HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 18 1999LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 18,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11)in number.
II.Members Present:Craig Berry
Herb HawnBillPutnam
Judith Faust
Rohn Muse
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
MARCH 18,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEM:
A.Pfeifer —East Annexation
B.Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road Corridor
C.Crestwood Corporate Center Long-Form POD (Z-4403-E)
D .Alexander LLC Mobile Home Park —Subdivision Site Plan(S-1243)
E.Z-6628 —Rezone from R-2 to R-7;located north of
MoPac Railroad,east of Alexander city limits
II.REZONING ITEMS:
1.Z-6619 8424 Distribution Drive R-2 to I-2
2.Z-6630 2916 Welch Street I-2 to R-3
III.PLAN ISSUES:
3.LU99-01-01 A Land Use Plan in the River Mountain
Planning District for the northeast cornerofBlackRoadandCantrellRoadandpartsoftheNW4andtheSE4oftheSW4of
Section 17,Township 2 North,Range 13
West from Single Family and Low Density
Residential to Commercial,Office,
MultiFamily and Park/Open Space.
4.LU99-02-01 A Land Use Plan in the Rodney Parham
Planning District in the 300 and 400 blockofNorthShacklefordRoadfromSingle
Family to Commercial.
Agenda,Page Two
III.PLAN ISSUES:(Cont.)
5.LU99-07-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-30
Planning District in the 28 and 2900 BlockofWelchStreet,Barber Street and
Confederate Boulevard,and along both
sides of Roosevelt Road from I-30 to
Confederate with various changes from
Industrial and Mixed Commercial IndustrialtoMixedUse,Public Institutional and
Commercial.
6.LU99-08-06 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central
City Planning District for a portion of
the block bounded by Roosevelt Road,
Battery,24 and Wolfe from Single FamilytoMixedUse.
7.LU99-11-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-430
Planning District at 1001 Embassy Drive
from Office to Commercial.
8.LU99-19-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal
Planning District on Chenal Parkway eastofKirkRoadfromOfficetoCommercial.
9A.LU99-09-01-A A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630
Planning District located on the southsideof12Streetandthenorthside of11StreetbetweenElmStreetandLewisStreet,northwest and southwest corners of
Pine and 18 Streets as well as Cedar and
23 Streets,and the intersection of Pine
and 20 Streets from Single FamilyresidentialtoMixedUse.
9B.LU99-09-01-B A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630
Planning District located on the north and
south side of 12 Street from WoodrowStreettoOakStreetandthenorthwest
corner of Woodrow and 13 Streets from
Single Family residential to Mixed Use.
10.LU99-09-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630
Planning District located on the east sideofPineStreetbetween17Streetand18StreetfromSingleFamilyResidentialtoPublicInstitutional.
2
Agenda,Page Three
III.PLAN ISSUES:(Cont.)
11.LU99-09-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630
Planning District located on the south
side of 26 Street between Oak Street and
Cedar Street from Single Family
Residential to Mixed Commercial and
Industrial.
IV.OTHER MATTER:
12 .1998 Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Public Review
3
I
PU
B
L
I
C
HE
A
R
I
N
G
IT
E
M
S
ep
~
~a
s
O
ZL
Cq
~
Rl
v
E
LE
E
VE
R
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
e&
MA
R
K
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
1%
3
KA
N
I
KA
H
I
S
12
T
5T
H
ee
MB
S
G
H
I
O+
DA
M
6+
SE
V
E
L
T
CO
L
O
30
RO
O
S
E
V
E
RO
Cy
OO
O
36
T
H
14
4
0
4v
e
1-
4
4
0
LA
W
S
O
N
O
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
W
S
O
N
Z 0
ZE
U
B
E
R
I-
DA
V
I
I-
n
O'
D
O
65
T
H
65
T
H
RA
I
N
E
S
VA
L
L
E
Y
14
3
0
O0
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
6
1
44
65
uI
P
16
7
Z
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
O~
M
Q
DI
X
O
N
36
5
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
CU
T
O
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
VI
N
S
O
N
DR
E
H
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
SE
V
E
R
SP
S.
CU
T
O
F
F
GX
CU
T
O
F
F
~O
EL
65
36
5
AS
H
E
R
CI
T
Y
UM
I
T
gv
g
16
7
PR
A
T
T
14
5
T
H
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Ma
r
c
h
ta
,
19
9
9
March 18,1999
ITEM NO.:A 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 g 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.
ANNEXATION UPDATE Pfeifer —East Annexation
Due to unresolved issues,the applicant is requesting this
item be deferred to the April 29,1999 Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral,as requested by the applicant.The vote was
11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
Mar~.i 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
NAME:Kanis Road Design Overlay District
LOCATION:Kanis Road from the intersection of Shackleford Road
and the intersection of Chenal Parkway
REQUEST:Establishment of a Design Overlay District
SOURCE:Kanis Road Task Force
STAFF REPORT:
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed s taf f to
undertake a study of the Kanis Road Corridor.A nine membercitizencommitteewasappointedtoserveastheKanisRoad
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,buildingsetbacks,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 wasnotamajorityvotebythePlanningCommissiononone
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 forinclusioninaDesignOverlayDistrict.In May 1998 the Board ofDirectorsreferredtheKanisRoadCorridorstudybacktothe
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;andtheconceptofaDesignOverlayDistrictfortheKanisRoad
Corridor .
Mar~.i 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Since the February 4,1999 public hearing staff has met with
persons who raised concerns at the public hearing.Some of theissueshavebeenaddressedandcorrectedothersareattachedfor
review by the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Design Overlay District for theKanisRoadCorridor.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
This item was deferred by the Planning Commission until
March 18,1999 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Mr.Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director introduced theitemindicatingtheKanisRoadDesignOverlayDistrictwasnota
new concept to the Commission.He stated the Commission andstaffhadbeenworkingonaproposalforquitesometime.HeaskedtheCommissionastotheapproachfordiscussionthe
Commission wished to pursue.
Chairman Earnest indicated the Commission received a copy of theproposedDesignOverlay,which included the current proposal,aswellasthecontentsoftheall-previous.The bold italicizedaremodificationsanddeletionshavebeenstricken.ChairmanEarnestalsosuggestednotgoingthroughtheproposallinebylinebuttoaddressspecificquestionsoftheCommission.Healsoindicatedthestaffmemberwhomhadworkedmostcloselywiththemodificationsrespondtothespecificquestions.
Ms.Donna James of the office of Planning and Developmentaddressedtheseconcerns.
Chairman Earnest questioned concerning cutting,filling andgradingoftheentiresite.
Ms.James stated the intent of the original language was not tocontrolgrading,cutting and filling of the entire site but the30footbufferarea.The changes were made for clarification.
4
Mare;n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Hawn questioned the section of protection and
replacement of trees.His concern was there were not any
guidelines for the tree density requirement.He also indicateditwasnotclearwhichareaofthesitewascoveredbythe
minimal tree removal provision.He questioned if this was the
entire site or the 30 foot natural buffer.
Ms.James indicated this requirement was for the 30 foot natural
buffer area along with the side and rear yard setbacks.A
section to clarify the replacement requirements would be added to
the proposal.
Commissioner Putnam requested the Commission hear the citizen
comments before discussion of individual items.With citizen
input,the Commission could also address the concerns of the
property owners.
Commissioner Rahman asked if land alteration of the remainder of
the site was addressed in the proposal.
Ms.James indicated it was not but could be added.
Commissioner Downing stated that the proposal be morespecificallyidentifiedforthosewhowouldbeviewingathome.
Chairman Earnest indicated the proposal before the Commission was
a proposal of a Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road
Corridor.He also stated the Commission,Property Owners andstaffhadbeenworkingonaproposalforseveralmonthsandasaresulttherewereitems,which had been stricken as well as
items,which had been added.Chairman Earnest also indicated the
Commission would hear citizen input on the proposal.
Dotty Funk,City Beautiful Commission stated she was working with
a committee established by the Mayor to examine the current
landscaping and land alteration ordinances.She indicated the
Task Force has established a listing of trees,which were nativetotheareaandatmaturitywouldproducemoredesirabletrees.
She requested the complete listing of trees be added to the
proposal.She stated when the citizens of Little Rock sayreplanttreestheyaresayingreplanttreeswhichwillgrowupto
be big trees.She also indicated the need to address excavation
as a part of the Design Overlay.
Mr.Elmer Tucker,Jr.did not address the Commission.
