HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 04 1999LITTLE ROCK PLANNINQ COMMISSION
PLANNINQ AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 4,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Members Present:Craig Berry
Herb HawnBillPutnam
Judith Faust
Rohn Muse
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Obray Nunnley,Jr.
City Attorney:Steve Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 4,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.LU98-01-01 A Land Use Plan in the River Mountain
Planning District at the northwest corner
of Taylor Loop Road and Westchester Court
from Single Family to Suburban Office.
B.LU98-02-04 A Land Use Plan in the Rodney Parham
Planning District on the south side of
Markham from Westbrook Circle to Burnside
from Single Family to Suburban Office
C.LU98-04-02 A Land Use Plan in the Heights Hillcrest
Planning District at the southeast corner
of University Avenue and Cantrell Road
from Low Density Residential to SuburbanOffice.
D.LU98-15-04 A Land Use Plan in the Geyer Springs West
Planning District at 8621 Baseline Road
from Community Shopping to Multi-Family.
E.Z-6597 8621 Baseline Road R-2 to C-1
F.Kanis Road Master Street Plan Amendment to modify the
design standards from Shackleford Road to the
intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway.
G.Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road Corridor from
Shackleford Road to the intersection of Kanis Road and
Chenal Parkway.
II.DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT:
1.A Design Overlay District for the South University
Avenue Corridor from Asher Avenue to Wanda Lane.
III.PLAN ISSUES:
2.LU99-04-01 A Land Use Plan in the Heights Hillcrest
Planning District for various changes
within an area bounded by University
Avenue,Markham Street,Woodlawn Street,
and Taylor Street from Multi Family andOfficetoMixed,Office,Single Family and
Multi Family.
3 .LU99-12-01 A Land Use Plan in the 65 Street West
Planning District at the intersection of
Shackleford Road and Stagecoach Road from
Single Family and Neighborhood CommercialtoServiceTradesDistrictandPark/Open
Space.
4.A Neighborhood Action Plan for the Downtown
Neighborhoods Area,an area bounded by Roosevelt Road,Martin Luther King,I-630,I-30.
5.Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan —Land Use Plan
Amendments
5A.LU99-08-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central
City District located between 13 and 15 Streets,State
and Broadway changing from Multi Family to Low Density
Residential'B.
LU99-08-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the CentralCityDistrictlocatedbetween15StreetandI-630 EastofRockStreetfromMixedUsetoLowDensityResidential.
5C.LU99-08-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the CentralCityDistrictlocatedbetween17and19StreetsalongScottStreetchangingfromLowDensityResidential,
Commercial,and Public Institutional to Mixed Use.
5D.LU99-08-04 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the CentralCityDistrictlocatedbetween16toI-630 along ScottStreetchangingfromLowDensityResidential,
Commercial,and Public Institutional to Mixed Use.
6.Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan —Rezonings;C-3 andR-5 to R-4
IV.OTHER MATTERS:
7.Pfeifer —East Annexation
8.Master Street Plan Amendment —I-630 East Extension
9.Discussion of 1998 Ordinance Amendment Items
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU98-01-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —River Mountain
Planning District
Location:14122 Taylor Loop Road
~Re eet:Single Family tc Suburban Office
Source:Robert Trammell
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain PlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilytoSuburbanOffice.SuburbanOfficeprovidesforlowintensitydevelopmentofoffice orofficeparksincloseproximitytolowerdensityresidentialareastoassurecompatibility.A Planned Zoning District isrequired.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately 1/2acreinsize.To the north in a Transition area is a hairsalonandaveterinarianwithaPCDandaPDO,respectively.
To the east,south and west are single family homes zonedR-2 shown as Single Family on the land Use Plan.To the
northwest,is a PCD for the Harvest Foods that lie in anareashownascommercialontheLandUsePlan.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
There have not been any amendments in the recent past in thearea.The River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan of March
1998 did not make any changes either.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Taylor Loop Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan.Half-street improvements have been made on the west side ofthestreet,but not the east.This section of Taylor LoopconnectswithRahlingRoadthatintersectsChenalParkway.Westchester Court is a residential street.
BACKGROUND:
As stated before,this site lies directly to the south of aTransitionArea(as shown on the Land Use Plan).ThedefinitionofTransitionstatesthatitisa"...designation
which provides for an orderly transition between residentialusesandothermoreintenseuses.Transition wasestablishedtodealwithareaswhichcontainzonedresidentialusesandnonconformingresidentialuses.A
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-01-01
Planned Zoning District is required unless the application
conforms to the Design Overlay standards.Uses which may be
considered are low density multi-family and office uses if
the proposals are compatible with quality of life in nearbyresidentialareas."This area of Transition to the north of
the site was established to do just that,create atransition.The veterinarian and hair salon are located inexistinghousesandactasthattransition.
This site lies in the area reviewed under the River Mountain
neighborhood Action Plan of March 1998.In that process,the
Land Use Plan was reviewed and no changes were made as aresultofthatplan."The committee supports the use of the
Transition category along Highway10 and does not wish to seeitchanged."Suburban Office can act as a transition
between higher intensity uses and single family homes.To
change this to Suburban Office,would in effect,be
increasing the Transition area,which would be in contrasttotheneighborhoodplan.
This site is in close proximity to the proposed Fire Stationat14215TaylorLoopRoad,but any approval of the firestationwillnotaltertheexistingconditionsenoughtodisregardtheneighborhoodplan.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhoodassociations:Pleasant Valley,Walton Heights,Pankey,Pleasant Forest,West Bury,Westchester,and Secluded Hills.
As of this printing,Staff has not received any calls from
neighbors or neighborhood groups concerning this filing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
STAFF UPDATE:
Applicant has petitioned Staff for a deferral to the
February 4,1999 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 17,1998)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral totheFebruary4,1999 meeting and was approved with a vote of
8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-01-01
STAFF UPDATE:
Applicant has petitioned Staff to withdraw this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for withdraw and
was passed with a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and
0 abstentions.
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:LU98-02-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Rodney Parham
Planning District
Location:South side of Markham Street form Westbrook
to Pryor
~Re eet:Single Family to Suburban Office
Source :Mary Ann Phillips
PROPOSAL RE VEST :
Land Use Plan amendment in the Rodney Parham PlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilytoSuburbanOffice~Suburban
Off ice represents services
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING :
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately
1 .2k acres in size .To the north,west and south,are
single fami ly homes zoned R-2 and shown on the land Use Plan
as Single Fami ly .To the east is the shopping center shown
as Commercial on the Land Use Plan that houses Burlington
coat Factory and PC Hardware .It is zoned C -3 .A portion
of the parking lot for that shopping center is zoned 0-3 .
RECENT AMENDMENTS :
October 2 0,19 9 8 ,a change from Suburban Off ice to
Commercial on Markham Center Drive and from Single Family to
Suburban office on the east side of Natural Resources Drive ~
MASTER STREET PLAN :
Markham Street is shown as a minor arterial on the plan andisafour-lane roadway through the amendment area .pryor is
shown as a residential street .
BACKGROUND :
Single family homes dominate this section of Markham on the
north side from just west of Rodney Parham to Santa Fe and
on the south side from Pryor to Wedgwood .On the north
side ,they mainly face the side streets .On the south,
those who face Markham,have ample setbacks from the street .
West of Wedgwood and Santa Fe is an area shown on the Land
Use Plan as Suburban Office and Commerc ial on both sides of
the street ~It is characterized by strip centers ,offices
in remodeled homes and office parks .
The expanded site has been the site of previous actions in
the past .In July 19 8 5,an attempted rezoning from R-2 and
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-02-04
0-3 to C-3.Reasons for denial were stated as:"(1)theadjacentresidentialneighborhoodwouldbeadverselyaffected,(2)Pryor Street cannot act to hold the line
between commercial and residential development."In July1979,an attempt to zone to "E-1"Quiet Business for a
beauty shop was denied by the Commission.In March 1974,the zoning to commercial for the east 70'nd the remaindertobezonedto"E-1"Quiet Business.This rezoning met with
pronounced local resistance.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the PlanningStaffexpandedtheareaofreviewtoincludetheareastotheeasttotheretaildevelopment.It is thought that theadditionalareawouldmaketheboundariesmorelogical.
It is Staffs'pinion that it is desirable to retain single
family homes on minor arterials.Arterials,simply because
they are such,do not justify more intensive development.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhoodassociations:Pennebrook,Echo Valley,Walnut Valley,Colony
West,Treasure Hills,Sturbridge,Beverly Hills,Santa Fe,
Rainwood,and Pleasant Valley.
As of this printing,Staff has received four phone calls
from neighbors,1 supportive,1 opposed and two neutral.Please note the attached petition supplied by the applicantwith4signatures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at the time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 17,1998)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral totheFebruary4,1999 meeting and was approved with a vote of
8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
As of this later printing,Staff has received phone calls,letters and petitions for and against the proposed action.Staff has logged a total of 5 persons for and 35 personsagainst.Staff has not received any comments from
neighborhood associations concerning this matter.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-02-04
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff presented the item to the
commission.
Richard Powell applicant for property at 9309 West Markham
asked for a deferral since Mary Ann Phillips,the original
representative for the case was absent.Discussion followed
among commissioners concerning question of deferral.Ms.
Faust made a motion to waive the by-laws and grant a
deferral on this matter.The motion was seconded andfailed.
Brian Minyard,of Staff presented the item to the
commission.
Wayne Camacho,of 9405 W.Markham,spoke of increasedtrafficandresalevalueofthehouses.Mr.Camacho does
not believe that quiet office space would increase thetrafficintheareaagreatdeal.Mr.Camacho has seen thetrafficincreaseoverthelasttwentyyears.Mr.Camacho
understands that Mr.Powell simply wants to use his propertyforamoreeconomicallyfeasibleuseforthisspecificlocation.
Tom Marks,owner of property at 9223 W.Markham,has triedtorenthispropertyinthepast.Mr.Marks stated that no
one wants to use the property as a residential space but
wants to use it for office space.Mr.Marks wants to rent
the property out as office space and does not intended to
use his property for commercial uses such as gas stations,etc.
Richard Powell,owner of property at 9309 W.Markham,hastriedtosellthepropertyforthepasttwoyears'r.
Powell believes that he will be more likely to sell the
property if it is zoned to allow office uses'roperty was
on the market for one year and remained vacant until rentedforthepastyear.
Commissioner Hawn asked Mr.Powell about the use of
neighboring properties.Mr.Powell noted the presence of a
Farmers Insurance Agency across the street two blocks westofhispropertyaswellasotherhousesconvertedtoofficeuses.
Mrs.Jeanie White,owner of house at 120 Pryor,stated a
concern about the safety of the area due to possibility ofincreasedtrafficandtheattractionofpotentialcrimeresultingfrombreakinsatthebusinesses.Mrs.White
expressed a concern about the unknown factors regarding the
types of businesses that may locate in the area and the typeofclientelesuchbusinessmayattracttothearea.Mrs.
White is satisfied that in its current state the
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-02-04
neighborhood is a safe place to live and does not want to
see a decline in the safety of the neighborhood.
Mr.John McDonald,who lives on the corner of Burnside,
spoke in opposition to the proposal.Mr.McDonald likes the
neighborhood the way it is but would like to see lesstraffic.
Lynn Robinson,22 Windy Oaks Ct.spoke in opposition to the
proposal and sited three items of concern as well as threeresultsfrompassageofthelanduseamendment.The three
items of concerned mentioned consisted of the currentdifficultyofaccessingMarkhamfromsidestreets,increase
in traffic that new businesses would generate,and the lossofprivacyandpropertyvaluesintheneighborhood.The
three results mentioned concerning passage of the proposed
land use amendment consisted of location of potential damagetopropertyresultingfromlocationinfloodplain,
unsightly construction,and loss of privacy and decreased
property values.
Christine Patterson of 1924 W.Markham,expressed concerns
about traffic,displacement,and smart growth.Traffic has
increased considerably since buying the property.Most of
the residents in the neighborhood were long term residents
and Mrs.Patterson feared that changes in the zoning of theareawouldcauseresidentstoleavetheneighborhood.Shevisitedseveralneighborsandallwereopposedtoit.She
questioned the amendment in relation to the smart growthprocess.
Mrs.Dotie Funk spoke of trees on the proposed sight.
Ruth Bell f elt that large setbacks and trees would protect
the houses on Markham from noise and lights on the street.It doesn't need to change.
Commissioner Putnam stated that the Commission is being
burdened to solve financial problems that it is not
responsible for.The Commission is concerned specifically
with zoning.
Bob Turner stated that as of 1996 the traffic count in thevicinityofMarkhamandMississippistoodat18,000 cars perday.The average amount of traffic for a minor arterial is18,000 at the high end.
Commissioner Rahman asked why a property owner opposed totheamendmentwasinthemiddletotheareaoftheproposed
zone change.Mr.Minyard stated that the staff expanded theareaoftheapplicationtotheeasttoincludeMrs.
Berumen's house and Mr.Marks'ouse.Mr.Marks is in
support of the zone change,Mrs.Burhman is not.
Commissioner Hawn moved to approve the application.
4
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-02-04
Commissioner Lowery wanted the record to reflect that hewillabstainfromthevote.
The motion was seconded and failed with a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes,1 abstention and 1 absent.
Mr.Malone stated that applicants have the right to appealtotheBoardofDirectors.
5
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LU98-04-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Heights Hillcrest
Planning District
Location:1723 North University
~Re est:Low Density Residential to Suburban Office
Source:Mary Jane Bailey
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights Hillcrest PlanningDistrictfromLowDensityResidentialtoSuburbanOffice
Suburban Office shall provide for low intensity developmentofofficeorofficeparksincloseproximitytolower
density residential areas to assure compatibility.A
Planned Zoning district is required.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately
0.2i acre in size.To the west and north west are single
family homes zoned R-2 and shown on the Land Use Plan as
Single Family.To the east and southeast are single family
homes zoned R-2 and shown on the Land Use Plan as Low
Density Residential.To the north,across Cantrell Road,is
an area shown as Commercial on the land Use Plan and zoned
C-3 and C-4.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
There have not been any amendments in the recent past in the
surround area.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a principal arterial on the plan
and is built as a four-lane road with left turn lanes at theintersectionofUniversityAvenue.University Avenue isalsoshownasaprincipalarterialbutisbuiltwithacentermediansouthofCantrell.North of Cantrell,it is
a two lane street shown as a Collector.
BACKGROUND:
This stretch of Cantrell is notable for the number of
residences that front onto Cantrell.On the south side of
the street,homes line Cantrell from the bottom of CantrellHilltowestofShannon.On the north side,with the five
block exception of Polk through University,homes line the
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-04-02
street from the bottom of Cantrell Hill to Hughes Street.It is possible,as the previous example states to have
single family dwellings on an arterial.
This project is located at the southeast corner of
University and Cantrell.Two other corners are still
residential in use and the third,at the northeast,was
built as residential although it is currently used as an
office.Despite the busy nature of the intersection,it isstillresidentialincharacter.The home has limited
access;the only vehicular access is off the alley in the
rear.There is a retaining wall along University and no
parking on University.The home has been utilized as
residential rental property in the past.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Capitol View,Hillcrest,Heights,Sherrill
Heights,and Prospect Terrace.
As of this printing,no comments have been received from the
public.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 17,1998)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the February 4,1999 meeting and was approved with a vote of
8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
As of this later printing,Staff has received a total of 6
persons against and 46 persons in support.Staff has also
received letters of support from the Prospect Terrace
Association,South Normandy Neighborhood Association,and
Capitol View Stiff Station Neighborhood Association.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff presented the item to the
commission.
Mrs.Mary Jane Bailey,applicant,stated that she wants to
place a small real estate office in this location.The
property is small and the building will remain residential
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-04-02
in appearance.As a realtor,she stated that she recognizes
the desirability of preserving residential uses.The owners
of the property on the corners of the intersection on the
southwest,northwest,and northeast side are in support of
this zone change as are other neighbors in close proximity
to the property in question.The property in question is
not suitable for residential uses,but suitable for office
use.
A commissioner stated that the requested change from
residential to suburban office would require a POD and that
the Commission could limit the number of employees.
Mrs.Bailey stated that she did not have objections to a
planned development that would limit the number of employees
and that could result in the reversion of the property to
residential zoning if sold.In addition Mrs.Bailey,added
that over time the property would prove to be less suitable
for use as a residence.
