the office/warehouse buildings;and since the
WCF is located within an asphalt paved parking lot,the applicant is requesting
approval of a deferral of the landscaping requirements on all four perimeters of
the site.Sprint Spectrum will replace the chain-link fence with the required 8 foot
tall solid wood fence.
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6195-C
Staff is supportive of the request.Due to the nature and location of the WCF
site,it is seasonable not to require landscaping around the perimeter of the
WCF.The proposed 8 foot tall wood fence will provide screening of the base of
the site and is compatible with uses in the area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Tracy Gill was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed tower use permit.The four (4)Sprint Spectrum T.U.P.'s (Items 10,11,
12 and 13 on this agenda)were discussed simultaneously.
There was a general discussion relating to the basic requirements for screening
and landscaping tower sites.The intent of and reasons for these specific
ordinance requirements were discussed.Commissioner Berry asked that staff
provide the Commission with this information.There was additional discussion
pertaining to the number of Sprint towers in Little Rock.Mr.Gill provided the
Committee with this information.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the tower use permit to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral of the landscaping
requirement on all four perimeters of the WCF site until such time as a "major
change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
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
dlscusslon.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-7246
Name:Sprint Spectrum —Tower Use Permit
Address:711 South Izard
Applicant:Sprint Spectrum/Tracy E.Gill
Request:Sprint Spectrum is requesting approval of a deferral of the
requirement to install a landscape strip around the perimeter
of this existing Wireless Communication Facility.The
property is zoned UU,Urban Use.
Public Works Comments:No Comments.
Landsca e/Screenin:
Landscaping is not required by the Landscape and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Only WCF landscape and screening standards apply.Staff believes it would be
appropriate to place the landscape materials that would typically be required for
the west perimeter of the WCF between the parking lot and the sidewalk.This
area is right-of-way and a franchise would be required from the City prior to
planting in the right-of-way.
Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Downtown Neighborhood Association were
notified of this issue.
N~fC F ~
Prior to January 1998,cellular towers were permitted by-right in Open Space and
Industrial Districts with a maximum height of 75 feet.Variances for towers
exceeding 75 feet in height in the Open Space and Industrial Districts were
approved by the Board of Adjustment.Cellular towers proposed for placement in
other zoning districts required approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission.
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7246
On January 20,1998,the Little Rock Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,664 which added a new article to the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Wireless
Communications Facilities"and which established standards and development
criteria for the various types of WCF's to be erected within the City and its
jurisdiction.Under that Ordinance,new WCF were to be landscaped in
accordance with Chapter 15,the Landscape Ordinance.This resulted in few
WCF sites being landscaped since the landscape requirements of Chapter 15
are tied to parking lots and WCF sites typically have no parking or driveways.
In early 1999,it was brought to the attention of the Board of Directors that
numerous WCF sites lacked landscaping and screening.These sites were
typically located such that abutting zoning or use didn't require screening or
landscaping.It was clear that the landscaping and screening requirements
within the City Code at that time were insufficient to specifically address the
issue of WCF lease sites.Staff was directed to develop new language for
WCF's that addressed the specifics of WCF sites but incorporated some of the
minimum tree spacing,shrub placement and opaque screening employed on
commercial sites.
On October 14,1999,the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of an Ordinance establishing landscaping and screening
requirements for all new or amended WCF with support structures (towers).
While recognizing the impossibility of screening a 75 foot —150 foot tower,it was
felt that it would be appropriate to screen the base of a tower site including
equipment facilities and cabinets.The basic landscaping and screening
requirements proposed by the Planning Commission for all new or amended
WCF were as follow:
a.All WCF subject to this section shall contain a permanent six (6)foot
landscape strip parallel with all sides of the primary use area and outside
of the opaque fence,except for a space for ingress and egress to the
primary use area.
b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use area to provide screening and a
background for required landscaping within the six (6)foot landscape
strip.
c.The opaque fence shall also satisfy the security fence requirement of
section 36-593(f).
d.The landscape strip on each side of the primary use area shall be planted
with two (2)trees of a 2"caliper which will grow to a minimum twenty (20)
feet in height at maturity.The space between trees shall be planted with
2
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7246
evergreen shrubs of thirty (30)inch height on 30 inch centers at planting,
sufficient to cover at maturity the entire ground area within the landscape
strip.