5
Mar~a.18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Ms.Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated two concerns.It is
understandable that some properties would require an exception to
allow for development.The topographical situations along Kanis
Road would require site reviews.The lack of written guidelinesforstaffandfutureCommissionstodeterminewhatconstitutesan
exception is a concern.Also the League would prefer allutilitiesbelocatedunderground.The League understands this is
very costly but the future benefits,less power outages,would beofgreaterbenefit.
Ms.Gladys Post,White Road resident,stated she and others were
trying to protect the residential nature of the White Road area.
She indicated in the proposal access was to be taken from
secondary roads when such properties were located on corner lots.
Ms.Post indicated White Road was a 16 foot wide residentialstreetwithdeepditchesoneachside.Currently two cars cannotpassandwiththeadditionoftrafficfromcornerlot
development this would only exerzerbate the situation.
Currently a development along the southwest corner of Kanis Road
and White Road does not have access to White Road due to a
Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors.The residents'equest the Commission notallowaccesstoWhiteRoadfromthesoutheastcornerofKanis
Road and White Road as well.
Mr.Bob Wilson,property owner along Kanis Road,stated hisconcernwastherealeffectoftheDesignOverlayonsuchalargearea.This is not a neighborhood plan he stated.The
implementation of a Design Overlay District along the Kanis Roadcorridorwouldbeatremendousexpensetopropertyowners.HealsosuggesteditwasearlytobediscussingaDesignOverlay,
when the City Board of Directors had just approved what type of
roadway design.The proposed alignment is not an engineered
alignment for the roadway.He stated the importance of locationofthecenterlinebeforepropertyownerscouldexaminetherealeffectsoftheproposalwithregardtotheirproperties.
Mr.Wilson also stated his concern with the city wanting property
owners to pay for the development of an area that would benefitthecityasawhole.The city should be willing to pay for
lands for the placement of bicycle paths and sidewalks.Inadditionthecityshouldbewillingtomaintainthe30footnaturalbufferareaandnotleavecleaninguptothepropertyowners.
6
Marcn 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Mr.Ray Robbins,property owner along Kanis Road,questioned why
the Design Overlay stopped at the Rock Creek Bridge rather than
the proceed to the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway.
He stated a four lane roadway dumping into a two lane roadway
would be a traffic nightmare.
Mr.Lawson stated the item being discussed was not the roadway
design.Mr.Lawson suggested Mr.Bob Turner,Assistant DirectorofPublicWorks,address the question.
Mr.Turner stated the roadway proposed was a four lane divided
roadway from Bowman Road to the intersection of the Rock Creek
Bridge.He stated the bridge would be widened and the roadway
then becomes a five lane roadway.The roadway design from the
Rock Creek Bridge to the intersection with Chenal Parkway would
be similar to the roadway from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.
Mr.Robbins questioned if the City would purchase the property inthe30footbufferarea.If the owner was unable to develop the
property,and the City would not purchase the property in the 30footarea,in his opinion this was a taking.
Mr.Sid Brain,property owner along Kanis Road,stated for yearstheCitywasnotinterestedinKanisRoad.Now with developmenttothewest,the City was suddenly concerned with the Kanis RoadCorridor.In his opinion the City now was interested in a
parkway for people to travel.He commented on the two persons
speaking prior to him and the listing of trees presented by the
Land Alteration Task Force were both City bodies indicating what
was good for the City.He stated the setback area resulted in atakingoflands.
Mr.Brain stated his basic objection was to set backs.In his
opinion the set backs were excessive.He questioned the setback
requirements of the two sections of roadway and suggested they betreatedthesame.He commented on only allowing two storybuildings.This results in a reduction of the value ofpropertiestoownersalongthecorridor.Bike paths and theplacementinthe30footnaturalbufferareaisatakingofproperty.
Mr.James Brain,property owner along Kanis Road,stated theresultoftheproposalwasatakingoflands.He stated the city
was taking something with the required setbacks and the tree setbacks.His property was located along Kanis Road in the Autumn
Road and Bowman Road areas.The proposal for the Kanis Road
7
Mar .i 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Corridor indicates a maximum building height of two story
buildings.In close proximity to his property there is a five
story office building and mini warehouses.One street north,
Chenal Parkway has intense uses such as large office and
commercial facilities between Shackleford Road and Bowman Road.It is anticipated the more intense development along Kanis Road
will also occur from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.The
proposed setbacks are outrageous stated Mr.Brain.If the City
wishes to build a park,then the City needs to purchase lands and
build a park.
Mr.Tim Dennis,of Precision Builders,agreed with Mr.Wilson's
comments that the Overlay was premature.Property owners can not
determine if and how the proposal will affect their propertyuntilthecenterlineoftheroadwayisdetermined.
Mr.Greg Slocum,property owner along Kanis Road,cpxestioned how
the project was to be funded.
Chairman Earnest stated the project was in the Mayor's tax
package.
Mr.Lawson explained that the project was a part of the tax
package.However,the Board of Directors did not say if the tax
package does not pass the road would not be built.The Board hassaidbringusbackaDesignOverlayDistrictfortheKanisRoad
Corridor,which will protect the scenic beauty of the area.
Commissioner Hawn cpxestioned the passage of a four lane roadway
by the Board of Directors for the Kanis Road Corridor.He
commented the Commission had approved an enhanced two lane
roadway,which would protect the scenic corridor.With the
development of a four lane roadway the uses expected would be
more intense developments.
Commissioner Berry suggested the Commission approved an enhanced
two lane if developers were to pay for the roadway or a four lane
roadway if the City would pay for the difference in a two lane
and a four lane roadway.If developers were to pay for theentirefourlaneroadwaymoreintensedevelopmentswouldbe
recpxired to recoup the cost.
Commissioner Putnam suggested the Commission was not ready to act
on a Design Overlay for the Corridor.He suggested the
Commission should wait on the vote for the tax package and also
wait on the engineering study for road placement.
8
Mare;n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Chairman Earnest reminded the Commission there was a moratorium
on building along Kanis Road.The Design Overlay is to protect
the area and at some point the moratorium will end.
Commissioner Adcock questioned how the Commission was to address
the roadway concerns when the layout was not determined.It was
impossible to visualize a roadway without knowing the exactlocationandtheaffectonproperties.
Mr.Lawson stated the roadway was determined as set by the MasterStreetPlan.It was a four lane median roadway.All that isleftisanengineeringstudyfortheplacementoftheroad.
Mr.Bob Turner stated the proposed roadway would attempt tofollowthecurrentcenterline.In some areas there will beverticalchangesandgradechangesaswellasalignmentchanges.
The design of the road may change but not the 90 foot right-of-
way.
Mr.Lawson explained some buildings are in the current right-of-
way.Any road,which is 50 to 60 years old with structures builtclosetotheroad,will have this problem.
Commissioner Rahman stated the document before the Commission wasnotacompletedocument.In his opinion the role of the
Commission was to determine the next step.
Commissioner Downing stated staff had done a good job of placing
words staff understands but not everyone understands what wasbeingpresented.He questioned if staff could show visually theproposalversesthecurrentstandards.
Mr.Lawson stated staff had previously presented drawings to the
Commission and those drawings were available for review.Healsocommentedthereweretwoproposedareas.Area one was a
more Chenal like design and area two was a more Heights/Hillcrest
design.Area one setbacks would allow for two rows of parking infrontofthebuildingandareatwowouldallowfornoparkinginthefront.
Mr.Lawson also stated the Board of Directors had given adeadlineofApril20forreceivingtheproposedDesignOverlayDistrict.
9
Mar~.i 18,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Faust stated there were two to three things that
needed to be added to the proposed Design Overlay District.She
wished to support the City Board and to move on the proposal as
soon as possible.The addition of information requested by the
Commission,land alteration and tree density and the addition of
visual representations should allow the Commission to continue
the discussion.
Commissioner Rahman commented land alteration should be a major
component of the Design Overlay.As development occurs lands
will be altered.Also it is important to coordinate with the
Land Alteration Task Force to ensure the Design Overlay District
and the Task Force proposals are complimentary.
Commissioner Putnam made the motion to delay discussions for
future thinking.
Commissioner Adcock requested a special meeting to hear
suggestions for additions to the Design Overlay from allinterestedparties.Comments should be solicited from the Land
Alteration Task Force.
Commissioner Berry suggested the Commission not act on the item
but to establish a time certain for forwarding a proposal to the
Board of Directors.He suggested the Commission make every
attempt to meet the Board deadline of April 20
Commissioner Nunnley suggested the discussion be heard at the
April 1'nformal meeting of the Commission.He also stated the
item should be placed first on the agenda.
Chairman Earnest called the question.The motion passed 7-4-0.