Mr.Hawn asked why a POD was not brought before the
commission in the first place.Mr.Malone stated that a
land use plan amendment would have to be done in order allow
office use in the area.The current land use plan
designated the area for residential land uses.A land use
amendment will have to be done to allow office uses on the
property in question.
Mr.Lawson stated that although a land use plan amendment
would need to be done,it is the Commission s responsibility
to decide if the zoning of the property should or should not
be changed.
Mrs.Bailey stated that the previous owner occupied the
residence for the previous 20 —25 years.Most of the
people in the neighborhood have lived in the area for a
great number of years.Most of the people she talked to
that were in support of this change have lived in the
neighborhood for a long time and felt that this zone change
would be appropriate.
Commissioner Putnam stated that an office generates more
traffic than a residence.Mr.Putnam added that allowing
office uses at this location would result in a domino affect
and change the neighborhoods.
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-04-02
Mrs.Bailey stated that she did not know when she started
that she would have to do a land use plan in order to place
an office at this location.
Mr.Welch observed a number of non-residential uses in the
neighborhood of University and Cantrell.Mr.Welch is in
support of the proposal.Mr.Welch stated that the changes
in the area have been positive.
Mr.Johnny Jones complained about deteriorated rental
property in the area and that he prefers a nice well-
maintained office to run down rental property.
Mr.Allan Bailey decided not to speak.
Mr.Peter Sunray of 2624 of N.Fillmore doesn't understand
how any body could live in the area in question and use the
property for residential purposes based on the amount oftraffic.A realtor will go out and visit clients and would
not generate traffic to toward the property in question.
Mr.Sterling Cockrill stated that the widening of University
to a four-lane street changed the character of what was once
a nice quiet residential neighborhood.He spoke in favor of
the change and thought that it would not produce a dominoeffect.
Ruth Bell spoke in opposition to the application and
expressed concern that a change in land use will result in a
domino effect in the area with an increase in land use
applications to convert residences into office space.
Commissioner Hill was perplexed by the case and wanted to
know if the houses were owner occupied or rental property.
Brian Minyard commented on the state of the neighborhood in
response to a question by Commissioner Berry.
Commissioner Putnam stated that houses located on University
lost a portion of the front yards when University was
widened to four lanes.After University was built,the
neighborhood did not experience a large turn over in
ownership.
Commissioner Faust stated that she has noticed both long
term and short-term issues and was not sure of what the
long-term future will bring to the area.In the short term
4
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:LU98-15-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Springs West
Planning District
Location:8621 Baseline Road
~Re eet:Community Shopping to Multi Family
Source:Rex Benham
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District from Community Shopping to Multi Family.Multi
Family accommodates residential development of ten to 36
dwelling units per acre.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately
3.21k acres in size.To the south,east and west,are
single family homes zoned R-2 and shown on the Land Use Plan
as Single Family.Further to the east,lies Wal-Mart in an
area shown as Community Shopping.There is a strip of
Community Shopping along the south side of Baseline through
the site.To the north,across Baseline,are areas shown as
Light Industrial and Commercial.These areas are zoned C-4
and I-2.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
November 7,1997,twenty-five changes resulting form Chicot
South I-30 West Neighborhood Action Plan including this site
from Multi Family to Community Shopping and Multi Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan.
BACKGROUND:
This area was included in the Chicot West I-30 South
Neighborhood Plan of November 1997.This site was changed to
Community Shopping and Single Family as a result of that
plan.The Plan does not state that all Multi-family should
be eliminated,but concerns are noted about the upkeep and
maintenance of all housing units,both single and multi
family.Housing stock should not be allowed to deteriorate.It also states to "concentrate development efforts in the
more urbanized northern portion of the study area"in which
this property lies.
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:LU98-15-04
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Chicot,Rob Roy Way,Legion Hut,Allendale,
Town and Country Estates,Shiloh,Santa Monica,Pinedale,
Cloverdale,West Baseline,Yorkwood,Mavis Circle and Deer
Meadow.
As of this printing,Staff has not received any comments
from the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate to acknowledge the
existing use of the multifamily structures.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 17,1998)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the February 4,1999 meeting and was approved with a vote of
8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for withdraw and
was passed with a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and
0 abstentions.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-6597
Owner:Rex Benham
Applicant:Rex Benham
Location:8621 Baseline Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to MF-24
(Amended to C-1)
Purpose:Bring existing Multifamily
development into conformance
with zoning.
Size:3.2+acres
Existing Use:7 0 unit,Mu1 t i f ami ly
Development
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Manufacturing plant;zoned I-2
South —Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Single Family;zoned R-2 and 0-1
West —Multifamily and Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1 ~Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,a dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline will be required.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
4.Abandon existing easements under the structures.
5.Relocate existing storm drains around structures with
planned development.
6.Revise parking with planned development.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA bus route.
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NOTIFICATION
Norm Floyd and the West Baseline Neighborhood Association
were notified of the rezoning request.
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6597
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrict.The Plan recommends Community Shopping (CS)for
the northern 200+feet of the site and Single Family (SF)for the remaining southern 300+feet.The Plan previously
recommended Multifamily (MF)for the site until it was
changed with adoption of the Chicot West/I-30 South
Neighborhood Action Plan on November 4,1997.A request to
amend the Plan,changing the site back to Multifamily (MF)is item no.6 on this agenda (LU98-15-04).The site is
occupied by an existing,nonconforming 70 unit apartment
complex.Staff supports the requested Land Use Plan
Amendments
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 3.2~
acre tract from R-2 Single Family to MF-24 Multifamily.Thesiteisoccupiedbyamultiplebuilding,70 unit apartment
complex.The apartments were in existence at the time the
property was annexed into the City in July,1979.At that
time,the property was zoned R-2 and the apartments were
rendered nonconforming.No changes are proposed for the
property.The applicant is in the process of refinancing
the property and the issue of nonconformity was raised.In
order to address the lender's concerns and to protect his
investment,the applicant has filed for the proper zoning to
accommodate the existing development.Associated with this
request is a Land Use Plan Amendment to change the Plan from
Community Shopping and Single Family to Multifamily (LU98-15-04),item no.6 on this agenda).
The property is located on the south side of Baseline Road,
one block east of the Wal-Mart Shopping Center.R-2 zoned,
single family properties are adjacent to the south,east and
west.A second,R-2 zoned nonconforming apartment
development is also adjacent to the west.The large,C-3
zoned Shopping Center is just west of the second apartment
complex.Two,0-1 zoned lots,fronting onto Baseline Road,are adjacent to the east.Additional,R-5 zoned apartments
are one block to the east.A large area of I-2 and C-4
zoned properties is located across Baseline Road,to thenorth.Munsey Products Manufacturing is directly across
Baseline from this site.The apartment development hasexistedformanyyearsandiscompatiblewithusesand
zoning in the area.The Multifamily provides a transition
between the single family and the commercial and industrial
development along Baseline Road and I-30.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6597
Prior to adoption of the Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood
Action Plan,the Geyer Springs West Land Use Plan
recommended Multifamily for this site.As a result of the
adoption of the Action Plan,the Land Use Plan was changedtoreflectCommunityShoppingforthenorthern200+feet ofthissiteandsinglefamilyfortheremainingsouthern300+feet.Staff believes it is appropriate to amend the plan,
returning the site to Multifamily to recognize this pre-
existing,established multifamily development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-24 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 17,1998)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Three letters had been received voicing support for some
zoning that would accommodate the apartments but asking thatthepropertynotbezonedmultifamily.The letters
suggested that some level of commercial zoning might be moreappropriate.Staff suggested that the item be deferred totheFebruary4,1999 meeting at which time it would be
amended to a C-1 rezoning request.Staff felt that C-1
zoning would accommodate the applicant's needs and wouldsatisfytheneighborhood's concerns.It was noted thatstaffhaddiscussedtheC-1 option with the applicant andthevariousneighborhoodinterestsandallpartiesfeltit
was an appropriate action.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred totheFebruary4,1999 meeting.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes
and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
In response to requests made by the various area
neighborhood associations,the applicant amended theapplicationtoaC-1 rezoning request.C-1 conforms to the
Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan and the ChicotWest/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan which recommend
Community Shopping (CS)for the site.The C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial district is designed to accommodate limitedretaildevelopmentswithinoradjacenttoneighborhoodareas.The district permits a limited admixture ofresidentialusestofacilitateintegrationwithexisting
development and to encourage development of multiuseprojects.The existing apartment complex is developed on 13lotslocatedonasmallcul-de-sac,Stratford Court.This
arrangement lends itself to future redevelopment as small,
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6597
neighborhood oriented,commercial uses.In the mean time,
pending any future redevelopment,C-1 allows the existing
multifamily.
In short,C-1 accommodates the applicant's need to eliminate
the nonconforming status of the apartment development and
meets the neighborhood's desire to maintain the plan for the
area which could lead to future commercial development.
Staff recommends approval of the amended C-1 rezoning
request.In light of this action,no Land Use Plan
Amendment is needed and Plan Amendment LU98-15-04 will be
withdrawn.
PLANNINQ COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the amended application and a recommendation
of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
C-1 zoning by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
ITEMNO:F
NAME:Kanis Road Corridor Design
LOCATION:Kanis Road from Shackleford to Chenal Parkway
PROPOSAL:Roadway Design Recommendation
~ff
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning Staff to undertake a
study of the Kanis Corridor.A nine-member Kanis Road Study Committee was appointed
and met first in December of 1996.Committee members agreed on a number of tasks that
needed to be accomplished as a part of their work to ensure a comprehensive review of the
issues.Those included a review of the existing land use and zoning patterns,a review of
the Future Land Use and Master Street Plans,a review of the current development trends
and the Chenal Parkway Corridor Study,discussions of a design overlay district (DOD),
roadway design and funding alternatives.
The Kanis Road Study Committee developed four land use options,three roadway
design options and funding alternatives for a presentation at a public hearing held July
1997.After the public presentation,the committee members were asked to rate the four
land use options,the three roadway design options,and the funding alternatives.The
ratings are included in the study's portion titled Executive Summary.
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the study on October 2",and
30'",1997.At the October 30'"Planning Commission hearing,the study was discussed at
length and the Commissioners were asked to vote on their preferred options for land use,
roadway design,and funding.The votes on Design and Funding were as follows:
ROADWAY DESIGN
VOTES
STANDARD MINOR ARTERIAL (FOUR LANES O'ITH MEDIAN).........................3
MINOR ARTERIAL FIVE LANE (O'ITHOUT BIKE LANE).............,..0
PARKWAY WITH SERVICE ROADS..........................................3
ROADWAY FUNDING
VOTES
DEVELOPER PAYS 100/o OF THE COST.0
NON-TRADITIONAL OBLIGATIONS ..4
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT...................................I
IMPACT FEES..0
C/TAO//TEM 25
Because none of the options on the Roadway Design presented received a majority
of votes from the Commission Members,the study was not forwarded to the Board of
'irectors until May 1998 with staff recommendations.At the May 19,1998 Agenda
Meeting the Board of Directors referred the Kanis Road Study back to Planning
Commission for further study and action.Commission heard the item at the June 25,1998
Public Hearing.Commission was presented staff recommendation for future land use,a
standard minor arterial (with center median)with limited curb cuts for the roadway
design,and a resolution of support for the development of a design overlay district.
The Planning Commission recommended that the land use option as presented by
the staff be accepted and that a design overlay district be developed for the Kanis Corridor.
They also recommended that an enhanced two-lane roadway with bike paths and center left
turns lanes at intersections be constructed within a 90 foot right-of-way.
Due to conflicting information on the volume of traffic that could be expected in
the future on Kanis Road,the City hired the Melburger Engineering Firm to study the issue
and make a recommendation.The Melburger report was presented to the Board of
Directors at their meeting on November 17,1998.The Board received public input and
then directed the staff to work with the Planning Commission and property owners to
complete the overlay district and street design recommendations within ninety (90)days.
To obtain public and property owner input,a meeting was held on December 14,
1998 at the Parkway Place Baptist Church to discuss with interested persons the design
overlay district concepts and street design and options.Participants were informed about
the proposed roadway design and use plan and the proposed Design Overlay District
concepts for the Kanis Road Corridor.Median cuts would be spaced at a minimum of 600
feet apart.Properties,which are located on corner lots,would have their primary entrance
fronting a side street and Kanis Road access would be a right-in/right out only.
B.Staff Recommends Kanis Road Roadwa Desi n Standards as Follows:
I.Bowman to Rock Creek Bridge.
A.90-foot right-of-way.
B.Minor Arterial cross section with a 14 foot wide median.
C.Median Cuts spaced not less than 600 feet.
II.Shackleford to Bowman Road
A.90-foot right-of-way.59-foot pavement with 5 foot buffered
sidewalks.
C/I'AD/1TEM 25
C.Plannin Commission Minutes
The Kanis Road Study was placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for
January 21,1999,but due to major storms occurring at the time,the issue was deferred
until the February 4,1999 meeting.
Plannin Commission Action:(February 4,1999)
This item was discussed in conjunction with item "G",Kanis Road Corridor Design
Overlay District.For complete minutes,see item "G."
Following a lengthy discussion of the issue,Commissioner Berry made a three part motion
to accept the proposed Design Overlay District concept,with more discussion on the areas
of concern,accept the proposed Future Land Use Plan,and a two lane roadway if there is
no public funding or roadway design proposed by the Mehlburger Firm if there is 100/o
public funding for the additional cost over a two lane roadway.
Commissioner Faust seconded the motion.
The vote 9 yes,0 no,1 abstention and 1 absent.
C/TAD/ITEM 25
ITEM NO.:G KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
STAFF REPORT:
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed staff to
undertake a study of the Kanis Road Corridor.A nine member
citizen committee was appointed to serve as the Kanis Road
Corridor Study Committee.The Committee began meeting in
December of 1996.The group met on a regular basis for 9 months
and discussed items related to the Kanis Road Corridor.One of
the items discussed was the concept of a Design Overlay District.
Some of the things discussed for inclusion in an overlay were;
shared parking,limited curb cuts,building heights,building
setbacks,a 50 foot natural strip to be included in the building
setback,the development of a mature tree ordinance and
pedestrian friendly sidewalks.
The Kanis Committee presented several recommendations for roadway
design,future land use and the concept of a Design OverlayDistricttothePlanningCommissioninOctober1997.There was
not a majority vote by the Planning Commission on one
recommendation and the study was not forwarded to the Board.
In March 1998 staff developed and presented to the Board
recommendations for future land use,roadway design and items for
inclusion in a Design Overlay District.In May 1998 the Board of
Directors referred the Kanis Road Corridor study back to the
Planning Commission which heard the item in June 1998.The
Commission recommended:the future land use plan presented bystaff;an enhanced two-lane roadway with bike paths and center
turn lane at major intersections with a 90 foot right of way;and
the concept of a Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road
Corridor.
As this was happening the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan
Committee began meeting in January of 1998.Kanis Road was the
Neighborhood Action Plan's southern boundary.Over the 10 months
the committee met issues related to the Kanis Road Corridor were
discussed.A concern of the group is as the city expands west,
there is a significant reduction of mature trees and natural
vegetation.
The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan was presented to the
Planning Commission (October 1998)and the Board of Directors
(December 1998).The Neighborhood Action Plan committee
recommended the adoption of a Design Overlay District for the
Kanis Road Corridor,which includes:preservation of the
character;facilitation of vehicular,bicycle and pedestrian
movement.
On November 17,1998 (Resolution No.10 409)of the City of
Little Rock Board of Directors endorsed the concept of two
separate Design Overlay Districts for the Kanis Road corridor and
directed staff to work with the Planning Commission and property
owners along the Kanis Road corridor to develop and complete the
Kanis Road Overlay Design District Ordinance.
To obtain public input a meeting was held on December 14,1998 at
the Parkway Place Baptist Church to discuss with interested
persons the Design Overlay District concepts.Participants were
informed to the proposed roadway design,proposed land use plan
and the proposed Design Overlay District concepts for the Kanis
Road Corridor.
Mr.Lawson also presented the concept of two Design Overlay
Districts for the Kanis Road Corridor.Overlay One (1)extends
from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road and Overlay Two (2)extends
from Bowman Road to the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal
Parkway.
Mr.Lawson explained in Overlay One there would be a two acre
minimum development size,a 30 foot natural buffer fronting Kanis
Road and parking would be allowed fronting the roadway.
Buildings would have a minimum 60 foot setback,rear yards would
have a 40 foot set back and side yards have a 30 foot set back.