On December 20,1999,the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.18,173
which incorporated the landscape and screening requirements proposed by the
Commission for new or amended WCF's but,which also added a 2 year
amortization period for those WCF in existence on January 20,2000 to be
brought into compliance with the new standards.The Board retained sole
authority to grant waivers or deferrals of the landscape and screening
requirements for those WCF sites covered by the amortization schedule.All new
or amended WCF's still went to the Planning Commission.Subsequent to
January 2000,numerous applications for deferral or conditional waiver of the
standards have been approved by the Board.There are only a few remaining
WCF sites that have not been dealt with during the past two years either through
a collocation amendment or as a deferral/waiver by the Board.
On May 21,2002,Ordinance No.18,682 was passed by the Board of Directors
which amended the landscape standards for WCF by requiring that the 6 foot
landscape strip be located within the WCF lease area and by changing the
spacing of trees and shrubs in each landscape strip to a minimum of 15 feet for
the trees and a maximum of 48 inches for the shrubs.
Also on May 21,2002,the Board passed Ordinance No.18,683 which passed to
the Planning Commission the authority to grant a deferral of the landscaping and
screening requirements for those WCF that were in existence prior to January
20,2000 and which also extended the amortization period an additional 30 days.
Rather than going directly to the Board of Directors,deferrals for those pre-
existing WCF are now to be handled through the Tower Use Permit process.
The new language in the Code now reads as follows:
Existing WCF shall be landscaped and screened in accordance
with this section within thirty (30)days of the effective date of this
ordinance unless compliance is deferred by the Planning
Commission through the TUP process because the WCF is not
currently located within 100 feet of any occupiable structure.
Provided,however,the WCF shall be landscaped and screened in
accoratance with this article within ninety (90)days of final
inspection for any occupiable structure subsequently constructed
within 100 feet of the WCF.
a.In such cases where the Planning Commission has granted a deferral
of the landscape and/or screening requirements of this article,the
Planning Commission may modify the deferral or impose the
3
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7246
landscape and screening requirements if,in the future,a major change
in circumstances occurs.
b.For purposes of this section,a "major change in circumstance"means
that:
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower site
has developed to the point that there is a virtually unobstructed
view of the tower site from any adjoining occupiable residential
structure or from public property or right of way,and
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site that
the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC g 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,but
no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional space
around the site has been acquired to meet the landscaping,
setback and screening requirements of LRC g 36-593.
~St ll R
The Sprint Spectrum WCF located on the UU zoned property at 711 South Izard
Street consists of a 70 foot tall monopole tower and an equipment cabinet within
a 25 foot by 35 foot lease area.The lease area is located at the rear of an
asphalt paved parking lot,adjacent to the rear of a warehouse building.The
WCF site is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain-link fence topped with barbed wire.A
large parking lot extends north of the site.Wholesale and service companies are
located across 8'"Street to the south.A television studio and printing company
are located across Izard Street to the west.The parking lot within which the
WCF is located has no landscaping so the base of the WCF is visible when the
parking lot is empty.The site is not visible from any residential properties.
The tower was constructed in 1996.At that time,the property was zoned l-2,
Uig1ncCuMsriai,and no variance or special approval was needed.The WCF was
constructed on an existing asphalt paved parking lot.It was designed and
located so as the minimize the effect on the parking lot.
Since the WCF is located within the paved parking lot,installing the landscape
strip would require tearing out asphalt,redesigning the parking lot and driveway
and losing parking spaces.The applicant is requesting approval of a deferral of
4
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7246
the landscaping requirements for all perimeters of the site.Sprint Spectrum will
replace the chain-link fence with the required 8 foot tall solid wood fence.