Commissioner Faust made a motion to complete the work on the
Design Overlay District and to make diligent efforts to meet the
Board of Directors April 20 deadline.
Commissioner Downing seconded the motion.
Chairman Earnest called the question.The motion passed 10-1-0.
10
DRAFT
Design Overlay District —Kanis Road Office/Commercial
(From the intersection of Shackleford Road to the intersection of Bowman Road)
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 or a de th o 300 eet as measured rom the ront ro er
line in accordance with the re uirements o the Master Street Plan 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.
B.Chain link ences are rohibited in t'e ront ard setback or side ard
setback when the side o the buildin is acin Kanis Road.
DRAFT
DRAFT
C.Ra or or barbed wire ences are rohibited.
D.Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate when compatible with the
style of the development.
E.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.
pRP,FT
gRAF~
gRAF&
DRAFT
Cree-.
l
o
o
7.Front ardbu er.
A.All ro erties rontin Kanis Road shall have a thir 30 oot natural or
lanted bu er one ad'acent to the ublic ri ht-o -wa line.The ublic ri ht-
o -wa and areas reserved 'r uture ri hts-o -wa in com liance with the
ado ted Master Street Plan shall not be used to satis the re uirements o this
section.
B.Within the natural bu er and landsca ed area trees shall be lanted or be
existin at least ever twen eet in a sta ered rid attern and i lanted have
a minimum o a three 3 inch diameter measured 12 inches above rade.
C.The 30 oot natural bu er area shall attem t to incor orate existin on site
trees and shrubbe into the landsca in scheme.No radin cuttin o trees
or brush exceedin three 3 inch DBH diameter at breast hei ht or
disturbance o rominent natural eatures shall be er ormed exce t or
minimal disturbance necessar to ermit streets drivewa s or utili corridors.
Planted trees shall be laced at least two 2 eet rom existin ri ht-o -wa as
dictated b the Master Street Plan or roadwa desi n.Landsca in shall be
used to establish a visual and h sical boundar between arkin lots and
~roadwa s
8.Side andrear ardbu er.
A.Rear ards shall have a natural or lanted bu er avera in a minimum o or
40 eet and side ards shall have a natural or lanted landsca ed bu er
avera in a minimum de th o thir 30 eet rom the ro er line.Where
ards abut a street ri ht-o -wa other than Kanis Road a s teen oot
n ural or lanted landsca ed stri shall be re uired.Alon Kanis Road a
thir 30 oot natural or lanted bu er will be re uired.
DRAFT
B.When nonresidential develo ment abuts residential develo ment the use o a
natural bu er and theincor oration o existin trees and shrubbe or hed es
is encoura ed and shall be a minimum o or 40 eet rom the ro er line.
C.In a develo ment which allows or a shared arkin lot the develo ment does
not need to com l with Section 8 a o this ordinance side ard natural or
lanted bu er in the area the arkin lots ad'oin which ever is a licable or
ad'acent ro erties.
9.Landsca in .
A.All landsca in shall be installed in an a ro riate manner in order to
maintain the health and uali o lanted material.Final certi Icate o use or
occu anc shall not be authori ed unless all landsca in re uirements are met
or ostin o a ro riate bonds.
B.Trash rece tacles and dum ster areas shall not be located on the same side o
the develo ment site as residential develo ment nor shall the be located
ad'acent to Kanis Road.
C.Trash rece tacles and dum ster area must be screened b a ence with a
minimum hei ht to conceal the trash rece tacles and dum ster area and consist
o wood brick or mason material.This ence is in addition to erimeter
landsca ere uirements.
10.Protection and re lacement o trees.
A.Itis theintent o this section to minimi e the removal o trees and to ensure that
develo ers take reasonable measures to desi n and locate the ro osed
im rovements so that the number o existin trees to be removed is minimi ed.
In articular the desi n shall attem t to reserve s ecimen and historic trees.
B.No tree ma be removed in excess o six 6 inch DBH diameter at breast
hei ht without rior a royal o the desi nee o the 0 sce o the Ci
M~ana ee
C.Existin trees ma be counted or ull credit o the re uired tree densi
re uiremeriti in theo inion o the desi neeo theO &ceo the Ci Mana er
the are health existin trees.Sin le-trunk re lacement trees shall be a
minimum o three-3 inch DBH diameter at breast hei ht.A tree move rom
one location to another on the site will be iven credit as a rotected tree and
not as a re lacement tree.
D.Develo ments shall be exem t rom the tree re lacement rovisions durin
construction o the streets utilities and draina e structures re uired to be
installed or bonded rior to recordin o a Inal lat so ion as I the area to
be disturbed b the construction is or develo ment o streets utilities and
re uired draina e acilities.
E.Existing development not otherwise exempted shall comply with the tree
replacement provisions when undergoing expansions as follows:(1)No additional
ompliance 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.
F.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.
G.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.
H.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.
I.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.
J.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
DRAF~
Fraxinus americana Ash
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar
Betula nigra River Birch
Gleditsia tricanthos Honey Locust
Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova (similar to elms)
K.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 overhead utilities shall be located on the back property line or shall be located
underground.
B.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.The bikelwalkin ath shall be constructed in accordance with the Master
Street Plan construction standards.
DR@,F1'
l3RAFT
C.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 maximuin 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 by minimum tract size: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 structiu.es 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.
MAFT
DRAFT
Design Overlay District —Kanis Road Suburban Office/Residential Parkway
(From the intersection of Bowman Road to the intersection of theRock Creek Bridge)
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
d&
in accordance with the re uirements 0 the Master Street Plan from the west
d d d(b d )dk
boundaru)
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.
DRAFY
DRAFT
B.Chain link ences are rohibited in the ront ard setback or side ard
setback when the side o the buildin is acin Kanis Road.
C.Ra or or barbed wire ences are rohibited.
D.Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate when compatible with the
style of the development.
E.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.There shall be one sin le round mounted si n or each tract o land rontin
Kanis Road as recorded on Januar 1 1999.
B.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.
C.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.
D.All wall-mounted signs shall cover no more than four (4)percent of the building
facade.
E.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.
F.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.All internal circulation shall be constructed behind the 30 oot natural
suer
D.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.
E.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
DRAFT
DRAFT
F.The maximum number o o -street arkin s aces are to be no more
than 125 ercent o the minimum as set orth in Section 36-502 b o
Cha ter 36 o the Zonin Ordinance o the Ci o Little Rock.An
develo ment re uirin arkin in excess o the a orestated re uirement
will be reviewed b the Plannin Commission or a variance o arkin
G.Parking lots shall have a minimum of 60 feet set back line from Kanis
Road when located in a side yard relationship.
H.Handicapped access parking shall be provided pursuant to ADAAG
4.1.2(5)(a)and 4.6.3.
I.Passenger loading zones shall be provided pursuant to ADAAG 4.6.6.
DRAFT
DRAFT
7.Front ardbu er.
A.All ro erties rontin Kanis Road shall have a thir 30 oot natural or
lanted bu er one ad acent to the ublic ri ht-o -wa line.The ublic ri ht-
o -wa and areas reserved or uture ri hts-o -wa in com liance with the
ado ted Master Street Plan shall not be used to satis the re uirements o this
section.
B.8'ithin the natural bu er and landsca ed area trees shall be lanted or be
existin at least ever twen eetin a sta ered rid attern andi lanted have
a minimum o a three 3 inch diameter measured 12 inches above rade.
C.The 30 oot natural bu er area shall attem t to incor orate existin on site
trees and shrubber into the landsca in scheme.No radin cuttin o trees
or brush exceedin three 3 inch DBH diameter at breast hei ht or
disturbance o rominent natural eatures shall be er ormed exce t or
minimal disturbance necessar to ermit streets drivewa s or utili corridors.
Planted trees shall be laced at least two 2 eet rom existin ri ht-o -wa as
dictated b the Master Street Plan or roadwa desi n.Landsca in shall be
used to establish a visual and h sical bounda between arkin lots and
r~oadwa s.
8.Sideandrear ardbu er.
A.Rear and side ards shall have a natural or lanted landsca ed bu er
avera in a minimum de th o ten 10 eet romthe ro er line.8'heresuch
ards abut a street ri ht-o -wa other than Kanis Road a s teen oot natural
or lanted landsca ed stri shall be re uired.Alon Kanis Road a thir 30
oot natural or lanted bu er will be re uired.
B.8'hen nonresidential develo ment abuts residential develo ment the use o a
natural bu er and the incor oration o existin trees and shrubbe or hed es
is encoura ed and shall be a minimum o ten 10 eet rom the ro er line.