Mr.Lawson indicated ground mounted signs would be no more than 8
feet in height and 100 square feet in area.Wall mounted signs
would be no more than 8%of the building facade.Curb cuts would
be allowed at a minimum of 600 feet apart.Currently curb cuts
are allowed a 300 foot spacing.He also indicated properties,
which are located on corner lots,would have their primary
entrance fronting a side street and the Kanis Road access would
be a right-in/right-out only access.He also indicated this
design concept would be a major change to the Master Street Plan.
Should a property owner be unable to meet these requirements the
property owner would file for a Planned Zoning Development.
He then addressed the primary differences in Overlay One and
Overlay Two.With Overlay Two the buildings would be placed 45
foot from the right-of-way of the roadway,rear yards have a 15
foot set back and side yards have a 10 foot set back.Signage
allowances are less with the maximum allowance being two square
February 4,1999
ITEM NO ~:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
four lane roadway.
Several people questioned the donation of lands for the
development of bike trails and walking trails.The comments
suggested that if the city wanted these amenities along Kanis
Road then the right-of-way should be purchased,or thesefacilitiesshouldbelocatedelsewherethanalongamajorroadway
where land prices were valuable.
A survey for the proposed roadway design and the Design OverlayDistrictwaspresentedtotheparticipants.Also written
comments were solicited.Persons were asked to furnish these
items to the Office of Planning and Development before
January 14,1999.A summary of the comments and the results of
the survey are provided as an attachments
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 21,1999)
By unanimous vote the item was deferred by the Commission.
Pl anni n Commi ssi on Recommendation —Februa 4 1999
Commissioner Berry made a three part motion to accept the
~proposed Design Overlay District concept,with more discussion
on the areas of concern,
~proposed Future land Use Plan,and
~a two lane roadway if there is no public funding or
~roadway design proposed by the Mehlburger Firm if there is 100
publi c funding for the additional cost over a two lane
roadway.
Commissioner Faust seconded the motion.
The vote 9 yes,0 no,1 abstention and 1 absent.
PLANNING OMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Director Keck addressed the Commission as to the importance of
the Kanis Road Corridor Study being acted upon.He stated
although financing was a concern he had ideas as to how the
roadway could be financed.He commented a bond issue to develop
the roadway in its entirety as the corridor develops the
landowners would repay the city based on cost and linear footage.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning gave an overview of the Kanis
Roadway Design and Design Overlay District along with the Future
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Land Use Plan.He compared these items to a three legged stool.
The roadway design as recommended by the Mehlburger Firm was
based on items related to the Deign Overlay District,which
related to items in the Future Land Use Plan.In addition
financing,how the roadway will be paid for is an item that must
be decided by the Board of Directors.Each item is
interdependent and can not stand alone.Director Keck stated the
Commission was to vote on something definite to then pass to the
Board of Directors.
Mr.Lawson stated the Commission was charged with the decision of
yes we think the roadway design should be that as presented by
the Mehlburger Firm,yes we think items in the Design Overlay
District concept as presented should be included and yes we think
the road should be financed in another manner than developer
financing.Non-traditional financing is the only way the Future
Land Use Plan,which has been presented,can be maintained.If
the developers are responsible for paying for the road
improvements they will inturn need a more intense use than what
has been proposed (Suburban Office and Low Density Residential).
If we do not develop the roadway as proposed by the Mehlburger
Firm the proposed Design Overlay District does not make sense.
With a five lane roadway the need for limited curb cuts of every
600 feet will not be necessary.Area one,from Shackleford to
Bowman will remain a five lane roadway as proposed on the Master
Street Plan.This was also the vote of the Commission several
months ago.Area two the Commission recommended an enhanced two
lane roadway.Mr.Lawson stated there were concerns of the staff
for a proposed two lane roadway and if the Commission desired the
staff would present these concerns.
Commissioner Earnest stated to simplify the Commission should
address two lane Vs four lane.
Commissioner Rahman stated the Commission voted on a two lane
enhanced roadway and he was concerned with what had changed since
their vote.He also stated the traffic counts were not the same
but besides these numbers what had changed for the Commission to
change their position.
Mr.Lawson stated his understanding at the time of the vote was
to qualify these.There were traffic counts from Earnie Peters
and Metro Plan,neither of which was in close proximity.He
stated the city retained the Mehlburger Firm to prepare a traffic
analysis for Kanis Road.The two lane proposal as voted on by
the Commission was on the way to the Board and the staff did not
return to the Commission upon receipt of the final analysis.
4
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
He continue with first the staff should present why they felt a
two lane roadway would not work and provide additional
information the Commission was not privy to on the earlier
hearing date.
Commissioner Downing stated this item was addressed by the
Commission six-month ago.He stated he was very interested in
why thing were different now and why the Commission should change
their recommendation.
Commissioner Earnest read from the Mehlburger Report a section
which stated,a four lane roadway was recommended but this did
not invalidate the two lane roadway as proposed by the Metro Plan
Study.The report stated a change in assumptions would alter the
traffic counts in an area.
Commissioner Muse stated the vote was unanimous by the Commission
for an enhance two lane roadway.He stated the Commission
specific a 90 foot right of way,which would accommodate a four
lane roadway,should an expansion become necessary.He also
stated the Commission was concerned with the financing of the
roadway and the importance of the construction of the roadway not
in a "piece-meal"fashion.A two lane roadway is easier to pay
for and expand the additional two lanes should the roadway ever
warrant an expansion.
Mr.Lawson questioned payment of the expansion of the roadway
when one became warranted.A bond issue to expand a road,which
was not built large enough in the beginning,would not pass
easily.He also stated if the Commission did not agree with the
Mehlburger design to leave the current Master Street Plan design
of a five lane roadway.
Commissioner Muse asked the current width of the roadway.
Mr.Bob Turner,Assistant Director of Public Works,stated the
current width of pavement was 22 feet.Mr.Turner stated the
item has been before the Commission on several occasions.He
stated the process of Kanis Road began in 1994.He also stated,
previously the Commission was presented with some conflicting
information.He sated the volume of traffic were the areas of
conflicts The Commission voted the roadway should be built and
widened when needed.He also stated the factors placed into the
equation determine the volume of traffic.
The current volume of traffic at Point West Drive is 6600 cars
per day.This is beyond the service level the city has stated,a
5
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
two lane roadway can adequately service.He also commented if we
construct a two lane roadway we would have similar traffic
congestion problems as are currently in the area.
The current Master Street Plan calls for a five lane roadway to
be constructed in 90 foot of right of way with sidewalks on each
side of the street from Shackleford to the intersection with
Chenal Parkway.There is little disagreement with the need for
five lanes from Shackleford to Bowman.The traffic counts for
this area are 13000 cars per day.For this service level a four
lane roadway of some type is necessary.
He stated,in his opinion,the Mehlburger report generated somerealisticnumbers.The traffic counts were 18000 to 20000 cars
per day in a 20 year period from Bowman Road to Chenal Parkway.
With the current development pattern to the south these numbers
make sense.
The Kanis committee recommended a two lane roadway with service
type roads,which would carry these volumes of traffic.This is
not a practical roadway from an expense standpoint.In addition
there would be a need for 110 foot of right of way to design a
roadway of this type.
Mr.Turner also stated with current projections of traffic the
need to leave the Master Street Plan design of a five lane
roadway from Shackleford to Bowman and change to some type of
four lane from Bowman to the intersection with Chenal.With the
elimination of the median and the placement of a five lane
roadway there would be no need for the 600 foot spacing of
ingress and egress access points.
Commissioner Putnam asked for traffic counts on Lawson Road and
Colonel Glenn Road.Which he stated the numbers would assume to
be higher and both were two lane roads and functioning properly.
He commented the three and one-half miles of Kanis Road was not
enough to accumulate a great number of cars.He stated the
Commission voted on a program and now there was another program.
The problem was the city did not have the financing to fund the
"big job"so lets do the "little job".
Mr.Turner stated the "little job"would not take half the money.
The cost of a two lane roadway could be 75&of a four lane
roadway.The infrastructure would be put in place at the time of
construction to make the future widening possible.He also
stated the need for the construction in significant phases'
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Putnam stated a two lane road with adequate
shoulders would carry the traffic volumes in the area.
Commissioner Rahman asked the question of a four lane with median
to be built in phases based on the 100+development of the
corridor would generate 20,000 to 22,000 cars per day in 20 years
according the Melburger and Peters reported 40,000 cars per day
at ultimate build out at some point in the future regardless of
the years.The question is can we not build the road in phases.
Mr.Turner stated this was a common practice with the Highway
Department.The construction of two lanes with the provision to
expand to four lanes at a later date.There does exist a
possibility to build two lanes and as property develops the
additional two lanes could be expanded.The problem exist with
some areas may not develop in a reasonable time period and the
city is left trying to fill in the holes.Currently traffic is
building and the facilities are not in place to meet the need.
Commissioner Berry requested the current right of way.
Mr.Turner stated the current right of way was 50 to 60 feet.In
one or two places the right of way is 45 foot from centerline due
to recent developments.
Commissioner Berry stated he served on the Kanis Road Task Force.
He also stated the transportation plan had come to dominate the
Future Land Use Plan.This should not be the case.The current
proposed roadway is designed to move traffic as easily as
possible through the area.With suburban office and low density
residential as proposed the roadway design was not warranted.
With the proposal by Director Keck,developer paying for the
roadway,the proposed land use plan can not be sustained.The
developers will need more intense land uses to generate financing
for the roadway.We can not pave our way out of congestion.We
have to look for alternatives to the design and financing if we
want to maintain the proposed land use plan.
Mr.Turner stated many times we look at one road and see a
problem.We must look at the roads as a network of north /south
and east /west corridors'his is a part of the entire
spectrum.
Mr.Wes Louder of the Mehlburger Firm addressed the Commission.
He stated that Kanis Road could not be a two lane roadway and
serve the needs of the west Little Rock residents.Kanis Road
connects with one of the most major intersections of the city,
7
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Chenal Parkway.The traffic is going to continue ~Presently at
the intersection of Chenal and Shackleford there is a thirty
minute wait.
When the Mehlburger Firm began the study it was important to get
input.He stated the firm spoke to Neighborhood Associations,
residents,Board Directors,Developers,Parks and Recreation
Department,Public Works and Planning staff.Two things came
out of these meetings.One was traffic in west Little Rock is
bad and no one wants to address this problem even at the Board
level.The second was Kanis Road should not be another Rodney
Parham or Geyer Springs,four lane with a center turn lane.
With the current development pattern the five lane was the most
realistic option from Shackleford to Bowman.West of Bowman was
veritably undeveloped and a median roadway would fit.The third
comments was do not cut down all the trees in west Little Rock.
As proven with the Koger Center a 30 foot band of trees will
live.The idea of winding sidewalks and bike trails is more
pleasant than going straight.Also with a bike trail there are
federal funds to assist with construction so why not take
advantage of these funds and construct the facilities.
He stated the need to construct the project in significant phase
for effectiveness.He also stated the roadway could not be
developed two lanes with the addition of two lanes at some point
in the future.The crossing of "no man's land"would
significantly alter development.If the Board can not fund the
project in these significant phases then the city would need to
rethink what is needed in the area.
Commissioner Hawn stated this was an example of the city not
planning then selves into a mess.There was not a plan in the
area to follow therefore,the Commission did not have one to
follow.He stated to construct a two lane roadway would be a
"mess".The area would not develop and the city could control
development.The area is in desperate need of a plan to follow.
Commissioner Downing addressed Director Keck's statement
concerning funding.He continue with the experts here tonight
are stating we need a four lane roadway.We need funding to payfortheroadwayandasDirectorKeckhasstatedfundsarenot
available.
Commissioner Hawn stated the reasoning for the enhanced two lane
roadway was the lack of funding.
8
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Faust asked her fellow Commissioners what the
traffic volumes would be in the future.We have gone from 1500
to 6000 in three to five years.Would these intervals in
increases continue.
Mr.Lawson stated if Chenal Parkway would have been constructed
to six lanes with a center turn lane we would have another issue
with Kanis Road.Currently the development in Spring Valley
Manor and areas to the south are going to warrant four lanes
along Kanis Road.Kanis Road will not just be carrying Kanis
Road traffic.Kanis Road will become a major east /west
corridor.
Commissioner Berry stated we should not over set driver'
mentality as this serving as an east /west corridor.Drivers
are not going to stay on Kanis Road or get back on Kanis Road
after the intersection with Chenal Parkway.He also stated in
response to Commissioner Faust question,he felt traffic would
increase to 9000 cars per day in five years.He also stated he
was unsure if this warranted a four lane roadway.Only if the
city funds the additional cost of the roadway.
Commissioner Faust stated there were things in the Design Overlay
and the roadway design,which were innovative for Little Rock.
She also stated if the city could not pay for the additional cost
entirely then we go back to where we started with a two lane
roadway.
Mr.Giles,of the City Attorney Office,stated there were
concerns with the city paying for the roadway and the developers
paying the city back.This was similar to impact fees and under
current Arkansas Statue this was not legal.Also if a bond issue
is passed and property dose not develop then tax payers are
coming up short on three and one-half miles of roadway in west
Little Rock.
Mr.Lawson stated his understanding of the request of Director
Keck was to forward something definite to the Board of Directors.
Bottom line of what should be done about Kanis Road.Should it
be four lanes or should it be two lanes.The financing was to be
a Board issue.
Commissioner Rahman stated the problem is the city is building a
road to build up a neighborhood.With the current land use in
the area a two lane road would handle the traffics
9
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Downing stated once again his concern of the lack of
funding for a four lane roadway.With the desire of the arearesidentstopreservethecharacteroftheirneighborhoodandwithoutthefundingitwillbedifficulttopreservethecharacter.
Commissioner Earnest request the Commission hear citizen
comments.He stated most of the citizens wishing to comment also
viewed the roadway design and the Design Overlay District as oneitem.Therefore,the citizens could address which ever was aconcern.
Dickson Flake addressed the Commission.He stated the truth totheintegrationoftheroadwaydesignandtheFutureLandUsePlan.These items can not be separated.He stated the need for
two integrated plans to forward to the Board of Directors.Onewiththedeveloperspayingaportionandwhatthecitycouldexpecttopayasadifferencebasedonthecurrentlanduseplan.
The second development of a two lane roadway.The city was facedwithnodevelopment,relaxation and strip development or funding
by some other means.
He commented on the Design Overlay District having good points.
He also stated there were points,which would be unenforceable or
would meet with a great deal of opposition which would "kill"theentireconcept.He stated his desire to work with staff to
develop a Design Overlay,which would service the needs of thearea.
Ramsey Ball addressed the Commission as a developer currently
involved in a development along the corridor.His project asmallofficedevelopmentstartedwithroadimprovementcostof
$20,000.With the proposed four lane the cost is approximately
$400,000.This would not allow the development to beconstructed.The cost of roadway improvements would be twice thecostoftheland.Regardless of paying for the road improvements
now or paying the city back the cost is still bore by thedeveloper.
He stated the proposed Design Overlay District has similar items,
which are being proposed by the Land Alteration Task Force.
These items should be city wide and not just along certaincorridors,which are perceived to be a problem.It is importantforthecitytostopreactingtocrises.
10
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont ~KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Ron Keltner stated he and his partner owned a small office in the12000blockofKanisRoad.He has been in the area for fouryearsandfirstbecameinvolvedintheKanisRoadprocessinDecember.He stated the traffic counts of 6000 cars per day wereoverstated.The two problem areas are Bowman and Kanis andShacklefordandKanis.He stated after the first meeting hedrovearoundtheareatogetanideaofwhatwasplannedforthearea.His idea was the city was planning a freeway along Kanis
Road to move traffic from Chenal to a point beyond Shackleford.
The current plan does not take into account the property ownersalongKanisRoad.He also stated in his opinion Kanis Road didnotneedtobewidenedtoanythingaboveafourlaneroadway.Ninety percent of the structure will be eliminated if a four lane
median is put into place and in his opinion this was "over-kill".
Bob Wilson,a landowner along Kanis Road,stated he did feeltrafficwasaconcernintheareaandtheproblemneededtobeaddressednow.We lack coordination to put all the itemstogether.Kanis is not a neighborhood problem.Kanis Road isnotsomethingwecanpiecemealandwecannotbuildone-half ofafourlaneroad.He commented on the Mayor's plan and statedtherewasnotadimeoffundingforKanisRoadintheplan.There was funding for five streets,which intersected with KanisRoad.He questioned if these would carry traffic off of Kanis
Road or traffic onto Kanis Road,which would never be built.