Staff is generally supportive of the request.Due to the nature and location of the
WCF site,it is reasonable not to require installation of the landscape strip around
the perimeter of the site.The proposed 8 foot tall wood fence will provide good
screening of the base of the WCF site.
Staff does believe it is also reasonable to place some of the required landscaping
materials at the perimeter of the site,to provide some landscaping for the parking
lot.There are grassy strips located on either side of the sidewalk between the
parking lot and the curb of Izard Street.The Izard Street perimeter of the WCF
would require two (2)trees and eight (8)shrubs.Placing those materials on the
street perimeter of the lot within which the WCF is located would improve the
overall appearance of the site.A franchise will be required for placing
landscaping in the right-of-way.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 13,2002)
Tracy Gill was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed tower use permit.The four (4)Sprint Spectrum T.U.P.'s (Items 10,11,
12 and 13 on this agenda)were discussed simultaneously.
There was a general discussion relating to the basic requirements for screening
and landscaping tower sites.The intent of and reasons for these specific
ordinance requirements were discussed.Commissioner Berry asked that staff
provide the Commission with this information.There was additional discussion
pertaining to the number of Sprint towers in Little Rock.Mr.Gill provided the
Committee with this information.
Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that some trees within the public right-of-
way would help this unlandscaped site.Mr.Gill stated that there was not room
between the sidewalk and parking lot to plant trees,because the cars overhang
this grassy area.He presented photos to support this point.Mr.Brown
suggested using wheel stops to prevent this situation.This issue was briefly
discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the tower use permit to the full
Commission for final action.
5
July 11,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7246
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral of the landscape
requirement on all four perimeters of the WCF site subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1.The deferral is until such time as a "major change in circumstance"as
defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
2.The required landscape materials for the western perimeter of the WCF
(2 trees and 8 shrubs)are to be planted between the parking lot and the
curb of Izard Street.A franchise must be obtained for the landscaping
and appropriate wheel stops must be installed to protect the landscaping.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 11,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff noted that
condition number 2 was to be changed to require the plantings to be placed
along the West 8 Street perimeter rather than along Izard Street.There was no
further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position.
6
July 11,002
PLANNING,REZONING,CONDITIONAL USE
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:G-23-315
Name:Kentucky Street Abandonment
Location:A portion of Kentucky Street
lying east and north of
Cantrell Road in Little
Rock,Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Owner/A licant:Van McClendon,Agent for
Sidney Thorn
Request:To abandon approximately170'f that portion of
Kentucky Street lying north
and east of Cantrell Road.
Existing right-of-way width
is 40
feet'TAFF
REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Right-of-Way
Currently,this portion of Kentucky Street is for the
most part,no longer in use as a public street.The
street is not maintained,is grown up in weeds and
brush,and ends at an apartment complex to the east.
The land slopes steeply to the north and east.
Land abutting the street is currently held by four
landowners.Ken Rash Casual Furniture located north of
where Kentucky meets Cantrell uses a short segment of
Kentucky (approximately 50')as one of two access
points to that property.To the east,the applicant,
Sidney Thorn,owns undeveloped land on Kentucky.
Two other properties front on Cantrell and abut
Kentucky to the rear,the unused Chief Gas station
owned by Steven Cauley,and the Blackmon Chiropractic
Clinic owned by the Chester Royce Blackmon Trust.
Neither of these two landowner actively uses Kentucky
for access due to the presence of retaining walls and
1
July 11,~002
PLANNING,REZONING,CONDITIONAL USE
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:G-23-315
steep embankments along Kentucky.It would appear
Kentucky Street serves these properties as an access
point for infrequent maintenance.
Only a short portion of Kentucky where it meets
Cantrell,approximately 35 feet,is currently in use as
a public right-of-way.The remainder of Kentucky is
not in service as a public street and is no longer
needed as a public right-of-way.However,this right-
of-way is in active use by utilities and an easement
would be retained for utilities.This easement would
also serve as a maintenance access point to the rear of
properties that abut Cantrell.