C.In a develo ment which allows or a shared arkin lot the develo ment does
not need to com l with Section 8 a o this ordinance side ard natural or
lanted bu er in the area the arkin lots ad'oin which ever is a licable or
ad'acent ro erties.
9.Landsca in .
A.All landsca in shall be installed in an a ro riate manner in order to
maintain the health and uali o lanted material.Final certi Icate o use or
PRAFT
DRAFT
occu anc shall not be authori ed unless all landsca in re uirements are met
or ostin o a ro riate bonds.
B.Trash rece tacles and dum ster areas shall not be located on the same side o
the develo ment site as residential develo ment nor shall the be located
ad'acent to Eanis Road.
C.Trash rece tacles and dum ster area must be screened b a ence with a
minimum hei ht to conceal the trash rece tacles and dum ster area and consist
o wood brick or mason material.This ence is in addition to erimeter
landsca e re uirements.
10.Protection and re lacement o trees.
A.Itis theintent o this section to minimi e the removal o trees and to ensure that
develo ers take reasonable measures to desi n and locate the ro osed
DRAFT
DRAFT
im rovements so that the number o existin trees to be removed is minimi ed.
In articular the desi n shall attem t to reserve s ecimen and historic trees.
B.No tree ma be removed in excess o six 6 inch DBH diameter at breast
hei ht without rior a royal o the desi nee o the 0 tce o the Ci
M~ana er
C.Existin trees ma be counted or ull credit o the re uired tree densi
re uirementi in theo inion o thedesi neeo theO Ice o the Ci Mana er
the are health existin trees.Sin le-trunk re lacement trees shall be a
minimum o three-3 inch DBH diameter at breast hei ht.A tree move rom
one location to another on the site will be iven credit as a rotected tree and
not as a re lacement tree.
D.Develo ments shall be exem t rom the tree re lacement rovisions durin
construction o the streets utilities and draina e structures re uired to be
installed or bonded rior to recordin o a anal lat so ion as I the area to
be disturbed b the construction is or develo ment o streets utilities and
re uireddraina e acilities.
E.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.
F.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.
G.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.
H.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
DRAFT
DRAFT
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.
I.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.
J.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)
K.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 overhead utilities shall be located on the back ro er line or shall be
located under rouri d.
B.All grates located in walking surfaces shall meet ADAAG 4.5.4 standards.
DRAFT
DRAFT10.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.
C.
B.The bikelwalkin ath shall be constructed in accordance with the Master
Street Plan construction standards.
C.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 by minimum tract size: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.
DRAFT
DRAET
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.
RAFT
Mar~ii 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
NAME:Crestwood Corporate Center —Long-Form POD
LOCATION:West side of Aldersgate Road,approximately
1,300 feet south of Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
The Wilson Co.,Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick
1501 S.Main Street 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:12.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-24 ALLOWED USES:Multifamily —24 units
per gross acre
PROPOSED USE:General Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 12.10 acre site on thewestsideofAldersgateRoadfromMF-24 to POD to allow fortheconstructionoffive(5)office buildings and associatedparkingareas.The construction is proposed in two (2)phases as follows:
Phase I —Building A —Two-story
18,000 square feet
Building B —Two-story
44,800 square feet
176 parking spaces
Marin 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
Phase II-Building C —Two-story
56,800 square feet
Building D —One-story
14,400 square feet
Building E —One-story
6,000 square feet
246 parking spaces
The property will be accessed by utilizing a single drive
from Aldersgate Road for Phase I,with two additional drives
being constructed with Phase II.
A total of 422 parking spaces is proposed for the entireproject.The ordinance would typically require 314 spaces.
The applicant has stated that a tree study will be performed
on the site in order to maintain as many existing trees aspossible.Existing trees,6 inches to 8 inches in caliper,will be relocated to landscape areas around the buildings
and parking areas.
The applicant has also noted that the typical hours ofoperationwillbefrom8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday.The applicant is also proposing three (3)ground-mounted signs (monument style)along Aldersgate Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and mostly wooded.The propertyslopesfromAldersgateRoaddownwardtotheInterstate 430right-of-way.Camp Aldersgate is located immediately southofthissite,with several single-family residences to theeastacrossAldersgateRoad.There are four single-familyresidencestothenorthalongthewestsideofAldersgateRoad,with 0-3 zoned property further north and to thenortheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received a phone call from Camp Aldersgaterequestinginformationonthisapplication.Otherwise,staff has received no comments from the neighborhood.TheJohnBarrowandSewerDistrict5147NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
2
Max.~h 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Aldersgate Road is listed on the Master Road Plan as acollectorstreet;dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline is required.(No traffic counts for
Aldersgate Road are available.)2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance16,577.
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets,including 5-foot sidewalks,with planned
development.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Revise driveway location for acceptable sight distance,or improve sight distance with street reconstruction tofacilitatesightdistanceforproposeddriveways.7.Submit preliminary plans for stormwater management,
including drainage easements and on-site detention.8.With Phase I,include construction of Aldersgate Road
improvements to a point north of its intersection with
West 18 Street.
9.Move 24'riveway slightly north to align with West 18Street.
10.AHTD permit will be required for any drainage impact onI-430 right-of-way.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main relocation required prior to startofconstruction.
APEL:No comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:A 10 foot utility easement is requested
along the south property line.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal fees.On site fire protection will berequired.Any needed relocation of existing facilitieswillbeattheexpenseofthedeveloper.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
3
Marish 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:
Central Arkansas Transit Authority requests a bus pull-out
be constructed on Aldersgate Road due to the anticipatedtrafficdemand.A pull-out or "turn-out"will allow the
buses to pull out of the traffic stream so as not to disrupttheflow.Pull-out configurations will be provided by CATA.
Route ¹3 Baptist Medical Center serves this area.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN
Plannin Division:
This property is currently shown as Single Family on the
Land Use Plan and is in the I-430 Planning District.ThisitemisthesubjectofaLandUsePlanAmendmenttobeheard
on this agenda.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceedordinancerequirements.
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with itsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantings,will be required along the southern perimeter of the site.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manyexistingtreesasfeasible.Extra credit can be given whenpreservingtreesof6inchcaliperorlargertoward
compliance with the Landscape Ordinance.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff onFebruary17,1999.The revised plan appears to address mostoftheissuesasdiscussedbytheSubdivisionCommittee.
4
Max -n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
A bus pull-out has been shown on the site plan as requested
by CATA,the middle drive from Aldersgate Road has been
moved to align with West 18 Street,and the total numberofparkingspaceshasbeenreducedfrom478to422spaces.
The applicant has not removed the parking along the southsideofthetwobuildingsinPhaseIasrequestedbythe
Subdivision Committee in order to provide an increasedbufferbetweenthispropertyandCampAldersgate.Stafffeelsthattheparkingonthesouthsidesofthesetwo
buildings should be removed.The drive along the south sideoftheeasternbuildingwillbeusedtoservealoadingdockatthebuildingssouthwestcorner.Due to the topography,this particular drive will not be seen from the property tothesouth.This issue needs to be resolved.
The applicant also submitted east/west sections through theproperty.Due to the topography of the site,the two-storybuildingswillappeartobeone-story from Aldersgate Road
and two-story from Interstate 430.The applicant has notedthatallretainingwallswillbeconstructedtoPublicWorks
and Building Code standards.The maximum retaining wallheightatanyonepointwillbeapproximatelyeight(8)feet.
Otherwise,staff can foresee no other outstanding issuesassociatedwiththesiteplan.This proposed development
should have no adverse effect on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphsD,E and F of this report.2.The proposed monument style ground-mounted signage mustconformtotheordinancestandardsforofficesignage
(maximum area —64 square feet,maximum height —6 feet).3.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.4.Staff feels that the parking south of the buildings inPhaseIshouldbeeliminatedinordertoprovideanincreasedbufferalongthesouthpropertyline.
5
Mai n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 11,1999)
Pat McGetrick and other representatives were present,
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of
the POD.Staff noted that the applicant needed to submit details
on the retaining walls and east-west sections through the
property.Mr.McGetrick noted that the typical hours of
operation would be from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through
Friday.
Mr.McGetrick noted that a tree survey was being done on the
property.He noted that as many trees as possible would be saved
or relocated throughout the property.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.
McGetrick stated that he would work with Public Works regarding
any sight-distance issues relating to the placement of the
proposed drives.
In response to a question from Commissioner Berry,Mr.McGetrickstatedthathewouldlookatreducingthenumberofparking
spaces along the south property line in order to increase the
south buffer area.