Gladys Post addressed the Commission on behalf of the residentsofWhiteRoad.Her specific questions concerned the DesignOverlayDistrict.The district boundary depth was not addressedintheproposal.She would like this added to the proposal.Shealsostatedthedesireofmaintainingthecharacteroftheneighborhoodforthosewhowishtocontinuetoresideinthearea.
Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated her time would havebeenbetterspentattheLegislatureadvocatingHomeRuleforcitiestobetteraffordalltheitemsthosepresenthadaddressed.Areas of concern are the vegetation,the cost andfinancingofsomeoftheitemsandtheimpracticalityofsomeoftheitemsintheDesignOverlayconcept.She also stated this
was all a package and should be sent to the Board as a package.She also addressed the concerns of lack of a publictransportationelementintheproposal.This would allow forslowergrowthofvehiculartraffic.
11
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:G Cont.KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Dotty Funk of the City Beautiful Commission stated here concerns
with relying of a proposed Land Alteration Ordinance addressingtheconcernsalongthecorridor.It is more important toretrofitthesetwotogether.The proposed Design Overlay has
elements citizens are requesting.The number of trees per acre,the caliper of trees to be saved,tighter signage,shared parking
which will reduce the number of trees which will need to beclearedalongwithlessasphaltandlessheat.Utilities on the
back property lines allow for trees to be planted next to thestreet.
Alice Rafferty,a business owner on the southeast corner of
Bowman and Kanis Road stated her concerns with the request of a
30 foot buffer.She stated this would only hinder traffic in thearea.The property she owns would not support her business and a
30 foot buffer strip.
Mr.Lawson stated he and Bob Turner had met with Ms.Rafferty and
with or without the proposed roadway design the city would havetobuyherpropertytowidentheintersectionofBowmanandKanis
Roads.
He also stated a 300 foot depth of the properties would be addedtotheDistrictBoundariessectionoftheproposedDesignOverlayDistrictandwouldencompasslandsfromtheintersectionfrom
Bowman Road to the intersection with the Rock Creek.
Commissioner Berry made a three part motion to accept the
proposed Design Overlay District concept,with more discussion on
the areas of concern,accept the proposed Future Land Use Plan,
and a two lane roadway if there is no public funding or roadwaydesignproposedbytheMehlburgerFirmifthereis100+public
funding for the additional cost over a two lane roadway.
Commissioner Faust seconded the motion.
The vote 9 yes,0 no,1 abstention and 1 absent.
12
Kanis Road Corridor Questionnaire
Summary of Responses Received —19 Questionnaires Returned
As of 01/08/99
Roadway Design:
There should be two separate roadway designs for Agree Disagree No Opinion No
the Kanis Road Corridor.12 4 1 Response
2
The design for Kanis Road from Shackleford Road to Agree Disagree No Opinion No
Bowman Road should be five-lanes of pavement.11 6 0 Response
2
The design for Kanis Road from Bowman Road to Agree Disagree No Opinion No
the Chenal Parkway intersection should be a four-12 7 0 Response
lane roadway with a grassy median.0
Median breaks should be a minimum of 600 feet Agree Disagree No Opinion No
apart.9 9 0 Response
1
The roadway design should be an enhanced two-Agree Disagree No Opinion No
lane roadway.(36 foot wide roadway with two 12 6 11 0 Response
foot bike lanes and a turn bay at intersections 2
constructed in 90 foot of right-of-way).
There should be a Design Overlay District created Agree Disagree No Opinion No
for the Kanis Road Corridor.10 7 2 Response
0
The minimum tract size for development should be 2 Agree Disagree No Opinion No
acres.11 7 0 Response
1
Curb cuts should be shared by developments and be Agree Disagree No Opinion No
a minimum of 600 feet apart.9 9 0 Response
1
Curb cuts should be right-in or right-out only.Agree Disagree No Opinion No
9 7 1 Response
2
There should be a 30-foot natural buffer strip fronting Agree Disagree No Opinion No
Kanis Road.10 7 0 Response
2
Bicycle paths (separated from vehicular traffic)Agree Disagree No Opinion No
should be built along the Kanis Road Corridor.7 11 1 Response
0
There should be two sets of building design Agree Disagree No Opinion No
standards for Kanis Road;Shackleford Road to 12 7 0 Response
Bowman Road and Bowman Road to Chenal 0
Parkway intersection.
Kanis Road Corridor Questionnaire
Summary of Responses Received —19 Questionnaires Returned
As of 01/08/99
Building design standards for Shackleford Road
to Bowman Road should include:
Buildings must be set back from the roadway at least Agree Disagree No Opinion No
60 feet.11 6 2 Response
0
Parking is allowed in the front of the building.Agree Disagree No Opinion No
8 8 2 Response
1
Rear yard building set-back of at least 40 feet.Agree Disagree No Opinion No
6 4 7 Response
2
Side yard building set-back of at least 30 feet.Agree Disagree No Opinion No
7 7 3 Response
2
Ground mounted signs of no more than 8 feet in Agree Disagree No Opinion No
height and 100 square feet in area.8 7 2 Response
2
Wall mounted signs of no more than 8%of the Agree Disagree No Opinion No
building front square footage.(Building Facade).10 5 2 Response
2
Design standards for Bowman Road to the
Chenal Parkway intersection should include:
Parking should be located to the rear and sides of Agree Disagree No Opinion No
the building.8 8 1 Response
2
Buildings should be built at 45 feet from the new Agree Disagree No Opinion No
right-of-way of Kanis Road.5 11 0 Response
3
Rear yards building set-back of at least 15 feet.Agree Disagree No Opinion No
5 7 3 Response
4
Side yards building set-back of at least 10 feet.Agree Disagree No Opinion No
5 8 2 Response
4
Ground mounted signs shall have an area of 2 Agree Disagree No Opinion No
square feet for every linear foot of frontage along 7 8 2 Response
Kanis Road not to exceed 84 square feet and 8 feet 2
in height.
Wall mounted signs of no more than 4%of the Agree Disagree No Opinion No
building front square footage.(Building facade).9 7 2 Response
1
C's
Kanis Road Corridor Questionnaire
Kanis Road Public Meeting —December 14,1998
oa way lgn:
ere s ould be two separate roadway designs for A ree eagree No piniontheKanieRoadCorrkfor,
/he ee gn or anis Road from Shackieford Road to Agree Disagree No pinionBowmanRoadshouldbefive-lanes of pavement.
e design for Kanis Road from Bowman Road to Agree Disagree o pinionIheChenatParkwaytnterseotionshouldbeatour-lane roadway with a grassy median.
Median rea s should be a minimum of 600 fest A re Dsagrye o lnion
e roadway design should be en enhanced two-Agree sagree No plnktnlaneroadway.(36 foot wide roadway with two 12footbikelanesandaturnbayatintersectionscceetructedin90footofright-of-way).
here s ould be a Design verlay District created grs Disagree No pinionfortheKanlsRoadCorridor.
e min mum tract size for development should be 2 re Disagree o Qplnlon
urb cute e ould be a ed by dave cpmente and be r Disagree o pinionaminimumof600feetapart,
Cu cuts should be right-in or right-out only.r Disagree o fnionaresouibee0-foot natural u eretrlp fronting gree ieagree oppin nKanlsRoad.
Blcyce pa s (separated from vehicular tra ic)Agree sagree No pinion~ttoutd be butlt atontt the Kants Road Conidor.i ihereshouldbetwosofbulldlndesi n Agre Disagree oopnionstandardsforKanlsoad;$hacklefor oad toBowmanRoadandBowmanRoadtoChanelParkwayIntersection.
Su ng ea gn standards for hackieford RoadtoSowtttanRoadshouldInclude:
u irbas must be set back rom the rcsdwdby It east Qrsp Dlsaarae Nc pin on60feet.
Pa ng e allowed in the front of the building.A pres Die rae No pinionearyardulngaet-back o atleaet40 eet.AS«a»gree o pinion
CONT)NUEO OTHER SIDE
8888888888 68:6K 566T/68/L8183&Id
PAGE 82
c'anis
Road Corridor QuestionnaireKanisRoadPublicMeeting—December 14,199B
Side yard buifding set-back of at feast 30 feet.gree Disagree No QpfnfonGroundmountedsignsofnomorethan8feetinAgree.Disagree No opinionheightand100squarefeetinarea,
Wall mounted signs of no more than 8'Yo of the Agree Disagree NoQpfnfonbuildingfrontsquarefootage.(Buifding Fagade).
Oesfgn standards for Bowman Road to theChenafParkwayIntereectfonshouldinclude:
Parking should be located to the rear and sides of Agree Disagree NoOpfnfonthebuilding.
Buildings should be built at 45 fe t faro the new Agree Disagree No Qpinfondttht-of-way atKanla Road.Q
Rear yards building set-back of at le st t.Agre isagree o pinionSideyardsbuildingset-back of at feastAkfeet.Agre 0 sagree No Opinion
Ground mounted signs shalt have an area o 2 Agree Disagree No pinionsquarefeetforeverylinearfootoffrontagealongKanlsRoadnottoexced84squarefeetand8feetjilnhahtht.tt Qgtt ttyJQ
Wall mounted signs of no more than 'o of the Agree Disagr No Opinionbuildingfrontsquarefootage.(Buifdfn g
CONTINUED OTHER SIDE
87/r 395 23:89 8888888888 PAGE 83~-C,
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadwaydesignorotherissueswhichshouldbeconsidered.
Q~e.
e
-Kg"1 '1l'e 2 X i e (e.9 -oi x a1oa-S~c.i.c ~~~()
kceJL("
c l0aW
ac i
to-~cc~
Please Complete Following:
~~—,AVOW ~@M C.I4 &e-2~~1 ~
Address:
ii is -~~~~~&~C&r&i1
Ms.G1Edyo E.Pose
1301 Wblic Rood
lira@ 11ocb,AR 121114019 qg-as'Phone:
Mail Reeponse to:Planning and Development-Kanis Road Study
,723 W.Markham
LINe Rook,AR 72201
FAX:(60$)3714M3
EmaiL djameselittlerock.state.ar.us
PAGE 8687/83/v 23:89 8888888888
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadwaydesignorotherissueswhichshouldbeconsidered.
v'
I
Please Complete he Following:
e
Name:—44 r8~
Address:jp m~
f~
Phone;~/~Z —9C FA
Mall Response to:Planning and Development -Kanls Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371%863
Email:djamesOlittlerock.state.ar.us
87/83&&23:89 8888888888 PAGE 87
(a~I
P
wP~~
~~&a
8
I
\
+D
~/a.~~p &~'~
7
C eMp ~&~~
W7 p /C.~~
~m ~~~~
QV
,~~~-W '/!T~~~
~'eLO
G
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
Please Complete the Following:
Name:—0 W /'&VL-
Address:~~~~F nJES
Phone:X&/"~4-C'48~
Mail Response to:Planning and Development -Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
1
d-ted/
c.,~~,E.-.'Z ~+M Dd.
I
4'.6d .X~-~a~"A~/zan
C~V-~Wc.d~
Please Complete the Following:
Name:
Alexandra Rezin
132 Point Weet Cir
Little Rodt,AR 72211-3396
Address:
Phone:
Mail Response to:Planning and Development —Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
s
Please Complete the Following:
Name:~4-Lm
Address:i ~F le 5
xz-t
Phone:
Mail Response to:Planning and Development —Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
~~~'&
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
z NgYmPm
r
Please Complete the Following:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Mail Response to:Planning and Development —Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
'6-
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
g.r c:r-
IO ~35 .
A
Please Complete the Following:
Name:'»Z~~.s s -I ~~3 ~'-4
'~gw
Address:&Yi U('G~
)~E,C,-7 Z2.l(J~Pg~
Phone:2 ~-6'3
Mail Response to:Planning and Development-Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
1
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
2 r'8)-f:dd'-.„cr 6 ..bc.
r /
r,«'/j'e nn ~~8 f p g
/(
n
r Mzc~~-.I'm ~&~e ~A c;.-~,
/
/
~~c"
cc~I
//
/ya .~,,",i~&W „~re..~~~.~re
il
.-r~r-~in
&c.Z+:
Please Complete the Followi
,/
Name:cl
Address:/
Phone:—~
7'ail
Response to:Planning and Development —Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
r~'anisRoadCorridorCommentSheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
r
P~
J
c
~~~gcZl Wn~y'
/A~/c.rr-.~
WQC k ~My~J~+c
c-.lY
Please Complete the Following:
J
Name:r'r',~i=7
Address:
/
Phone:W —Zi~@
Mail Response to:Planning and Development-Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:.(501)371-6863
Email:djamesglittlerock.state.ar.us/~,'~
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design oyerlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
g/
r .(
lg
/
(/
.Ewe
0
,/
Please Complete the Following:
Name:~-cr'
Address:
Phone:~Z $
Mail Response to:Planning and Development —Kanis Road $tUdy
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
~4~~c,
Kanis Road Corridor Comment Sheet
Please include your written comments whether on the design overlay,the roadway
design or other issues which should be considered.
)"n C~
i .
r~l
BLED f ™.
hatt~
Or wc's z'8
/
C
I
f
C.c'cl a y.p 'cf c"c'~™Kd W 5M~
Please Complete the Following:
Name:
Address:r ~~~Z~~P7 &zw-~
1 &~p~j$&+8/g w /+ZP.~+z~rw
Phone:m'~)
Mail Response to:Planning and Development —Kanis Road Study
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
FAX:(501)371-6863
Email:djames@littlerock.state.ar.us
i~
C'ig)'ICHARDSON
INVESTMENT CORPORATION
P.O.BOX 22713
LITTLE ROCK,AR 72221
Nov.16,1998
Mayor Jim Dailey
City Of Little Rock Board of Directors
City Hall
Little Rock,AR 72201
Subject:KANIS ROAD CONCEPT STUDY
Dear Mayor Dailey and City Directors:
The Kanis Road Concept Study as prepared by The Mehlburger Firm would be a great plan for areas
involving large tracts of undeveloped land which are not partially to moderately developed as the
subject Kanis Road areas.When large tracts of land are involved,the costs of the parkway would be
distributed over a large number of lots and/or subdivisions.In contrast,if a landowner has a small lot
with a shallow depth,the costs of implementing the parkway are an unreasonable burden to the
landowner.
I am writing to express my concern with certain aspects of the Kanis Road Concept Study as follows.
First of all,I represent the ownership of two parcels of land on Kanis Road.They are located as
follows:(1.)A vacant lot containing 0.80 acres,zoned C-3 and adjoining the east side of the property
at 12521 Kanis Road.(2.)A vacant lot containing 2.488 acres,zoned 0-2 and located at 15210 Kanis
Road.Attached is a sketch showing the two properties and locations.These properties are owned by
Richardson Investment Corporation.
Several lots between Point West and Bowman on the South side of Kanis Road (including one of my
lots)have a shallow depth and are more subject to a higher percentage of loss of usable land and the
resulting acute damages than other properties with greater depth.For example,the plat attached
shows three lots and they are 250 feet deep from the center of the existing road.Take away a 45'oad
R/W and a 30'uffer area and a possible 20'P&L R/W on the rear and the remaining usable land is
only 155 feet out of the original 250 feet,or only about 62%of the property depth remaining usable.
As you can see,this will not be an acceptable design for land owners with such properties.The other
lot at 15210 Kanis also has a shallow depth of 259 feet and will be subject to the same low usable land
rate as the first parcel.
Listed below are some of my concerns regarding the Kanis Road Concept Study.
DEVALUATION OF MY LOTS AND ADDED COST OF DEVELOPMENT
Access to my property
Curb cuts
Median cuts
Turn-a-rounds
Reduction of USABLE lot sizes.
90 foot road right-of-way (will landowners receive any compensation?)
30 foot buffer area (will landowners receive any compensation?)
AP&L easement on rear of lot
Building code set back requirements
ADDED expense of building construction on my lots
90 foot road R/W
30 foot green belt easement and maintainence
Assessment for construction costs for the PROPOSED Kanis Road Improvements
Underground electrical lines
I would like to offer some suggestions to make the Kanis Road Proposal more acceptable.
I.Use a 15 foot green belt on lots with a shallow depth,as described above.
2.Have building codes landscaping requirements overlap with the Green Belt.
3.Include the Green Belt area in the building code set back requirement (not in addition to).