2.Master Street Plan
Because existing land uses along this portion of
Kentucky are commercial,Kentucky Street would be
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
commercial street.Cantrell Road at Kentucky is
classified as a principle arterial.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
The right-of-way width of 40 to 50 feet along Cantrell
Road at this location is extremely inadequate.The
Master Street Plan calls for a width of right-of-way of
from 90 to 110 feet.None of the existing landowners
have agreed to dedicate right-of-way on Cantrell at
this time.
4.Development Potential
This established area along Cantrell has been developed
for many years and current land use in the vicinity is
commercial and multifamily.In recent years,some new
development has occurred along Cantrell as in-fill and
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is primarily commercial and multi-
family,with residential areas to the north and south.
2
July 11,4002
PLANNING,REZONING,CONDITIONAL USE
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:G-23-315
Closure should have little impact on existing land-use
or impact on the residential neighborhood.
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and neighborhood
associations were notified of the public hearing.At
this writing,two abutting landowners appear in favor
of the closure,and two land owners are against
closure.Blackmon and Rash are not in favor of
closure.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Several utility companies have facilities located in
the existing right-of-way.There is no objection to
closure of the right-of-way,provided a utility
easement is retained.
Entergy —has facilities in the right-of-way
ARKLA —has facilities in the right-of-way
Southwestern Bell —has facilities in the right-of-way
Water Works —has an 8 inch water main in the ROW
Wastewater Utility —has facilities in the right-of-way
Fire Department -has no objection to the abandonment
Neighborhood and Planning —has no objection to the
abandonment
8.Reversionary Ri hts
All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent
property owners.A small amount of right-of-way will be
retained at the intersection of Kentucky with Cantrell
(45 feet from the centerline of Cantrell).This will
provide the required Master Street Plan right-of-way
wzWt%for Cantrell Road at this location and an access
point for the Rash property to the north.
A utility and access easement will also be retained in
the former right-of-way.
3
July 11.2002
PLANNING,REZONING,CONDITIONAL USE
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:G-23-315
9.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Abandoning this segment of Kentucky will have no
apparent adverse effects on the public welfare and
safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Because all landowners have not
agreed to the closure,Public Works does not support closure
of this portion of Kentucky at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION (June 4,2002)
Because not all abutting land owners agreed to the closure,
The applicant originally filed the petition for abandonment
directly with the Board of Directors.Rather that
requesting closure under the statute for unused right-of-
way,the petition requested closure under the State statute
for closure under the general police powers of the Board.
The Board declined to hear the petition and referred it to
the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (July 11,2002)
On July 11,the applicant requested a deferral of the item
to allow more time to resolve issues with other adjacent
land owners.The Commission voted to suspend the rules (7
ayes,0 nayes,3 absent,1 open position)requiring a five
day advance notice of a deferral request and voted on the
consent agenda to defer the item to the August 8""meeting
(9 ayes,0 nayes,1 absent,1 open position).
4
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
~
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
)
u
'Z
/~
CM
M
n
z
ME
M
B
E
u
l~
/~
/
3
i
RE
C
T
O
,
BI
L
L
v'
IN
N
I
N
O
c
sN
FL
O
Y
D
,
(O
R
M
V
NU
N
N
L
E
,
OB
R
A
Y
V'E
R
R
Y
,
|RA
I
G
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
RA
H
M
A
N
MI
Z
A
N
:
o
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
v'L
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
v'U
S
E
,
RO
H
N
A
R
g
&U
~
h
c
.
ME
M
B
E
R
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
M1
~
,
4
N
I
N
A
E
i
c
pe
w
FL
O
Y
D
,
NO
R
M
V
~
0
0
li
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
V
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
v
V'
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
~
P.
M
.
+A
Y
E
+
NA
Y
E
~A
B
S
E
N
T
~A
B
S
T
A
I
N
~R
E
C
U
S
E
July 11,2002
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was
adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
Date
ere ary Chairman