Mr.McGetrick also noted that a bus pull-out lane would be
constructed in Phase II at the north end of the property as
requested by CATA.
The landscape requirements were briefly discussed.Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,noted that the City Beautiful
Commission recommends preserving as many trees as possible on thesite.
Mr.McGetrick indicated that he would meet with the Camp
Aldersgate representation regarding this proposed development.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the POD to the full
Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant did not send
proper notification to property owners within 200 feet as
required.Staff noted that the application needed to be deferredinorderfornewnoticestobemailedout,and that the applicant
6
Max.n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403-E
had requested deferral to the March 18,1999 agenda.Staff
supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 18,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof9ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.There
were two objectors present.Staff gave a brief description oftheproposedPOD.Staff noted that the parking had been removed
between the southern buildings and the south property line.Staff also noted no problem with leaving the drives in this area.
Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.He briefly reviewed the proposed site plan.
Commissioner Adcock asked what type of material the retainingwallswouldbeconstructedof.
Mr.McGetrick said that they would be of a keystone blockconstruction.
Dennis Swan addressed the Commission in opposition to the POD.
He stated that he owned property at the corner of Aldersgate Road
and West 20 Street.He stated that he moved to the area
because of the low traffic and noise and opposed the project forthatreason(increased traffic and noise).
Carol Swan also addressed the Commission in opposition to theapplication.She stated that many elderly people from the Good
Shepherd Center drive in this area and this was a trafficconcern.She also stated that emergency vehicles often useAldersgateRoadandthattherewereblindspotsintheroad asadditionaltrafficconcerns.
Sarah Spencer,Executive Director of Camp Aldersgate,addressedtheCommissioninsupportofthePOD.She stated that the
developer met with Camp Aldersgate and addressed their concerns.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the land use for this property.
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,responded that the Land Use Plan
shows this property as Suburban Office.
7
Max .s 18,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4403"E
Commissioner Adcock asked when the notices were mailed.
Staff stated that the notices were mailed on March 4,the day
that the Commission deferred the item to the March 18 agenda.
There was a brief discussion regarding the required notice.
Mr.McGetrick briefly discussed the retaining walls which will be
constructed.He stated that highest point of any of the
retaining walls would be approximately 10-12 feet near the
southeast corner of the property.
He also discussed the phasing of the street improvements to
Aldersgate Road.He stated that the improvements for Phase I
would be adjacent to that phase and taper back for a short
distance adjacent to the Phase II area.
Chairman Earnest asked about improvements to Aldersgate Road fromthispropertytoKanisRoad.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,responded that there were no
immediate plans for this construction.
Commissioner Hawn commented on the fact that the present zoningofthepropertywouldallow288apartmentunits.
A motion was made to approve the application as recommended bystaff.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
8
Mar~A 18,1999
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:S-1243
NAME:Alexander LLC Mobile Home Park —Subdivision Site
Plan Review
LOCATION:Near the northeast corner of Alexander Road and the
MoPac railroad right-of-way
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Alexander LLC McGetrick and McGetrick
111 Center Street 319 E.Markham Street,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:41.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:122 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Mobile Home Park
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a site plan and a preliminaryplatforthepropertynearthenortheastcornerofAlexanderRoadandtheMoPacRailroadright-of-way,partially withintheCityofAlexander.The portion of the 41.08 acre tractthatiswithintheCityofLittleRockisproposedtoberezonedfromR-2 to R-7 (Item 14.1)to allow a mobile homepark.The applicant is proposing to develop the entire41.08 acre mobile home park complying with the City ofLittleRock'Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.
The mobile home park will consist of 121 mobile home sitesandwillbeaccessedfromAlexanderRoad.The applicantwillprovidetherecreationandstorageareasaccording toordinance.
The applicant will plat the property in conjunction with theproposedsiteplan.The proposed plat shows Tract A,mobile
home lots 1-121 and the proposed 50 foot access and utilityeasementfromAlexanderRoad.Tract A will be reserved forafutureequipmentbuildingforafiberopticscompany,
Marcn 18,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1243
which will be submitted as a conditional use permit at alaterdate.
The applicant has noted that it is the intent to develop theentiremobilehomeparkatonetime.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and primarily overgrown with
small trees and brush.There are a few single-familyresidences,a small office building and an auto repair shopacrossAlexanderRoadtothesouthwest.There is a railroad
along the southeastern property line with approximately two
dozen manufactured homes on the opposite side of therailroadright-of-way.
The Crooked Creek floodway is located along the northwestern
property line,with a concrete plant to the northwest on theoppositesideofthecreek.Undeveloped R-2 zoned propertyislocatedtothenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no public comment onthisitem.The Quail Run Neighborhood Association and Norm
Floyd were notified of the public hearing.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide design of all interior streets conforming with
residential street standards,Section 31-201,including4-foot sidewalks,with planned development.
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.3.Dedicate Floodway as a Drainage Easement to the City.4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property,
with planned development.
5.A sketch grading and drainage plan,a special flood
hazard permit,and a special grading permit for flood
hazard areas are required.Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE)and NPDES permits
are also required.
6.The Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown onplatandgradingplans,with planned development.7.Show right-of-way and location of Earl D.Miller Lane andStaffordRoad.
8.Provide public access to R-2 property adjacent to
northeast.
2
Mar 8 18,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1243
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoservealllots.
APSL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
February 17,1999.The revised plan appears to address theissuesasraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.
The applicant has provided the recreation space and pavedstoragespacesasrequiredbyordinance.The areas are
located near the northwest and southeast corners of the
property.
The following zoning and subdivision requirements apply to
the development of the mobile home park and the placement oftheindividualmobilehomes:
1.A 25 foot setback is required around the park boundary.A
50 foot setback is required for lots adjacent to railroad
right-of-way.
2.The mobile home park must be screened on all sides.3.The minimum setback from a service easement is 20 feet.4.The minimum separation between mobile homes is 20 feet.5.Two paved parking spaces (9 foot by 20 foot each)are
required on each mobile home lot.
The applicant needs to determine if the R-2 zoned propertytothenortheasthaslegalaccessfromanotherdirection.
3
Ma n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1243
If not,an access easement through this property will needtobeprovided.Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there arenootheroutstandingissuesassociatedwiththissiteplanandpreliminaryplat.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan/preliminary platsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphsD,E and G of this report.2.The property needs to be final platted prior todevelopment,to provide legal access to the property fromAlexanderRoad.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 11,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan.Staff reviewedseveralzoningandsubdivisionordinancerequirementsfor mobile
home parks.
In response to questions from staff,Mr.McGetrick noted that itistheintenttodeveloptheentiremobilehomeparkinonephase.Mr.McGetrick also stated that it would be determined
whether or not the R-2 zoned property to the northeast has legalaccess.If not,an access easement would be provided.
The Public Works Comments were briefly discussed.The discussionprimarilyfocusedonwhetherornottheCitycouldrequirestreetimprovementstoCountyLineRoad,given the fact that thissectionofthepropertyisintheCityofAlexander.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plantothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant did not sendpropernotificationtopropertyownerswithin200feetasrequired.Staff noted that the application needed to be deferredinorderfornewnoticestobemailedout,and that the applicanthadrequesteddeferraltotheMarch18,1999 agenda.Staffsupportedthedeferralrequest.
4
Marin 18,1999
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1243
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 18,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors present.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
rch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-6628
Owner:Alexander LLC
Applicant:McGetrick and McGetrick
Location:North of MoPac Railroad,eastofandadjacenttoAlexandercitylimits(part of Section 18,T-1-S,R-13-W)
Request:Rezone from R-2 to R-7
Purpose:Develop a new mobile home park(see S-1243,Alexander LLC
Mobile Home Park Site Plan
Review)
Size:23.8+acres
Existing Use:Vacant,undeveloped land
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped and floodway;zoned R-2
South —Railroad right-of-way and undeveloped;zoned R-7AEast—Undeveloped;zoned R-2
West —Alexander city limits
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Comments from S-1243,Alexander LLC Mobile Home Park SitePlanReview
1.Provide design of all interior streets conforming withresidentialstreetstandards,Section 31-201,including4-foot sidewalks,with planned development.2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.3.Dedicate Floodway as a Drainage Easement to the City.4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property,
with planned development.
5.A stretch grading and drainage plan,a special flood
hazard permit,and a special grading permit for flood
hazard areas are required.Arkansas Department ofPollutionControlandEcology(ADPCE)and NPDES permitsarealsorequired.