4.Provide reasonable access to all properties.
5.Spread the costs of the proposed improvements to a larger base,rather than just to the Kanis Road
property owners.
6.Provide payment to landowners for the Green Belt easement.
7.Provide payment to landowners for road right of ways.
8.Use a smaller road R/W from Bowman road west,with a three lane road.
9.Collect improvement costs in proportion to value received from the City.If a landowner does not
request a higher zoning,then he should not be charged the improvement costs.If a landowner does
request a higher zoning,then he would be charged for improvement costs.The same logic applies
to the depth of the properties.
Thank you for your consideration and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
Bob Richardson
Richardson Investment Corporation
0 gCI ~CCJQ
(0 o~
vt PANQ SI +OQ 0~~T«MARA I V NN RQAO
MESP
4I
~Neighborhood MapCH/«/v g ~~SHACI4RICWAr+«l Ol
Z oOO
OASHwOOOOO.
/
/'t
W 0o
«I 0 y Z
LORENA AVE
/~BIRCHwOQO(p.
L QG BUR RwocPzARCHER~+(V (Z
CHIRR v LA C g'v 4IR.OR.ER
C T.EOAR POIN T 4I
co PARK CT O
0
AI AMQ CIR «I
OR P PILG RIM
Tl~CI
O HE RM t TK G EPOINTwESP
~OKWQPO PR
QAK POINZ
OIVEH
LAURE OAKS
OR
POINT WESTStCOVEZPOINTWEST
«I CIR
KANI5
5 4 RQAO'Subject
PT.CI .Z ZR
Z EpCC:E"+v~K
Cv,&COVE
I Cg O.=I +dr CDwESTGIENrOR.U Q/O /
1J
V'I
(3
«
'F8:
~4HH IWHHHw RKG CKP«RH HK 1 ~
Exhibit
~/X
(IT WEST DRIVE
GO
Xl
-0 ~+
0
H I
~so.g'~&
p
V)
JV 0
'a ~L„+
Il
1 o5o'
aa ~g
~h
QD
ar
OQ
C.
+„O"„.O~qC)
J fQ1 \
')
C
a
L ~
\c 0(d
C/(3p.IVdg.C
cp(~~o~'~e
a v
J'O
~a,,L
,)O'O ~
gaa
~C&
2 )
fr,)a
I
!)
')
a I'
a a
a I
g
-a'ah
a ~
'Vep.
O.dg'0
d,."66.
K)Dg Y—'/
I
'/
I
/
~iS.
Od
l
Agan'/z
gg
TH)5 5!T
f'R)OE
VALLEY ROAO
V IC IN)r Y MAP
Ie)s)
Design Overlay District —Kanis Road Office/Commercial
Purpose and intent.The purpose of the Kanis Road Overlay District is to superimpose an
overlay zone utilizing landscaped and buffer standards to enhance the general quality of
commercial and office development or structures located on Kanis Road;by providing
buffers to neighboring residences and other commercial uses;increase public safety by
guiding traffic;by minimizing the impact of commercial development and structures on
the drainage system;by decreasing the amount of paved area;and by coordinating green
space and signage in commercial and office areas while reducing visual clutter.
l.Application of district regulations.
A.The regulations in this ordinance shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other
zoning districts and other ordinance requirements regulating the development of
land so that any parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lie within one
or more of the other underlying zoning districts.Therefore,all property within
this overlay district will have requirements of both the underlying and overlay-
zoning district in addition to other ordinance requirements regulating the
development of land.In case of conflicting standards between this ordinance and
other City of Little Rock Ordinances,the overlay requirements shall control.
B.These regulations apply to all development,redevelopment or expansion of
existing development with the exception of single family and duplex development
under zoning districts R-l,R-2,R-3,and R-4,or PUD submission s as required.
2.District boundaries.The Kanis Road Overlay District shall encompass all land with
Kanis Road frontage from the west intersection of Kanis Road and Shackleford Road
(eastern boundary)and the intersection of Kanis Road and Bowman Road (western
boundary).
3.Building setbacks.
A.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a sixty
(60)foot build to line from the property line abutting Kanis Road.
B,All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a forty
(40)foot building setback from the rear property line.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a thirty
(30)foot building setback from the side property lines.
4.Fences.
A.Chain link fences and razor or barbed wire fences are prohibited.
B.Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate when compatible with the
style of the development.
lyly
C.The use of shrubs or hedges as an alternative to fencing is encouraged
along rear and side property lines when a nonresidential development
abuts a residential development.
5.Signage.
A.All wall-mounted signs shall cover no more than eight (8)percent of the building
facade.
B.All ground-mounted signs shall be of a monument type design,which may be
installed in the landscaped areas of the front and side yards.
C.Each separate development will be allowed a single ground mounted sign located
on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the development.Multiple
tenants of the same development will be required to share a single ground
mounted sign.The sign shall be a maximum of eight feet in height and one
hundred (100)square feet in area.
6.Access Points and Parking Lots.
A.If a parcel has frontage on a secondary road,the two way drive access
points shall occur on the secondary roadway.In these instances an exit
shall be a right out only onto Kanis Road.
B.There shall be one common point for entrance and exit on Kanis Road and
the driveway shall be shared between two (2)parcels with the center of the
access point being located on the property line.In no instance will the
access points be less than 600 feet.
C.Parking lots shall be situated in a manner as to allow for shared parking
between development on adjacent parcels
D.Parking lots shall have a minimum of 30 feet set back line from Kanis
Road.
E.Handicapped access parking shall be provided pursuant to ADAAG
4.1.2(5)(a)and 4.6.3.
F.Passenger loading zones shall be provided pursuant to ADAAG 4.6.6.
7.Landscaping.
A.Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on site trees and shrubbery
into the landscaping scheme.No grading,cutting of trees or brush exceeding
three (3)inch in diameter,or disturbance of prominent natural features shall be
performed except for minimal disturbance necessary to permit streets,driveways,
or utility corridors.The public right-of-way and areas reserved for future rights-
of-way in compliance with the adopted Master Street Plan shall not be used to
satisfy the requirements of this section.
B.Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every
twenty feet and if planted have a minimum of two inches in diameter when
measured twelve inches fiom the ground.Planted trees shall be placed at least
gd)g
two (2)feet from existing right-of-way as dictated by the Master Street Plan for
roadway design.Landscaping shall be used to establish a visual and physical
boundary between parking lots and roadways.
C.Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum depth of
twenty (20)feet &om the property line.Where such yards abut a street right-of-
way,other than Kanis Road,a fifteen foot landscaped strip shall be required.
Along Kanis Road a thirty (30)foot planted buffer will be required.
D.When nonresidential development abuts residential development the use of a
natural buffer such as shrubbery or hedges is encouraged and shall be a minimum
of twenty-five (25)feet from the property line.
E.In a development,which does not allow for a shared parking lot the development
shall be landscaped in compliance with Section 8 or 8 (d)of this ordinance,
which ever is applicable for adjacent properties.
F.All landscaping shall be installed in an appropriate manner in order to maintain
the health and quality of planted material.Final building inspection shall not be
released or certificate of use or occupancy shall not be authorized unless all
landscaping requirements are met or posting of appropriate bonds.
G.Trash receptacles and dumpster areas shall not be located on the same side of the
development site as residential development or structures nor shall they be located
adjacent to Kanis Road.
H.Trash receptacles and dumpster area must be screened by a fence with a minimum
height to conceal the trash receptacles and dumpster area and consist of wood,
brick or masonry material.This fence is in addition to perimeter landscape
requirements when abutting nonresidential development.
8.Protection and replacement of trees.
A.It is the intent of this section to minimize the removal of trees and to ensure that
developers take reasonable measures to design and locate the proposed
improvements so that the number of existing trees to be removed is minimized.In
particular,the design shall attempt to preserve specimen and historic trees.
B.All properties fronting Kanis Road shall have a thirty (30)foot planted buffer
zone containing one tree per six-feet eight-inches (6'8").
C.Each property shall attain a tree density factor of at least forty-nine (49)units per
acre using protected or replacement trees,or a combination of both.Compliance
with this provision shall be calculated using gross acreage of the property minus
the portion of the land area currently or proposed to be covered by structures,
minus the fenced areas of any athletic field,minus the areas of a lake or pond
which is covered by water year round,and excluding open areas of golf facilities.
Protected and replacement trees shall contribute toward the tree density.
D.Tree density shall be calculated according to the existing trees may be counted for
full credit of the required tree density requirement if in the opinion of the plans
review specialist,they are healthy existing trees.Single-trunk replacement trees
shall be a minimum of three-(3)inch caliper.A tree move from one location to
another on the site will be given credit as a protected tree and not as a replacement
tree.
E.Subdivision developments shall be exempt from the tree replacement provisions
during the phase of construction to install streets,utilities and drainage structures
required to be installed or bonded prior to recording of a final plat so long as;(1)
the tree survey includes the area to be disturbed by the construction of streets,
utilities and required drainage facilities;and,(2)the removal of protected trees is
confined to the areas of disturbance determined by the Planning Commission to
be the minimum area necessary to install the infrastructure required by the
subdivision regulations;and,(3)so long as no protected trees are to be removed
outside of the agreed-upon disturbed area.Development of individual parcels
within the subdivision must comply with the tree replacement provisions unless
exempt by other provision.
F.Existing development not otherwise exempted shall comply with the tree
replacement provisions when undergoing expansions as follows:(1)No additional
compliance is required if there is no enlargement of the lot,or in the improved
portion of the existing lot,and either;(a)the value of any one expansion is less
than twenty-five percent (25'/o),or the value of multiple expansions during any
five year period is less than fifty percent (50'/o)of the total building square feet of
all improvements on the lot prior to expansion;(b)the total building square
footage of any one expansions is less than twenty-five percent (25'/o),or the total
building square footage of multiple expansions during any five year period is less
than fifty percent (50'/o)of the total building square feet of all improvements on
the lot prior to expansion,
G.Protection of trees during development activities.Generally to assure the healthy
and survival of protected trees that are not to be removed,the following kinds of
tree injuries shall be avoided during all development activities:
i.Mechanical injuries to roots,trucks and branches;
ii.Injuries by chemical poisoning;
iii.Injuries by grade changes;
iv.Injuries by excavating;and
v.Injuries by paving.
H.A circular tree protection zone shall be established around each protected tree to
ensure survival.If the drip line is less than ten-(10)feet,the protection zone shall
be ten-(10)feet.If the drip line is more than ten-(10)feet the protection zone
shall be the full drip line of the tree.This configuration of the tree protection zone
may be adjusted upon recommendation of the Plans Review Specialist and upon
verification that measures will be taken during construction or installation to
protect the well being of the tree.
I.Development is prohibited within the tree-protected zone,including any
construction of buildings,structures,paving surfaces,and storm water
retention/detention ponds.All temporary construction activities shall also be
prohibited within the tree protection areas,including all digging,concrete
washing,storage of construction materials,and parking of construction vehicles.
The areas shall be fenced prior to the development and a sign placed depicting the
'+g l
area as a tree protection zone,The developer shall maintain the protective barrier
during the entire construction process and shall make certain that it is observed by
the contractor.
J.Replacement of dead materials.The property owner shall replace required plants,
which die.Replacement shall be installed at the earliest possible time within a
planting season,and replacements shall be as shown on the approved landscape
plan.Any replacement tree planted for credit shall be replaced by a tree of equal
or greater diameter than originally planted if the tree dies within a period of five-
(5)years.Under no circumstances shall any tree be removed by the owner or
developer without prior permission of the plans review specialist.
K.Tree replacement shall be trees,which are vase shaped (trees with less foliage
near the bottom two-thirds of the tree),a species that normally sheds the lower
branches of the tree,or one that tolerates pruning well.A list follows:
Quercus related species Oak
Acer related species Maples
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore
Fraxinus americana Ash
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar
Betula nigra River Birch
Gleditsia tricanthos Honey Locust
Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova (similar to elms)
L.Shrubs and trees to be considered in the side and rear yards for buffer zones are
evergreen (keeping their leaves throughout the winter),which retain their lower
branches.Trees and shrubbery should be allowed to reach mature height.
Magnoila grandifloria Southern Magnolia
Ilex Opaca and related species American Holly
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Ilex cornuta "Bufordii'urford Holly
Photinia serrulata Chinese Photinia
Eleagnus pungens Silverberry
9.Utilities.
A.All utilities shall be located on the rear property line.
B.All utilities shall be located underground.
C.All grates located in walking surfaces shall meet ADAAG 4.5.4 standards.
10.Lighting.
A.Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner so as not to
disturb the scenic appearance of the corridor.Lighting will be directed to the
parking areas and not reflected to adjacent parcels.
B.Parking lot lighting shall have a maximum height of thirty feet.
11.Bike/walking path.
A.Bike/walking path shall be incorporated and coordinated with landscaping
requirements stated herein and shall be curved to add aesthetic appeal.
B.Bike/walking path shall be constructed of an asphalt surface in accordance with
the Master Street Plan construction standards.
C.Bike/walking path shall be a nine-(9)foot minimum and provide adequate
clearance for ease of bike/pedestrian traffic and movement.
D.Bike/walking path shall be placed on both sides of the roadway.
E.Bike/walking path shall have a four-(4)foot minimum grass strip measured from
the back of curb to the sidewalk edge to allow for pedestrian safety.
12.Building form.
A.Materials.Native materials such as stone,brick,wood and glass may be used in
the construction of the building exterior.The building-to-glass ration shall be a
minimum of twenty-five (25)percent and a maximum of forty (40)percent.
B.Roof types.The roof must be a pitched roof minimum of 3:12 and constructed of
nonreflective materials.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed two stories in
height or 24'-0"in height.
13.Lots.
A.There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two (2)acres.
B.The maximum number of buildings per commercial development shall be
measured both by minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows:one
building ever one acre.
C.In the case of a development involving multiple building sites,whether on one or
more platted lots,the DOD regulations shall apply to the development as an entire
tract rather than to each platted lot.Developments of this type shall be reviewed
by the city through a site plan review process,which illustrates compliance with
the DOD.
14.Exceptions.
A.Property,due to topography,size,irregular shapes or other constraints,such as
adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility,and thus
cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning development section of the zoning
ordinance,with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards.
B.Improvements or repairs to interior and exterior features of existing structures
which do not result in expansions,changes in land use or the removal or
destruction of trees.
4,gn
C.Construction previously authorized by a building permit,a Final Site Plan of a
Planned Unit Development approved by the Planning Commission,or an
approved subdivision plat,any one of which remains valid on the effective
date of this ordinance.Any development whose permit or approval expires
shall not be exempt.
D.A platted lot zoned for single family or two-family dwellings.This exception
shall not apply to unplatted parcels of land being developed for non-residential
uses in residential districts nor to the process of subdividing property for the
purpose of creating streets and extending utilities,or to other residential
developments that require Final Site Plan approval.
I
'10 )
Design Overlay District —Kanis Road Suburban Office/Residential Parkway
Purpose and intent.The purpose of the Kanis Road Overlay District is to superimpose an
overlay zone utilizing landscaped and buffer standards to enhance the general quality of
commercial and office development or structures located on Kanis Road;by providing
buffers to neighboring residences and other commercial uses;increase public safety by
guiding traffic;by minimizing the impact of commercial development and structures on
the drainage system;by decreasing the amount of paved area;and by coordinating green
space and signage in commercial and office areas while reducing visual clutter.
1.Application of district regulations.
A.The regulations in this ordinance shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other
zoning districts and other ordinance requirements regulating the development of
land so that any parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lie within one
or more of the other underlying zoning districts.Therefore,all property within
this overlay district will have requirements of both the underlying and overlay-
zoning district in addition to other ordinance requirements regulating the
development of land.In case of conflicting standards between this ordinance and
other City of Little Rock Ordinances,the overlay requirements shall control.
B.These regulations apply to all development,redevelopment or expansion of
existing development with the exception of single family and duplex development
under zoning districts R-l,R-2,R-3,and R-4,or PUD submission s as required.
2.District boundaries.The Kanis Road Overlay District shall encompass all land with
Kanis Road frontage from the west intersection of Kanis Road and Bowman Road
(eastern boundary)and the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway (western
boundary).
3.Building setbacks.
A.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a forty-
five (45)foot build to line from the property line abutting Kanis Road.
B.-All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a
fifteen (15)foot building setback from the rear property line.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a ten
(10)foot building setback from the side property lines.
4.Fences.