6.The Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown onplatandgradingplans,with planned development.
i;arch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6628
7.Show right-of-way and location of Earl D.Miller Lane andStaffordRoad.
8.Provide public access to R-2 property adjacent to
northeast.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NOTIFICATION
Norm Floyd and the Quail Run Neighborhood Association werenotifiedoftherezoningrecgxest.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The property is located in the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan recommends MH,Mobile Home forthesite.The Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action
Plan recommends mobile home for the property.The R-7
rezoning recgxest conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan andtheNeighborhoodActionPlan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The recgxest before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped 23.82 acre tract from R-2 Single Family to R-7
Mobile Home Park District.The property is part of alarger,41k acre total,site which is proposed for
development as a 125 lot mobile home park.The western 18+acres of the development are located in the City of
Alexander.A site plan review for development of the mobile
home park is item no.14 on this agenda,S-1243,Alexander
LLC Mobile Home Park Subdivision Site Plan Review.Access tothepropertyisthroughAlexander,off of County Line Road.
The property is located at the very southwest corner of theCityofLittleRock.The Alexander city limits abut thesitetothewest.The properties adjacent to the north andeastareundeveloped.An area of floodway is located alongthenorthernboundary.The main line of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad forms the southern boundary of the site.
An area of undeveloped R-7A zoned property is located beyond
2
.~rch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6628
the railroad to the south.The railroad and floodway
isolate this site from other properties in the City ofLittleRock.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan recommends Mobile
Home (MH)for the site.The R-7 rezoning request conforms
to the adopted Land Use Plan and the Chicot West/I-30 South
Neighborhood Action Plan.
That portion of the property which lies within the
regulatory floodway will be zoned OS,Open Space.Of the
23.8+acres proposed for rezoning,approximately 7+acreslieinthefloodway.
Staff believes the rezoning request to be appropriate.The
proposed R-7 zoning conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan
and Neighborhood Action Plan and is compatible with
surrounding uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-7 zoning with
that portion of the site which lies within the regulatory
floodway to be zoned OS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
The applicant was present.There no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had sent anincorrect"notice of public hearing"and the item needed to
be deferred for proper notification.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the March 18,1999 meeting.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
One letter of support from Norm Floyd,advocate for the
preservation of the Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood
Action Plan,was received and distributed to the Commission.Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that
there were no outstanding issues.
3
rch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6628
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approvedforR-7 and OS zoning.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
4
rch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6619
Owner:First Christian Church
Endowment Fund
Applicant:Dwight Goodwin,Trustee
Location:8424 Distribution Drive
Request:Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Purpose:Sell for potential development.
Size:2.7i acres
Existing Use:Vacant lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Auto repair and camper sales;zoned I-2
South —Vacant lot;zoned I-2
East —Hotel and Undeveloped;zoned R-2
West —Vacant lot;zoned I-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Distribution Drive is an industrial street.Dedicate
Right-of-Way 30'inimum from centerline.
2.If more than one acre is disturbed on this new
development,Grading Permit will be required.3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property,
with planned development.
4.Prepare a letter of pending development,addressingstreetlights,as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.Bus routes
extend down Baseline Road,one block to the south.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Norm Floyd,the West Baseline Neighborhood Association,all
owners of property within 200 feet and all residents within
300 feet were notified of the rezoning application.
~rch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6619
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrict.The adopted Land Use Plan recommends LI,LightIndustrialforthissiteandsurroundingproperties.LightIndustrialisalsorecommendedfortheareabytheChicotWest/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan which was adoptedonNovember4,1997.I-2,Light Industrial zoning conformstoboththeLandUseandNeighborhoodActionPlans.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,2.7+acre tract from R-2,Single Family to I-2 LightIndustrialDistrict.The lot is located in the heart of theTrianglePropertiesIndustrialDistrictandisoneofonly4lotsscatteredthroughoutthedistrictwhichhavenotbeenzonedeitherI-2 or C-3.No specific development isproposedforthesiteatthistime.The property is owned
by a church endowment fund.The church hopes to sell thesitetoapotentialdeveloperafteritisrezoned.
I-2 is the predominate zoning of properties in the TrianglePropertiesIndustrialDistrict.Uses in the area range fromwholesaling/warehousing to intensive manufacturingoperations.Commercial uses in the area include an autorepairfacilityandacampersalesbusiness.The I-2 zonedpropertiestothewestandsoutharecurrentlyundeveloped.The R-2 property to the east is occupied by a nonconforminghotelwhichwasinplaceatthetimethisareawasannexedintotheCity.The auto repair facility and camper salesbusinessaretothenorth.The proposed I-2 zoning iscompatiblewithusesandzoninginthearea.
The Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan and ChicotWest/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan both recommendLightIndustrialforthissiteandthesurroundingproperties.The I-2,Light Industrial,zoning requestconformstotheLandUsePlanandNeighborhoodAction Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 zoning.
2
~rch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6619
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
One letter of support from Norm Floyd,advocate for thepreservationoftheChicotWest/I-30 South Neighborhood
Action Plan,was received and distributed to the Commission.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved byavoteof11ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
hach 18,1999
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6630
Owner:Stephanie Tucker
Applicant:Stephanie Tucker
Location:2916 Welch Street
Request:Rezone from I-2 to R-3
Purpose:Build a single family
residence.
Size:.26 acres
Existing Use:Vacant lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family;zoned I-2
South —Single Family;zoned I-2
East —Vacant lot and restaurant;zoned I-2
West —Vacant building;zoned I-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
The minimum finished floor elevation of 258's required to
be shown on plat and grading plans.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.Bus routes
extend down Roosevelt Road,two blocks to the north,and
Confederate Blvd.,one block to the east.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The East End Civic League,Community Outreach NeighborhoodAssociation,all owners of property within 200 feet and allresidentswithin300feetwerenotifiedoftherezoningrequest.
~~ch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6630
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-30 Planning District.The
adopted Plan recommends I,Industrial for all of this areasouthofRooseveltRoad.The land use designation isreflectiveofthecurrentzoning,not the actual land use.
A proposed Land Use Plan Amendment,which includes this
predominantly residential area,is item no.5 on this agenda(LU99-07-01).The proposed change to Mixed Use would
accommodate the proposed residential rezoning.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,.26 acre lot from I-2 Light Industrial to R-3 Single FamilyResidential.The applicant proposes to build a new singlefamilyhomeonthepropertyonceitisrezoned.
The property is located in a small,predominately singlefamilyresidentialneighborhoodlocatedsouthofRoosevelt
Road and west of Confederate Blvd.The neighborhoodcontainsmanysmallresidentialstructuresandseveralnonresidentialuses.The properties adjacent to the northandsouthcontainsinglefamilyhomes.Additional singlefamilyhomesarelocatedtothenorth.A vacant lot and arestaurantinaconvertedresidentialstructurearelocatedacrossWelchStreettotheeast.A large,vacant
commercial/industrial building is located immediately west,fronting on Barber Street.Other uses in the area alongRooseveltRoadandConfederateBlvd.are primarilynonresidential.All properties in the immediate vicinityarezonedI-2.
The area was zoned industrial at the time of the adoption ofLittleRock'1937 Zoning Ordinance.Until 1980,under theCity's "inverted pyramid"of zoning,residential uses werepermittedintheindustrialdistrict.That is not the caseundertheCity's current ordinance.
The I-30 District Land Use Plan recommends Industrial forthisandthesurroundingproperties.Such a designation isnotconducivetomaintainingtheexistingresidentialortoencouragingnewresidentialinfilldevelopment.A proposedlanduseplanchangetoMixedUseisitemno.5 on this
agenda (LU99-07-01).The mixed use designation would allow
2
bi i'ch 18,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6630
for residential uses,such as that proposed by the
applicant.It would not affect the zoning of the other
properties in the area unless and until those properties are
proposed for rezoning.
Staff believes the R-3 zoning request to be appropriate.
The proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
Mar .i 18,1999
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:LU99-01-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —River Mountain PlanningDistrict
Location:NE Corner of Black Road and Cantrell
geest:Single Family and Low Density Residential to
Commercial,Office,Multi-Family and Park/Open Space
Source:Hathaway Group
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District
from Single Family and Low Density Residential to Commercial,Office,Multi-Family and Park/Open Space.The Commercial
category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales ofproducts,personal services,and general business activities.
Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on thetradearetheyserve.The Office category represents servicesprovideddirectlytotheconsumers(e.g.,legal,financial,medical)as well as general offices which support more basiceconomicactivities.The Multi-family category accommodatesresidentialdevelopmentoftentothirty-six dwelling units peracre.The Park/Open Space category includes all public parks,recreation facilities,green belts,floodplains,and otherdesignatedopenspaceandrecreationalland.It is permissibletohavesinglefamilyhousesinPark/Open Space.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staffexpandedtheareaofreviewtoincludetwoadditionalareas.ThefirstareaistotheeastalongCantrellRoad.Office and PublicInstitutionalwouldsurroundthissectionofLDR.It is thoughttheextensionoftheOfficetothesouthwouldbeatransition tothePIandthatasmallparcelofLDRsurroundedbyCommercial,Office and Public Institutional would not be desirable.ThesecondareathatwasexpandedwastothenorthofthesitefromSingleFamilytoPark/Open Space.This area is on the southslopeoftheWaltonHeightssubdivision.This additional area
would join the PK/OS areas in the application with other PK/OSareasthatcontinuetotheeasttoI-430.This area would becontiguoustotheRiverMountainPark.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The original application property is currently zoned R-2,MF-6
and OS and is approximately 41.3 acres in size.The expanded
Mar~.a 18,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-01-01
area is zoned R2 and is approximately 8 acres.To the north ofthesiteisWaltonHeightswhichliesalongtheridgelineandis
zoned R-2 and Single Family.Kroger's and Candlewood Station,acommercialshoppingarealiestothewest(C-3 and Commercial ontheLandUsePlan).Located south of Cantrell Road and west ofBlackRoadaremini-warehouses and a liquor store zoned C-3 andR-2 respectively.East of Black Road is a plant nursery building
and single family houses,all zoned R-2 and shown on the plan asSingleFamily.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
No land use plans have been made in the area in recent history.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and Black Road is
shown as a collector to connect with Old Oak on the Master StreetPlan.Cantrell has a five-lane roadway section in this area.
PARKS:
There is an existing park in Pankey located on both sides of RussStreetsouthofCantrell.Adjoining the property is the site oftheformerschoolwhichisunderownershipofthePankey
Community Development which is attempting to build a communitycenteronthesite.To the east is the River Mountain Park,also
undeveloped acreage of 489 acres.
BACKGROUND:
This section of Cantrell has seen major development in the lastseveralyears.Cantrell,west of I-430,is primarily Transition,with Multi-Family and some scattered Commercial.Of the existing
Commercial areas,there is an existing inventory of vacant
developable land in the area,namely next to this site at the
Candlewood Station.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
The River Mountain Neighborhood Plan was completed in March 1998.
The Land Use Plan was reviewed and no changes were made to it.Intheneighborhoodplan,one of the objectives listed in theSustainableNaturalEnvironmentsectionwasto"Preserve andmaintainexistinggreenwaysandopenspaceintheneighborhood"
2
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-01-01
and "Encourage and support the conservation of significant
landscapes,views and vistas".In the Parks and Recreation
section,one of the objectives was to "Provide passive parkfacilitiesinandneartheneighborhood".In the Residential
Development section,one objective was to 'Develop Neo-
Traditional Neighborhoods in the areas that have not jet been
developed.
The existing zoning and land use patterns would allow for the
development of the site in conformance with the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Walton Heights-Candlewood N.A.,Pleasant Valley Neighborhood
Association,Pankey Community Improvement,Pleasant Forest N.A.,
Westbury N.A.,Westchester -Heatherbrae N.A.,Secluded Hills
P.O.A.,and Piedmont Neighborhood Association.Staff has
received no comments from area residents or neighborhood
associations at the time of printing.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT IONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
STAFF UPDATE:
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting,there were discussions
between the applicant and Staff concerning the application.The
applicant modified his request for that portion that was
originally considered for Commercial to Mixed Office Commercial.Staff can support the modified application for a change to the
Land Use Plan.The modification was presented at the agenda
meeting to the Commissioners along with a letter stating such
from the applicant.It was at that time that it was placed on
the consent agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
This item as amended was placed on the consent agenda for
approval.The motion was made and passed with a vote of 11 ayes
and 0 nays.
3
Mart.-.i 18,1999
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:LU99-02-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Rodney Parham PlanningDistrict
Location:300 &400 block of North Shackleford
R~e est:Single Family to Commercial
Source:Brooks McRae,Real Estate Central
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has petitioned Staff to withdraw this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for withdraw.The
motion was made and passed with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
Mar~.s 18,1999
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:LU99-07-03.
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I-30 Planning District
Location:2900 Block of Welch Street
R~e est:Industrial tn Single Family
Source:Stephanie Tucker
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I-30 Planning District from
Industrial to Single Family.The Single Family Residential
category provides for dwellings at densities not to exceed six
dwelling units per acre.Such residential development is
typically characterized by conventional single family homes,but
may also include patio or garden homes and cluster homes,
provided that the density remain less than six units per acre.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff
expanded the area of review to include a greater area and to
modify the original amendment.The areas are listed below with
the reasoning to include it with this amendment.
~An area predominately comprised of single family homes withscatteredbusinessesfromindustrialtoMixed.The Mixed Use
category provides for a mixture of residential,office,and
commercial uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District is
required if the use is not residential.This category will
allow the building of single family homes,but also allow for
commercial and office uses to occur,if accommodated throughthePZDprocess.
~An area south of the Levee from Industrial to Park/Open Space.This land is located in the floodway of the Fourche Creek andisundevelopable.It is bounded on the south by PK/OS and
would be considered an extension of this category.The
Park/Open Space category includes all public parks,recreationfacilities,green belts,floodplains,and other designated
open space and recreational land.It is permissible to havesinglefamilyhousesinPark/Open Space.
~Areas along Roosevelt Road that are currently classified as
Mixed Commercial Industrial to Commercial.These areas are
purely commercial in nature and house shopping centers,banks,etc.The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail
Mar ..18,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-07"01
and wholesale sales of products,personal services,andgeneralbusinessactivities.Commercial activities vary in
type and scale,depending on the trade are they serve.Thischangewouldrecognizeexistingusesinthearea.
~An area in front of the Mann Magnet school from MCI to PublicInstitutional.Public Institutional includes public and quasi-public facilities which provide a variety of services to the
community such as schools,libraries,fire stations,churches,utility substations,and hospitals.This would recognizeexistingconditions.
~An area bounded by the levee,I-30,the commercial area ofRooseveltandwestofBarberstreetfromIndustrialtoLightIndustrial.Light Industrial category provides for lightwarehouse,distribution of storage uses,and/or otherindustrialusesthataredevelopedinawelldesigned "parklike"setting.This would lower the intensity in this area tobemorecompatiblewiththeMixedUse,Commercial and
Park/Open Space that adjoin it.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The original amendment is currently zoned I-2,shown on the LandUsePlanasIndustrial,and is approximately 1/4 acres in size.The expanded area is approximately 176 acres and is roughlyboundedbyI-30,Confederate Boulevard,Roosevelt Road and thelevee.South of Roosevelt,the majority of the land is zoned I-2andshownasIndustrialontheLandUsePlan.The streets ofBarber,Welch,and part of Confederate Boulevard has a largeamountofsinglefamilyhouses.To the north of Roosevelt are twocommercialareasdividedbyMannSchool.These areas are zonedC-3 and I-2 and shown as MCI on the plan.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 1,1998,A change was made from single Family toIndustrialwithaPZDrequiredinthe1500and1600block ofBoyceStreet.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Roosevelt and Confederate Boulevard (south of Roosevelt)are
shown as Minor Arterials and Confederate Boulevard North ofRooseveltisshownasacollector.Roosevelt is a four-lanestreetandConfederateiscurrentlyatwolaneroad.
2
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-07-01
PARKS:
There are not any existing parks in the area,although part of
the floodway along the Fourche Creek is designated for Proposed
Open Space.
BACKGROUND:
The original amendment presented to the city is a result of theapplicant's desire to build a single family house on property at2916WelchStreet.In the past,the neighborhood had statedthattheywouldeventuallybeconvertedintoindustrialproperty
and all would be bought out.That has not been the case.The
neighborhood is still relatively intact.Also,Staff has had
another person in the neighborhood inquire about building anothersinglefamilyhouseonBarberStreet.With the lack of theindustrialbuyout,and the inquiries of two independent personsdesiringtobuildsinglefamilyhouses,it was staffs'pinionthattheareashouldbechangedtoallowsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopmentandtoaccommodateothernon-residential
developments as well.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
This area will be under consideration of a neighborhood plan inthenextfewyearsandatthattime,Staff and neighborhood
groups will re-examine the area to see if conditions have
changed.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:East End Civic League and Hanger Hill NA.Staff has not received
any comments from area residents or neighborhood associations asofthedateofthisprinting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the changes are appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Brian Minyard of Staff presented the item to the Commission andexplainedthattheoriginalamendmentareawasexpanded.The
3
Mar~:18,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-07-01
original application was to permit the building of a single
family residence on Welch Street and was expanded by staff since
the area had not been reviewed in some time.Mr.Minyard also
informed the Commission of comments from Mr.Hastings,owner of
the area shown to change from Industrial to Light Industrial.He
had contacted staff and has stated that he did not want to change
his land use category.