A.Chain link fences and razor or barbed wire fences are prohibited.
B.Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate when compatible with the
style of the development.
C.The use-of shrubs or hedges as an alternative to fencing is encouraged
along rear and side property lines when a nonresidential development
abuts a residential development.
5.Signage.
A.Signage identifying a commercial development shall not exceed two square feet in
area for every linear foot of frontage,not to exceed eighty-four (84)square feet
and eight (8)feet in height.
B.Lettering on the sign shall not exceed 1'6"in height and not exceed three-quarters
of the height of the sign.Lettering shall not exceed sixty percent of the total area
of the sign.
C.All wall-mounted signs shall cover no more than four (4)percent of the building
facade.
D.All ground-mounted signs shall be of a monument type design,which may be
installed in the landscaped areas of the front and side yards.
E.Each separate development will be allowed a single ground mounted sign located
on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the development.Multiple
tenants of the same development will be required to share a single ground
mounted sign.The sign shall be a maximum of five feet in height and forty
square feet in area.
6.Access Points and Parking Lots.
A.If a parcel has frontage on a secondary road,access points shall occur on
the secondary roadway.
B.There shall be one common point for entrance and exit and the driveway
shall be shared between two (2)parcels with the center of the access point
being located on the property line.In no instance will the access points be
less than 600 feet.
C.Parking lot design shall be sensitive to the purposes and intent of the
Design Overlay District.When a building is facing Kanis Road,parking
is not allowed on the front side of the buildings.
D.-Parking lots shall not totally surround a building or structure and shall be
situated in a manner as to allow for shared parking between development
on adjacent parcels
E.Parking lots shall have a minimum of 60 feet set back line from Kanis
Road when located in a side yard relationship.
F.Handicapped access parking shall be provided pursuant to ADAAG
4.1.2(5)(a)and 4.6.3.
G.Passenger loading zones shall be provided pursuant to ADAAG 4.6.6.
7.Landscaping.
A.Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on site trees and shrubbery
into the landscaping scheme.No grading,cutting of trees or brush exceeding
three (3)inch in diameter,or disturbance of prominent natural features shall be
performed except for minimal disturbance necessary to permit streets,driveways,
or utility corridors.The public right-of-way and areas reserved for future rights-
of-way in compliance with the adopted Master Street Plan shall not be used to
satisfy the requirements of this section.
B.Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every
twenty feet and if planted have a minimum of two inches in diameter when
measured twelve inches from the ground.Planted trees shall be placed at least
two (2)feet from existing right-of-way as dictated by the Master Street Plan for
roadway design.Landscaping shall be used to establish a visual and physical
boundary between parking lots and roadways.
C.Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum depth of
ten (10)feet from the property line.Where such yards abut a street right-of-way,
other than Kanis Road,a fifteen foot landscaped strip shall be required.Along
Kanis Road a thirty (30)foot plannter buffer will be required.
D.When nonresidential development abuts residential development the use of a
natural buffer such as shrubbery or hedges is encouraged and shall be a minimum
of ten (10)feet from the property line.
E.In a development,which does not allow for a shared parking lot the development
shall be landscaped in compliance with Section 8 or 8 (d)of this ordinance,
which ever is applicable for adjacent properties.
F.All landscaping shall be installed in an appropriate manner in order to maintain
the health and quality of planted material.Final building inspection shall not be
released or certificate of use or occupancy shall not be authorized unless all
landscaping requirements are met or posting of appropriate bonds.
G.Trash receptacles and dumpster areas shall not be located on the same side of the
development site as residential development or structures nor shall they be located
adjacent to Kanis Road.
H.Trash receptacles and dumpster area must be screened by a fence with a minimum
height to conceal the trash receptacles and dumpster area and consist of wood,
brick or masonry material.This fence is in addition to perimeter landscape
requirements when abutting nonresidential development.
/
8.Protection and replacement of trees.
A.It is the intent of this section to minimize the removal of trees and to ensure that
developers take reasonable measures to design and locate the proposed
improvements so that the number of existing trees to be removed is minimized.In
particular,the design shall attempt to preserve specimen and historic trees.
B.All properties fronting Kanis Road shall have a thirty (30)foot planted buffer
zone containing one tree per six-feet eight-inches (6'8").
C.Each property shall attain a tree density factor of at least forty-nine (49)units per
acre using protected or replacement trees,or a combination of both.Compliance
3)')
with this provision shall be calculated using gross acreage of the property minus
the portion of the land area currently or proposed to be covered by structures,
minus the fenced areas of any athletic field,minus the areas of a lake or pond
which is covered by water year round,and excluding open areas of golf facilities.
Protected and replacement trees shall contribute toward the tree density.
D.Tree density shall be calculated according to the existing trees may be counted for
full credit of the required tree density requirement if in the opinion of the plans
review specialist,they are healthy existing trees.Single-trunk replacement trees
shall be a minimum of three-(3)inch caliper.A tree move from one location to
another on the site will be given credit as a protected tree and not as a replacement
tree.
E.Subdivision developments shall be exempt from the tree replacement provisions
during the phase of construction to install streets,utilities and drainage structures
required to be installed or bonded prior to recording of a final plat so long as;(1)
the tree survey includes the area to be disturbed by the construction of streets,
utilities and required drainage facilities;and,(2)the removal of protected trees is
confined to the areas of disturbance determined by the Planning Commission to
be the minimum area necessary to install the infrastructure required by the
subdivision regulations;and,(3)so long as no protected trees are to be removed
outside of the agreed-upon disturbed area.Development of individual parcels
within the subdivision must comply with the tree replacement provisions unless
exempt by other provision.
F.Existing development not otherwise exempted shall comply with the tree
replacement provisions when undergoing expansions as follows:(1)No additional
compliance is required if there is no enlargement of the lot,or in the improved
portion of the existing lot,and either;(a)the value of any one expansion is less
than twenty-five percent (25%),or the value of multiple expansions during any
five year period is less than fifty percent (50%)of the total building square feet of
all improvements on the lot prior to expansion;(b)the total building square
footage of any one expansions is less than twenty-five percent (25%),or the total
building square footage of multiple expansions during any five year period is less
than fifty percent (50%)of the total building square feet of all improvements on
the lot prior to expansion.
G.Protection of trees during development activities.Generally to assure the healthy
and survival of protected trees that are not to be removed,the following kinds of
tree injuries shall be avoided during all development activities:
i.Mechanical injuries to roots,trucks and branches;
ii.Injuries by chemical poisoning;
iii.Injuries by grade changes;
iv.Injuries by excavating;and
v.Injuries by paving.
H.A circular tree protection zone shall be established around each protected tree to
ensure survival.If the drip line is less than ten-(10)feet,the protection zone shall
be ten-(10)feet.If the drip line is more than ten-(10)feet the protection zone
shall be the full drip line of the tree.This configuration of the tree protection zone
4
may be adjusted upon recommendation of the Plans Review Specialist and upon
verification that measures will be taken during construction or installation to
protect the well being of the tree.
I.Development is prohibited within the tree-protected zone,including any
construction of buildings,structures,paving surfaces,and storm water
retention/detention ponds.All temporary construction activities shall also be
prohibited within the tree protection areas,including all digging,concrete
washing,storage of construction materials,and parking of construction vehicles.
The areas shall be fenced prior to the development and a sign placed depicting the
area as a tree protection zone.The developer shall maintain the protective barrier
during the entire construction process and shall make certain that it is observed by
the contractor.
J.Replacement of dead materials.The property owner shall replace required plants,
which die.Replacement shall be installed at the earliest possible time within a
planting season,and replacements shall be as shown on the approved landscape
plan.Any replacement tree planted for credit shall be replaced by a tree of equal
or greater diameter than originally planted if the tree dies within a period of five-
(5)years.Under no circumstances shall any tree be removed by the owner or
developer without prior permission of the plans review specialist.
K.Tree replacement shall be trees,which are vase shaped (trees with less foliage
near the bottom two-thirds of the tree),a species that normally sheds the lower
branches of the tree,or one that tolerates pruning well.A list follows:
Quercus related species Oak
Acer related species Maples
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore
Fraxinus americana Ash
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar
Betula nigra River Birch
Gleditsia tricanthos Honey Locust
Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova (similar to elms)
L.Shrubs and trees to be considered in the side and rear yards for buffer zones are
evergreen (keeping their leaves throughout the winter),which retain their lower
branches.Trees and shrubbery should be allowed to reach mature height.
Magnoila grandifloria Southern Magnolia
Ilex Opaca and related species American Holly
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Ilex cornuta "Bufordii'urford Holly
Photinia serrulata Chinese Photinia
Eleagnus pungens Silverberry
9.Utilities.
A.All utilities shall be located on the back property line.
B.All utilities shall be located underground.
C.All grates located in walking surfaces shall meet ADAAG 4.5.4 standards.
10.Lighting.
A.Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner so as not to
disturb the scenic appearance of the corridor.Lighting will be directed to the
parking areas and not reflected to adjacent parcels.
B.Parking lot lighting shall have a maximum height of thirty feet.
11.Bike/walking path.
A.Bike/walking path shall be incorporated and coordinated with landscaping
requirements stated herein and shall be curved to add aesthetic appeal.
B.Bike/walking path shall be constructed of an asphalt surface in accordance with
the Master Street Plan construction standards.
C.Bike/walking path shall be a nine-(9)foot minimum and provide adequate
clearance for ease of bike/pedestrian traffic and movement.
D.Bike/walking path shall be placed on both sides of the roadway.
E.Bike/walking path shall have a four-(4)foot minimum grass strip measured from
the back of curb to the sidewalk edge to allow for pedestrian safety.
12.Building form.
A.Materials.Native materials such as stone,brick,wood and glass may be used in
the construction of the building exterior.The building-to-glass ration shall be a
minimum of twenty-five (25)percent and a maximum of forty (40)percent.
B.Roof types.The roof must be a pitched roof minimum of 3:12 and constructed of
nonreflective materials.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed two stories in
height or 24'-0"in height.
13.Lots.
A.There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two (2)acres.
B.The maximum number of buildings per commercial development shall be
measured both by minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows:one
building ever one acre.
C.In the case of a development involving multiple building sites,whether on one or
more platted lots,the DOD regulations shall apply to the development as an entire
tract rather than to each platted lot.Developments of this type shall be reviewed
by the city through a site plan review process,which illustrates compliance with
the DOD.
14.Exceptions.
A.Property,due to topography,size,irregular shapes or other constraints,such as
adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility,and thus
cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning development section of the zoning
ordinance,with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards.
B.-Improvements or repairs to interior and exterior features of existing structures
which do not result in expansions,changes in land use or the removal or
destruction of trees.
C.Construction previously authorized by a building permit,a Final Site Plan of a
Planned Unit Development approved by the Planning Commission,or an
approved subdivision plat,any one of which remains valid on the effective
date of this ordinance.Any development whose permit or approval expires
shall not be exempt.
D.A platted lot zoned for single family or two-family dwellings.This exception
shall not apply to unplatted parcels of land being developed for non-residential
uses in residential districts nor to the process of subdividing property for the
purpose of creating streets and extending utilities,or to other residential
developments that require Final Site Plan approval.
IP
February 4,1999
ITEM:1
NAME:South University Avenue Design Overlay District
LOCATION:South University Avenue —Asher Avenue to Wanda Lane
~RE VEST:Establishment of a Design Overlay District
SOURCE:South University Avenue Redevelopment Committee
STAFF REPORT:
There has been concern expressed that South University Avenue
might be experiencing some decline.In the past South University
Avenue has been a vibrant area for the sale of automobiles and
trucks.With the closing of Schilling and Twin City Motors,and
with the establishment of automobile dealerships along Chenal
Parkway,the concern is that South University Avenue may have
lost its appeal as "car row".
In November of 1997,Director Adcock developed a committee
consisting of members of the Neighborhood Associations
surrounding South University Avenue and area businesses to
examine the measures necessary to reinstate the viability of
South University Avenue.With the committee formed
representatives of the City Parks Department,Planning and
Development and Public Works along with the Arkansas State
Highway and Transportation Department began working to develop a
proposal to enhance the future economic development opportunities
along the corridor.The primary focus for redevelopment along
the corridor was from Asher Avenue to Wanda Lane.
The committee explored advertising campaigns,landscaping ideas,
lighting modifications,litter control and other measures to
enliven the area.The committee also discussed a Design Overlay
District for the corridor to establish flexible standards to
allow persons wanting to reinvest money renovating their
businesses.Newly painted and renovated showrooms and service
areas,new landscaped areas,well lit display areas were not
enough to buy visibility.The placement of signs which include
not only the standard signs allowed under the Little Rock Sign
Ordinance,but also to allow banners,would give more a festive
atmosphere to the area.
The development patterns along South University Avenue are very
dissimilar to other corridors in the City.The area is
developed for the most part as automobile or automobile related
businesses or franchise type businesses.The majority of the
developments along South University Avenue are developed on largetractswithconsiderablesetbacks.
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
The City Board of Directors also became involved in the process
by allowing a waiver to the current City Sign Ordinance along the
corridor.The waiver along with subsequent extensions expired on
January 12,1999.The committee determined the allowance to the
variance,to allow banners along the corridor,should become a
practice.The development of a Design Overlay District for this
area would allow for the placement of banners to continue along
the corridor and allow for businesses to use innovative measure
for advertisement and redevelopment efforts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff feels this district would address the concerns
of the area businesses and allow for innovative measures to
redevelopment along the corridor.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
This item was placed on withdrawal.The item will be forwarded
to the Board of Directors as a request for an extension of the
sign moratorium on South University Avenue for an additional 24
months to allow for additional time to develop a Design Overlay
District,which incorporates landscaping features.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN OVERLAY
DISTRICT FOR THE SOUTH UNIVERSITY AVENUE
CORRIDOR,FROM ASHER AVENUE TO WANDA LANE,
PURSUANT TO DESIGN OVERLAY AUTHORITY,
CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
WHEREAS,economic development along the South University
Avenue Corridor from Asher Avenue to Wanda Lane is important to
the City of Little Rock;and
WHEREAS,some persons trying to redevelop businesses in this
area and use marketing campaigns have found it difficult to
adhere to current city ordinances;and
WHEREAS,a planned approach to redevelopment including
allowances and variances to current city ordinances would allow
for redevelopment in the area.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.Pursuant to Section 36-342 of the Code of
Ordinances of the city of Little Rock,an overlay for the South
University Avenue Corridor is hereby established as follows:
(a)Purpose and Intent.A South University Avenue Overlayisherebyestablished,consistent with the objectives
of the I-630,Boyle Park,65 Street East and 65StreetWestLandUsePlansadoptedbytheCityofLittleRock,and pursuant to the authority granted
under Chapter 36 of the codes of ordinances of the City
of Little Rock providing overlay zoning districts.The
purpose of establishing this district is to protect and
enhance the aesthetic and visual character of lands
surrounding South University Avenue.In particular the
purpose of this district is to create a standard for
signage,which are in keeping with the intent of thisarticle.
(b)District Boundaries.The District encompasses all
lands with South University Avenue frontage lying
within 300 feet of each side of the right of way of
South University Avenue.The northern boundary of thedistrictshallbetheintersectionofSouthUniversity
Avenue and Asher Avenue and the intersection of South
University Avenue and Wanda Lane shall be the southern
boundary.In the case of conflicting standards
applicable to property included within these boundaries
of the South University Avenue Overlay District,the
South University Avenue Overlay District standardsshallcontrol.
(c)Application of District Regulations.The regulationsinthissectionshalloverlayallotherzoningdistrictsandotherordinancerequirementsregulating
the development of land so than any parcel of land
lying in the overlay district shall also lie within one(1)or more of the other underlying zoning districts.
Therefore,all property within this overlay districtwillhaverequirementsofboththeunderlyingand
overlay-zoning district in addition to other ordinance
requirements regulating the development of land.In
cases of conflicting standards between this section and
other city ordinances,the overlay requirements shallcontrol.In the case of conflicting standards betweenthisarticleandotherCityofLittleRockOrdinances,
the overlay requirements shall control.
These regulations apply to all development,
redevelopment or expansion of existing development with
the exception of single-family and duplex development
under zoning districts R-1,R-2,R-3,and R-4 or PUD
submissions as required.
(d)Site design and development standards.
(i)Signage.Signage shall comply with the Little
Rock Sign Ordinance,except for the allowance of
banner type signs.They shall be industry
standard logo banners.The banners shall be
spaced 220 feet apart and permanently affixed tothelightstandardwithatopandbottombraceto
not allow the banners to wave.(ii)Banners shall be a maximum of five (5)feet in
height and three (3)feet in width.
(iii)Banners shall be representative of the businessfranchiseandindicatethecompanylogo.
SECTION 2.Serverability.This ordinance and its variouspartsareherebydeclaredtobeseverable.If a court of
competent jurisdiction declares any section,clause,provision orportionofthisordinanceinvalidorunconstitutional,suchdecisionshallnotaffectthevalidityofthisordinanceasa
whole.All parts not declared invalid or unconstitutional shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3.Declaring and emergency.The Board of Directors
hereby finds and declares that as a result of current developmentpatternsalongSouthUniversityAvenueCorridor,it is necessarytoimplementtheseguidelinesandstandardsimmediatelysothatalldevelopmentcanbeplannedandcoordinatedinkeepingwiththepurposeandintentofthisDistrict.Therefore,in order toprotectandpreservethehealth,safety and welfare of thecitizensofthisCity,an emergency is hereby declared to exist
and this ordinance shall be in full force an effect from andafteritspassageandapproval.
PASSED:APPROVED:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
&-ebruary 4,1999
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:LU99-04-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Heights/Hillcrest
Planning District
Location:University at C
~Re eet:Multi Family to Mixed
Source:AM Sullivan,Jim Sullivan &Dorothy Sullivan
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest PlanningDistrictfromMultiFamilytoMixedUse.Mixed Use category
provides for a mixture of residential,office,and commercial
uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District is required if the useisentirelyofficeorcommercialoriftheuseisamixtureof
the three.The original application is shown on the sketch as"Original Amendment area"and is bordered by B Street,C Street
and University Avenue.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff
expanded the area of review to include five other areas in
addition to an expanded site.These additional areas are from
Multi Family to Office,Office to Multi Family and from Office to
Single Family.These changes will acknowledge existing uses ofOfficeandcleanupdraftingerrors.The expansion of theoriginalapplicationtothesouthwouldmaketheboundaries morelogical.The expanded area added and additional 2 '0+acres
bring the total to 4.29+acres.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONINQ:
The property of the original application is currently zoned R3
and R5 and is shown as Multi Family on the Land Use Plan.To theeast,is an area zoned 03 and shown as Multi Family.To the
North,are areas zoned 03 and R3 shown as Office and Multi Family
on the plan.South of the site are areas zoned R3 and 03 andrespectivelyshownasOfficeandMultiFamilyontheplan.
Across University Street lies Park Plaza,which is zoned C3 and
shown as Commercial on the plan.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
No amendments have been made to the plan in recent history in the
immediate area.
I ebruary 4,1999
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:LU99-04-01
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenue is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan.
Lee Street,east of University,is shown as a Collector and
Markham is a Minor Arterial."B"and "C"streets are residentialstreets."B"Street is a right in,right out from Universitycurrentlyandhasasteepgradeattheintersectionof
University."C"Street,for the western 100'i,is one way to theeast,thus eliminating all traffic to exit onto University from
II C II
The proposed plan,provided by the applicant,shows a realignmentof"C"Street to align with the private drive known as Park Plaza
Drive west of University Avenue.This will give "C"StreetaccesstothestoplightandmayincreasetrafficalongPierceStreettojointoLeeStreet.
PARKS:
The site is not included on the Master Parks Plan.The closest
park to the site is the War Memorial park complex.It lies tothesoutheastofthesite.
BACKGROUND:
This site is located on the western edge of the Hillcrest
neighborhood area,(one of the older neighborhoods in the city).Hillcrest,as a whole,has a mixed use feel with office,
commercial and residential uses residing in close proximity to
each other.The mixed use feel is also shown at the University
and C street intersection:Park Plaza Mall,a doctor's office
complex,hi-rise apartments and the proposed commercial use are
perpetuating the mixed use feel that is evident in other parts oftheneighborhood.
The immediate area has seen an increase in the amount of office
uses and an increase in the density of dwelling units in the pastthatcontributestothemixedusefeels
While this area is under development of a neighborhood plan,thedraftoftheHillcrestNeighborhoodPlanasofthisprintingisnotmakinganyzoningorlanduseplanamendmentsaspartoftheirneighborhoodplanningprocess.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Heights,Hillcrest,Sherrill Heights,Prospect Terrace,
Evergreen,and Capitol View.Staff has received 7 comments fromarearesidentsandownersofexpandedareas.1 (a property owner
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:LU99-04-01
in the expanded area)is in support and 6 were neutral.No
comments were received from neighborhood associations,at the
time of this printing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNINQ COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff presented the item to the commission.
Walter Malone,of the Planning Staff,stated that this item would
have been on the consent agenda except for a letter was received
stating opposition to one portion of the expanded area.He
continued to explain that it was shown as office but used as a
single-family residence.
Brian Minyard pointed out the site on the map and referred to the
letter from the gastroenterology office and stated that it was
the only negative comment received.
Hugh Earnest,commission chair,asked to clarify the "cleanup"
and the reasons for the expanded areas'r.Minyard stated that
the expanded areas were to recognize existing uses and clean up
drafting errors.
Craig Berry,commissioner,asked if the reason was to open up for
further redevelopment'e asked for the original reason for
proposing the area objected to in the letter and why we were
backing off of it now.
Mr.Minyard responded that the original in this block and that it
was currently occupied as a single-family residence.
Mr.Malone continued that Staff wanted to keep the office facing
University and that this change in the amendment was not a major
change.
Chairman Earnest asked for any further discussion.
Commissioner Putnam asked if that was the site of the sheet metal
shop and Mr.Minyard pointed it out on the map.
The motion was made to approve as submitted and was passed with a
vote of 10 ayes,0 noes,and 1 absent.
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:LU99-12-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —65th Street West
Planning District
Location:Stagecoach and Shackleford
~Re eet:Single Family and Neighborhood Commercial to Service
Trades District and Park/Open Space.
Source:Harold Joyner
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street West Planning District
from Single Family to Service Trades District.Service TradesDistrictprovidesforaselectionofoffice,warehousing,andindustrialparkactivitiesthatprimarilyserveotherofficeserviceorindustrialbusinesses.The district is intended to
allow support services to these businesses and to provide for
uses with an office component.A Planned Zoning District is
required for any development not wholly office.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff
expanded the area of review to include two areas.The first areaistheexistingautosalvageyardacrossStagecoachRoad.The
second area is and area to the west of the site between theexistingSTDareaandtheproposedSTDarea.It is thought that
the additional area to the west would make the boundaries morelogicalandtheexistingsalvageyardtotheeastwouldbe
recognized.In addition,the staff has proposed a 50'ark/Open
Space (PK/OS)strip to the south and east as a demarcation linetoprohibitanyfurtherintrusionintotheexistingneighborhood.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R2 and is approximately 1.752acresinsize.The site is surrounded by R2 zoning shown asSingleFamilyontheLandUsePlanexcepttothenorthwhere anareaofC1isshownasNeighborhoodCommercialonthePlan.The
Salvage yard to the east is also shown as Neighborhood Commercial(it is zoned R2).
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
January 19,1998,A change from Single Family to Office on
Colonel Glenn west of the intersection of Asher and Stagecoach(currently before Board of Directors).
December 1,1998,A change was made from Suburban Office to Mixed
Use at the southeast corner of I-430 and Colonel Glenn.
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:LU99-12-01
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Stagecoach is shown as Principal Arterial on the plan and
Shackleford is shown as a minor arterial.Stagecoach is a two
lane without curbs and gutters and is typical of a rural highway
in the state.There are no plans at this time to widen this
section of Stagecoach.
PARKS:
This site is not shown on the Master Parks Plan.There are not
any existing parks close to the site.
BACKGROUND:
Recent petitions for changing the Land Use Plan in this area have
met with resistance from neighborhood groups.The applicationsfortheexpansionoftheblockplantonBrodieLane,the mortgage
company at the David O.Dodd and Stagecoach intersection,and the
STD area bounded by Herndon,Lanehart and Stagecoach were all
denied last year.These sites are all within three/quarters of a
mile from this site towards the east and southeast.
Stagecoach Road does have several non-conforming commercial uses
along this section,but still maintains a rural flavor.The
homes are generally in good repair and sit on large lots.with
no plans for widening Stagecoach at this time,in effect,this
means that there will be no change for at least five years.Thesiteiscurrentlyusedasasinglefamilyresidence.
Staff feels that this is a fragile area and that constant
nibbling will seal the fate of the street to be totally non-
residential.This area is slated to be included in a
neighborhood plan starting in 1999.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Meadowcliff/Brookwood NA,South Brookwood NA,Pecan Lake POA and
Stagecoach/Dodd.Staff has received 1 comments from arearesidents,which was in supports Staff has not received any
comments from neighborhood associations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:LU99-12-01
PLANNINQ COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Staff presented the item to the commission.
Harold Joyner,the applicant,spoke of the site and the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Putnam asked which corner was his site.Mr.Minyard
explained the expanded site.
Commissioner Downing asked about the graphic.Mr.Minyard
explained the expanded area and the Park/Open space area.
Mr.Albert Hudson,of Pecan Lake,spoke in opposition to the
plan.He mentioned the location in relation to residential
properties and to preserve as much residential as possible in the
neighborhood.He continued to speak of decreasing property
values,new home construction in the area,environmental problems
such as deforestation and lighting.
Commissioner Downing asked of staff as to the reason for
expansion.Mr.Minyard explained that it was expanded to the
northwest to tie onto the existing STD area and across the road
to acknowledge existing uses.PK/OS was used as a buffer to the
east and south.He continued and spoke of previous amendments in
the area and existing conditions.
Commissioner Mizan stated that it made sense to go north and west
to tie into the existing STD and southeast for the car salvage
and adding PK/OS strip as a buffer.He continued by asking why
we did not support it.
Mr.Minyard responded by reiterating past history in the
neighborhood and the close proximity to the previous
cases'taff'sdecisionwasbasedonthefactofthepublic's previous
position and the fact that a neighborhood plan is going to start
in the near future for that area.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated that the City is in court
with the owner of the salvage yard over screening issues.
Walter Malone stated that STD would probably not allow zoning for
a salvage yard,but STD would be closer than the Neighborhood
Commercial that it is currently shown as in relation to what is
on the ground.
Mr.Lloyd Black,a resident of Pecan Lake,spoke in opposition to
the amendment.He has lived in the area for 23 years and wants
neighborhood to remain single family.He warned that the
commission may set a precedent and asked the commission to listen
to staff's competent decision to oppose the change.
3
Feoruary 4,1999
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:LU99-12-01
Chairman Earnest asked Mr.Minyard what is located in the
existing Neighborhood Commercial area to the east of the
intersection.Mr.Minyard stated that it was a wooded
undeveloped tract.
Commissioner Hawn asked of Mr.Hudson how he planned to keep thatintersectionformgoingcommercialandifitwasrealisticto
oppose all change.Mr.Hudson did state that he did see it in
the future,but their concern is the relation to the residential
areas.
Commissioner Putnam asked of Mr.Hudson where he lived.
Commissioner Mizan asked staff why the recommendation was
commercial on two corners but not on the third.Commissioner
Faust commented that this is STD,and not Commercials
Commissioner Downing commented that it seemed to be a natural
progression to bring the existing STD area on Shackleford down.
He spoke of previous amendments of islands versus this amendment
of expanding an existing category.His question is whether if
should be on the other side of the road.
Jim Lawson commented that staff was trying to recognize an
existing use on the ground and Mr.Malone said that it was a non-
conforming use.
Commissioner Downing brought up the question as to future zoning
of the salvage yard and how that would fit into STD.
Commissioner Rahman made a motion to approve application as
submitted.
Commissioner Putnam asked if the commission could ask if he was
going to screen the property.Steven Giles said that we could
not and that it would not be binding if we did.
Walter Malone stated that he would have to do a PZD unless he
goes with straight office zoning in a STD area.He continued
that staff has been discussing,since you have a question about
the east side expanded area,that you may want to drop that partoff.
Commissioner Rahman made a motion to approve the western area
only and was seconded.The motion was passed as amended with a
vote of 8 ayes,2 noes,and 1 absent.
4
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:4
NAME:Downtown Neighborhoods Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In the spring of 1997,Housing and Neighborhood Programs aswellasPlanningandDevelopmentStaffmetwiththeEastof
Broadway and Downtown Neighborhood Associations aboutstartingaplanintheirareas.A neighborhood "Town Hall"
meeting was held on May 31,1997.This meeting providedarearesidentswiththeopportunitytocontributeideas onissuesofimportanceforthePlan.The major "stake
holders"in the neighborhood were invited and many presentedtheirplansatthismeeting.
The residents broke into topic groups to develop issues for
the Plan.After several hours of work issues had been
developed and a steering or planning committee was formed.
The planning committee met monthly after forming
subcommittees to work on different topic areas.Each topic
subcommittee worked with government officials and otherinterestgroupstodeveloptheirgoalsandactionstatements.Real estate,religious and business leaders
were asked to participate.Representations went to some
groups,such as the South Main Business Owners to discuss
issues'fter
a year developing a draft plan,a second town hall
meeting was held in July of 1998 to get comment.Even
though there was support shown for the plan,the committee
developed a survey to get residents'eaction to the majorpointsoftheplan.During August of 1998 surveys were
mailed to all addresses in the area and were distributed atareaschoolregistrations.The survey response showed
general support for the plan.However some of the specifics
such as a tax for CATA and increased regulations of signs or
new development did have opposition of approximately 20
percent of the respondents.
The committee has taken these comments to heart and reducedtheirimportance.The draft plan has now been circulated
through the neighborhood and been taken to any organization
mentioned in the plan.(If the organization was opposed,
they were removed.)After a year and a half of work,the
neighborhood committee believes they had developed a goodconsciousdocumenttoguidefuturedecisionmakinginthe
neighborhood.In addition to the Plan,the neighborhoodwillpresentseveralLandUsePlanamendmentsandrezonings.
February 4,1999
ITEM N .4 nt
At this time the neighborhood committee hopes the City via
the Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of Directors
will accept the neighborhood plan and help the neighborhood
work toward the goals presented in the plan.
PLANNI OMMI SION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Walter Malone,Planning Manager open the item by providing
some information on the process used.The process started
in the spring of 1997 with a Town Hall meeting May 31 .The
committee was formed at this meeting.Over the summer andfallof1997subcommitteeswereformedtoworkontopic
areas.By the summer of 1998 a draft was ready for review.
A neighborhood meeting was held and a survey on the plan's"issues"was distributed to present the plan to the
neighborhood.The plan was finalized over the fall with
neighborhood based groups and businesses asked to comment.
Mr.Malone directed the Commission to the last section of
the report which has several letters in general support of
the plan.
Kathy Wells,chair of Plan Committee began the committee's
presentation.Ms.Wells thanked staff for their assistance
and then noted a map which had been left out of the
appendix.From the existing condition section statistics on
population and demographic make-up of the neighborhood were
reviewed,Ms.Wells directed the Commission to page 5 of the
Plan and reviewed the priorities for the neighborhood.
After reading page 5 she directed attention to the cover
which is the design to be used for neighborhood street
pennants.Ms.Wells indicated the area has a diversity
which they are proud of and played a tape which is the
"anthem"of the neighborhood.
Ms.Susan Branch,committee member spoke next.Ms.Branch
restated her experience which lead to locating in the area
and presented a newspaper article about her efforts to
revitalize the area/repair her home.
Ms.Cheri Nichols,committee member spoke next.Ms.Nichols
directed the Commission's attention to the "Land Use and
Zoning section"and particularly the draft "overlay."With
reconstruction after the tornado,this is more important
today.While some of the area has protections (Governor
Mansion area and MacArthur Park)others need protection to
maintain the character of the area.The area needs some
"broad"design concepts put in place to protect this special
neighborhood.We will need the City's help and cooperation
with this effort to rebuild our neighborhood.
Chairman Earnest commended the group's efforts He raised
his concerns about the lack of response to the survey (need
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.
to find other ways)and the lack of information about the
rental inspection program.
Commissioner Rahman indicated he had read the Plan and
commended the effort.The Plan does speak to the issues in
the neighborhood.He reminded those present that there are
two commissioners who live in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Berry indicated this Plan was the most broad
based and desired recognition.He noted the comment on page
10 indicating a need for 7,000 new residents.For
redevelopment we must have residential.He hoped the
Committee was thinking about infill in tornado damaged
areas.Ms.Wells indicated they were "on it."Mr.Berry
indicated he had two concerns the need to include the
Downtown Businesses (including Central Business District).
Mr.Malone indicated the neighborhood had wanted to include
more;however,staff had not included that area.The second
issue is the need to set priorities in each goal and how the
goal (or action)will be achieved —what first.The
response was design guidelines first.
Commissioner Faust indicated the Plan was a good effort and
timing was important.The committee needs to "stay on"the
overlay issue.
Commissioner Downing asked about the resolution before the
Commission.Mr.Malone indicated staff believed it meets
commission's desires based on the Rock Creek Plan
discussion.Mr.Downing agreed.
Commissioner Faust moved the resolution.Seconded by
Commissioner Muse.By a vote of 10 for 0 against the
resolution was approved.
3
RESOLUTION NO ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS IN SUPPORT
OF THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN FOR THE
FUTURE.
WHEREAS,the area Residents and Neighborhood Associations
formed a Planning Committee to develop a Neighborhood Plan;and
WHEREAS,the residents and other "stakeholders"in the area
participated in a Town Hall meeting to set a vision and identify
issues to include in plan;and
WHEREAS,after several months of work by the Planning
Committee,a set of goals and objectives were developed and
presented to the neighborhood at several meetings and were
distributed to various groups and individuals in the
neighborhood;and
WHEREAS,the Committee developed and conducted a survey to
determine the neighborhoods reaction to the issues raised in the
Draft Plan;and,
WHEREAS,this Plan (Goals,Objectives and Action Statements)
provides a way for both neighborhood based groups and others
working in and around the neighborhood to advance the desires and
meet the needs of the residents;and,
WHEREAS,the Plan Committee has received over a dozen
letters of support from various organizations and businesses
within the area.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planning Commission of the City of Little
Rock does support the vision and goals as expressed in the
Downtown Neighborhoods Plan for the future.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
SECRETARY CHAIRMAN
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5A LU99-08-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City District
Location:Between 13 and 15 Streets,State and Broadway
~Re est:Mnltifamily to Low Density Residential
Source:Downtown Neighborhoods Plan
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City District from
Multifamily to Low Density Residential.Low Density
Residential allows for a broad range of housing types
provided that the density is between six to ten dwellings
per acre.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Single Family to Mixed Use (August 18,1998)in the area
along Commerce from 19 to 21st Streets
Single Family to Mixed Use (May 21,1996)in the area south
of Roosevelt Road from Cumberland to I-30
Single Family to Mixed Use (March 5,1996)in the area west
of Bragg from 23 to 24 Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (February 20,1996)in
the area between Marshall and Battery from 13 to 14
Streets
Single Family to Mixed Use (January 16,1996)in the area
west of I-30 from 18'o 19 Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (January 16,1996)
around the 14 Street and Park intersection
MASTER STREET PLAN:
All streets of classified or local except for 14 Street,
which is designated a collector.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
The current zoning of the property is R-4,two resident or
M,Residential —Capitol Zoning.
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan effort,the
future land use plan was examined.The committee generallyfeltcomfortablewiththerecommendeddevelopmentpattern.
The major concern was how the area would develop.The
design,massing etc.is considered to be very important.
The Committee wishes to assure that any new development is
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5A Cont.LU99-08-01
designed and sited so as to complement and fit the existing
neighborhood.The Committee did have two land use concerns.
The first is that existing single family areas not be
converted to multifamily.(This does not mean that some
densification would be inappropriate.)Addition of
accessory residential units and some conversion is
considered appropriate.However,the conversion of a city
block from single family to high density multifamily is not
appropriate.The other land use concern is the desire to
allow residents to start businesses in their homes whether
home occupations or "cottage industry"types of use.
Flexibility and allowing maximum use of current and future
technology advances should be encouraged.
The existing zoning and use for the area in question is
appropriate for Low Density Residential.The use and zoning
pattern is Single Family with some duplex use not more
traditional multifamily use --apartments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on Consent Agenda for approval.By
unanimous vote (10-0,Nunnley absent)the item was approved.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5B LU99-08-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City District
Location:15 Street to I-630,east of Rock
~Re est:Mixed Use to Low Density Residential
Source:Downtown Neighborhoods Plan
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City District from
Mixed Use to Low Density Residential.Low DensityResidentialallowsforabroadrangeofhousingtypes
provided that the density is between six to ten dwellings
per acre.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Single Family to Mixed Use (August 18,1998)in the area
along Commerce from 19 to 21'treets
Single Family to Mixed Use (May 21,1996)in the area southofRooseveltRoadfromCumberlandtoI-30
Single Family to Mixed Use (March 5,1996)in the area westofBraggfrom23to24Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (February 20,1996)in
the area between Marshall and Battery from 13 to 14Streets
Single Family to Mixed Use (January 16,1996)in the area
west of I-30 from 18 to 19 Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (January 16,1996)
around the 14'treet and Park intersection
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cumberland is a collector from 14 Street north.All otherstreetsareclassifiedaslocalstreetsbytheMasterStreetPlan.
CURRENT ZONINQ AND ACREAGE:
The current zoning of the property is MR (Media DensityResidential).This district allows residential units fromsinglefamilytomultifamily.
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan effort,thefuturelanduseplanwasexamined.The committee generallyfeltcomfortablewiththerecommendeddevelopmentpattern.
The major concern was how the area would develop.The
design,massing etc.is considered to be very important'
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5B Cont.LU99-08-02
The Committee wishes to assure that any new development is
designed and sited so as to complement and fit the existing
neighborhood.The Committee did have two land use concerns.
The first is that existing single family areas not be
converted to multifamily.(This does not mean that some
densification would be inappropriate.)Addition of
accessory residential units and some conversion is
considered appropriate.However,the conversion of a city
block from single family to high density multifamily is not
appropriate.The other land use concern is the desire to
allow residents to start businesses in their homes whether
home occupations or "cottage industry"types of use.
Flexibility and allowing maximum use of current and future
technology advances should be encouraged.
The area in question is currently single family homes with
one 8-plex.The use pattern is generally a Single Family to
Low Density Residential use type.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on Consent Agenda for approval.By
unanimous vote (10-0,Nunnley absent)the item was approved.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5C LU99-08-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City District
Location:17 to 19 Streets along Scott Street
~Re eat:Single Family to Commercial
Source:Downtown Neighborhood Plan
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City District fromSingleFamilytoCommercial.Commercial allows a broad
range of retail and wholesale sales of products,personal
and professional services and general business activities.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Single Family to Mixed Use (August 18,1998)in the area
along Commerce from 19 to 21'treets
Single Family to Mixed Use (May 21,1996)in the area southofRooseveltRoadfromCumberlandtoI-30
Single Family to Mixed Use (March 5,1996)in the area westofBraggfrom23to24Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (February 20,1996)intheareabetweenMarshallandBatteryfrom13to14Streets
Single Family to Mixed Use (January 16,1996)in the area
west of I-30 from 18 to 19 Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (January 16,1996)
around the 14 Street and Park intersection
MASTER STREET PLAN:
17'treet is a collector.All other streets are classifiedaslocalstreetsbytheMasterStreetPlan.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
The current zoning of the property is 0,General Business(Capitol Zoning).
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan effort,thefuturelanduseplanwasexamined.The committee generallyfeltcomfortablewiththerecommendeddevelopmentpattern.
The major concern was how the area would develop.The
design,massing etc.is considered to be very important.
The Committee wishes to assure that any new development is
designed and sited so as to complement and fit the existing
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5C Cont.LU99-08-03
neighborhood.The Committee did have two land use concerns.
The first is that existing single family areas not be
converted to multifamily.(This does not mean that some
densification would be inappropriate.)Addition of
accessory residential units and some conversion is
considered appropriate.However,the conversion of a city
block from single family to high density multifamily is not
appropriate.The other land use concern is the desire to
allow residents to start businesses in their homes whether
home occupations or "cottage industry"types of use.
Flexibility and allowing maximum use of current and future
technology advances should be encouraged.
The area in question is currently zoned and used for
commercial purposes.The structures are of a commercial
design.There is no question that the street is full of
businesses not homes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on Consent Agenda for approval.By
unanimous vote (10-0,Nunnley absent)the item was approved.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5D LU99-08-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City District
Location:Scott from I-630 to 16 Street
~Re est:Commercial public Institutional and Low Density
Residential to Mixed Use
Source:Downtown Neighborhood Plan
PROPOSAL RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City District from
Commercial,Public Institutional and Low Density ResidentialtoMixedUse.Mixed Use allows for residential,office and
commercial uses to occur with a Planned Zone District if the
use is not residential.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Single Family to Mixed Use (August 18,1998)in the area
along Commerce from 19 to 21'treets
Single Family to Mixed Use (May 21,1996)in the area southofRooseveltRoadfromCumberlandtoI-30
Single Family to Mixed Use (March 5,1996)in the area westofBraggfrom23to24Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (February 20,1996)in
the area between Marshall and Battery from 13 to 14Streets
Single Family to Mixed Use (January 16,1996)in the area
west of I-30 from 18 to 19 Streets
Single Family to Public Institutional (January 16,1996)
around the 14 Street and Park intersection
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Scott Street is a collector from 14'treet to 1-630 and 14Streetisclassifiedasacollector.All other streets areclassifiedaslocalbytheMasterStreetPlan.
CURRENT ZONINQ:
The areas west of Scott are zoned "N"Neighborhood
Residential and Commercial --Capitol Zoning.The area eastofScottarezonedMR,Medium Density Residential and R-5
Urban Residential.
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan effort,the
future land use plan was examined.The committee generally
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:5D Cont.LU99-08-04
felt comfortable with the recommended development pattern.
The major concern was how the area would develop.The
design,massing etc.is considered to be very important.
The Committee wishes to assure that any new development is
designed and sited so as to complement and fit the existing
neighborhood.The Committee did have two land use concerns.
The first is that existing single family areas not be
converted to multifamily.(This does not mean that some
densification would be inappropriate.)Addition of
accessory residential units and some conversion is
considered appropriate.However,the conversion of a city
block from single family to high density multifamily is not
appropriate.The other land use concern is the desire to
allow residents to start businesses in their homes whether
home occupations or "cottage industry"types of use.
Flexibility and allowing maximum use of current and future
technology advances should be encouraged.
The area west of Scott is general vacant or nonresidential.
There are two multifamily structures and one single family
home.However,a block and a half is vacant and the block
containing residential is half nonresidential'he blocks
east of Scott contain an abandon junior high (Eastside)and
a nursing home.The Land Use Plan generally slows areas
zoned "N"as Mixed Use.The residentially zoned areas are
large structures,an old school and nursing home ~If new
uses are to be found,alternatives must be allowed.Mixed
Use does this but uses a PZD to allow review for
compatibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on Consent Agenda for approval.By
unanimous vote (10-0,Nunnley absent)the item was approved.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:6
Owner:Various
Location:In an area from Scott to Commerce,Roosevelt
to 15 Street and 15'o 16 Street from
Cumberland to Commerce.
~Re eet:Rezone from R-5 and C-3 to R-4.
Size:
Existin Use:Single Family,Duplex and Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Multifamily and Single Family;zoned MR
South —Single Family;zoned R-4
East —Commercial,Multifamily,Nursing Home;zoned Capitol
Zone "N","0"and "M".
West —Single Family and Duplex;zoned R-4
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NOTIFICATION:
The east of Broadway and Downtown Neighborhood Associations
were represented on the Committee which identified the
tracks for reclassification.No additional notice was
provided.
LAND USE ELEMENT:
The locations are within the Central City District.The
Land,Use Plan recommends Single Family and Mixed Use for the
locations in question.The proposed zoning is more in
conformance with the adopted Plan for the area.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As part of the Neighborhood Plan process,the Committee was
asked to review the existing zoning pattern for
appropriateness.Several areas were identified as
inappropriate based on the existing use and the adopted Land
Use Plan.However,the committee generally felt comfortable
with the existing zoning pattern.The major concern was how
areas zoned "R-5"could be developed.Based on previous
developments,large areas of "R-5"were perceived to be
harmful.The Committee wishes to assure that any new
development is designed and sited so as to complement andfittheexistingneighborhood.The Committee does wish to
allow for the addition of accessory residential units and
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.
some conversion is considered appropriate;however,the
conversion of a city block from single family to high
density multifamily is not viewed as appropriate.
The "C-3"General Commercial at 15 and Commerce is shown on
the Plan as residential and is currently used forresidentialhomes.The second "C-3"area is along
21'treet.It is shown for Mixed Use on the Plan and the
parcels in question are used as homes or are vacant.The
desire for this location is that residential use be
encouraged.Commercial is excepted if it is designed to be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in use and
architectural design.
The reclassifications are as follows:
Z-3711-A R-5 to R-4 West of Cumberland from 16 to
17 Streets (Use:Single
Family;Plan:Low Density
Residential)
Z-4510-B C-3 to R-4 Southwest corner 15 and
Commerce Streets (Use:Single
Family;Plan:Low Density
Residential)
Z-6615 R-5 to R-4 East of Cumberland 15 to 20
Streets (Use:Single Family,
Duplex and Vacant;Plan:Low
Density Residential and Single
Family)
Z-6616 C-3 to R-4 Along 21'treet,Park Lane to
Cumberland (Use:Single Family
and Vacant;Plan:Mixed Use)
Z-6617 R-5 to R-4 West of Cumberland,20 to 17Streets(Use:Single Family and
Duplex;Plan:Single Family)
Z-6618 R-5 to R-4 Along Scott,22"to 25 Streets
(Use:Single Family,Duplex and
Vacant;Plan:Single Family)
Staff obtained ownership information for the identified
tracks of land.The property owners were notified over the
summer about a possible reclassification.Several owners
indicated they wished to have their property remain zoned
with the current classification.These properties have been
removed from the rezoning request.
A second letter notifying the owners of this hearing was
mailed in early January.An owner wishing to be removedafterthismailingwillbelistedatthepublichearing.
2
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.
The reclassification are consistent with the existing use
and adopted Land Use Plan for the area.Further the
property owners do not oppose the reclassification.(If any
property owner notifies us after printing of the agenda,
Staff will ask the Commission to remove their property at
the hearing prior to a vote.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on Consent Agenda for approval.By
unanimous vote (10-0,Nunnley absent)the item was approved.
3
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:292
ANNEXATION ANALYSIS Pfeifer —East Annexation
Due to scheduling conflicts the staff is requesting this
item be deferred to the March 18,1999 Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the March 18,1999 meeting.The vote was
10 ayes,Onoes and 1 absent.
February 4,1999
ITEM NO.:8
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Interstate 630 East Extension
From I-30 Interchange to Bond street
REQUEST:Amend from principal arterial to
Collector street
SOURCE:Public Works Staff
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to change I-630 East Extension from I-30
Interchange to Bond Street from a principal arterial to a collector street.
In a recent Classification Study,Public Works Staff have recommended to downgrade I-630
extension from principal arterial to Collector Street due to traffic demands less than earlier
projected needs.The existing buildings along East 15'"Street,Fletcher,and East 17'"have limited
right-of-way and existing traffic volumes do not support a major reconstruction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Public Works Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the Master Street Plan for I-630
East Extension from the 1-30/I-630 Interchange to Bond Street from principal arterial to collector
street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues associated with this item.
There were no objectors present.
The Chairman placed the item on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.The
item was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,and 0 noes,and 1 absent.
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
't
C~
S
S
V
T
~
gp
+
u
m
a
'.
4
l
f
h
M
E
I
E
R
!
'
,
'-
:
,
"
-
:
:
;
,
'
:
:
,
:
:
:
:
-
'A
5,
7'
;
1
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
~
~
&,
v
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
o
e
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
0
~
v
y'
y
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
~
~
sl
8
v
f'A
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
4
~
y
p
)f
y
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
/
0
4
f'
v
H
/
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
~
~
y'
'
e
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
~
~
A
f
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
A
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
A
~
v
Y
v'A
W
N
,
HE
R
B
~
~
V'
lA
v
Y
Yo
R
N
H
".
.
T
I
N
l
E
'
,
,
'
P
l
!
'
A
N
9
;
;
:
:
F
I
I
N
E
OU
T
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
4
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
0
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
0
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
e
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
0
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
A
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
0
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
9
fS
P.
M
.
Y
AY
E
~
NA
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
~A
AB
S
T
A
I
N
February 4,1999
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
nate
e ret ry Chai n