Commissioner Mizan questioned the use of Mixed Use in the area.
Mr.Minyard stated that Mixed Use requires a PZD and spoke of the
various mixed uses already in the area.Comments continued about
the neighborhood being fairly intact.
Mr.Minyard continued that he explained to the landowners
contacting him that this was an alternative (Mixed Use versusIndustrial).
Chairman Earnest stated that he is comfortable with what
Mr.Minyard was saying,but wanted to remind the Commissioners
that this was triggered by someone wanting to build a house,and
from that basis,we are making a substantive change in the area.
Mr.George Ward,of 2624 Barber Street,spoke of home
improvements that he made to his houses.He spoke of selling his
house to the City of Little Rock.Chairman Earnest told Mr.Wardthatwewerenottalkingaboutanyactionthatwouldresultin
the buying of his house.Mr.Minyard told that the Commission
that the City was purchasing some properties because of floodingissues.
Glen Finley,of 2820 Welch Street,spoke of a letter that he hadreceivedstatingthatithadbeenrezonedandthattheywere
purchasing the area.He asked if they were purchasing the area.
Mr.Minyard gave a copy of the notice to Mr.Finley and told himthatthiswasthetopicofdiscussion.Chairman Earnestreiteratedthatthepurchaseofpropertywasaseparate issue.
Mr.Minyard commented to the floodway area boundaries.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,stated that the maps do indicate
floodway in the area but he is unsure of the exact boundaries of
them.He indicated that Mr.Finley could contact him about theexactlocationofthefloodwayareas.
Commissioner Faust explained to the speaker the difference of the
Land Use Plan amendment versus the acquisition of property.She
continued to explain the difference in the Land Use Plan and
zoning.
4
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-07-01
Commissioner Lowery stated that he has a business interest inthisareaandstatedthathewouldrecuse.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve as presented and
Commissioner Adcock seconded.The motion passed with a vote of
9 ayes,1 absent,and 1 abstention.
5
Mart.a 18,1999
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:LU99-08-06
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City PlanningDistrict
Location:2400 block Of Battery Street
RecCnest:Single Family tn Mixed Use
Source:Lynda B.Charles
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District
from Single Family to Mixed Use.The Mixed Use category providesforamixtureofresidential,office,and commercial uses tooccur.A Planned Zoning District is required if the use in not
wholly residential.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff
expanded the area of review to include the area to the south andeasttoincludethesoutherntwo-thirds of the block bounded byRooseveltRoad,Battery,24 ,and Wolfe.This addition wouldincludethePODtothesoutheastandoneadditionalresidence tothesouth.It is thought that the additional area would make theboundariesmorelogical.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R4 and is approximately 0.16acresinsize.The expanded area is approximately 2.0 acres insize.To the west is Mitchell School,zoned R4 CUP and shown asPublicInstitutionalontheplan.The areas to the north,south
and east are all shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan and
zoned R4.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
January 16,1996,a change from Single Family to PublicInstitutionalatthe14thandParkStreetintersections.
December 21,1993,various changes in an area from 22"to 26thsStreetsfromIzardtoMainStreets.
November 16,1993,a change from Single Family to Mixed Use at
the Chester and Wright Avenue intersection.
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-06
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Roosevelt is shown as a Principal Arterial and Battery is shownasaresidentiallocalstreetontheplan.
PARKS:
This site is not close to any parks.
BACKGROUND:
Though not a collector street,Battery Street functions as anentrancetotheneighborhoodtothenorth,the Centennial
Neighborhood.Farther to the north,Battery has a median linedwithlargerhomes.It would be logical to allow non-residentialusesthatarecompatiblewiththeneighborhoodtobelocatedonthatentrycorridor.This application would recognize theexistingPODtothesoutheastwhichhasassembledseveral lots.
Although the POD is not currently in operation,Staff views thisasanopportunitytoencouragedevelopmentonthissiteforamixeduseproject.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
This area is not covered by a plan by the City of Little Rock
Planning Department.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,Central High NeighborhoodAssociation,South End Neighborhood Association,Wright AvenueN.A.,East of Broadway N.A.,Capitol Hill N.A.,Community
Outreach N.A.,South Little Rock Community Development,andSouthEndNeighborhoodDevelopers.Staff has received no
comments from area residents as of this printing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
2
Mar .18,1999
ZTEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:LU99-08-06
PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON ACTZON:(MARCH 18,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval.The
motion was made and passed with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Mar&;n 18,1999
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:LU99-11-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I-430 Planning District
Location:1001 Embassy Drive
~Re eat:Office to Commercial
Source:Dan Robinson for Embassy Suites Hotel
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I-430 Planning District fromOfficetoCommercial.The Commercial category includes a broad
range of retail and wholesale sales of products,personalservices,and general business activities.Commercial activities
vary in type and scale,depending on the trade are they serve.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately 4.5acresinsize.This site adjoins the Embassy Suites Hotel to thenorth(a PDC in a MOC classification),to the south lies singlefamilyhomesandapaintshopthathaveaccessoffofKanisRoad.
That area is also zoned R-2 and is shown as Office.To the westisanundevelopedtractoflandzonedPODinanofficeclassificationandtotheeastliesC-2 zoned property thatcurrentlyhassinglefamilyhousesonitandisshownas
Commercial.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
May 20,1997,a change from Office to Commercial for an areanorthofChenalParkwaybetweenBowmanandAutumnRoads.
June 18,1996,various changes occurring with the John Barrow
Neighborhood Plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Financial Center Parkway is shown as a principal arterial on theplan.The Master Street Plan shows the extension of Embassy
Drive to the south to intersect with Centerview Drive at Kanis.It is to be a Collector Street and will curve on the southernhalftomeetCenterviewasshownbythedashedlineonthePlan
Amendment graphic.
Marin 18,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-11-02
PARKS:
The closest area of park land to the site is Rock Creek,whichliesinthemedianofChenalParkwayfromBaleChevrolettotheeasternKanisintersectionandanadditionalareathatthecity
owns that lies to the north and west of the Bowman and Markhamintersection.
BACKGROUND:
This area has seen major growth in the past ten years changingfromaruralareatotheheavierintensitythatitistoday.TheLandUsePlan,during that time,has slowly been changed fromresidentialusestomoreintenseuses.At this time,there isstillaninventoryofCommercialareathathasnotbeen
developed.
While the application is associated with the Embassy SuitesHotel,this will place Commercial off of Financial Center Parkwayforunusuallylargedepth.This site will be accessed off of
Embassy Drive.This in turn may encourage the entirety of
Embassy Drive to be Commercial.That commercialization of thecornerofEmbassyDrive,Kanis and Centerview would be inconflictwiththerecentlyadopted(3-2-99)Land Use Plan for theKanisCorridor.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
This area is covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Plan dated
November 1998.The plan did not make any land use plan changes.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
John Barrow Neighborhood Association,Sandpiper N.A.,Twin Lakes"A"Neighborhood Assoc.,Campus Place N.A.,Kensington PlaceN.A.,Westbrook N.A.,Birchwood Neighborhood Association,
Pennbrook/Clover Hill Place N.A.,Sewer District ¹147,and TwinLakes"B"Neighborhood Assoc.Staff has received no comments fromarearesidents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
2
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-11-02
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Brian Minyard of Staff presented the item and referenced thelettersofsupportthatwasgiventotheCommissionersatthe
agenda meeting.
Chairman Earnest asked a question of Mr.Minyard as to the
extension of the collector street known as Embassy Drive.Mr.
Minyard referenced the graphics provided in the agenda.
Dan Robinson spoke in behalf of Embassy Suites Hotel and made abriefpresentationofthehistoryofthesiteandnatureofthe
hotel company.He continued to speak of the financial
investment and benefits to the City in the form of taxes.He
continued to speak of the extension of Embassy Drive.Mr.
Robinson indicated that the future plans include additional
rooms,conference space,additional parking and ancillary
restaurant facility to support the hotel.
He continued to speak about traffic patterns and the overalltrafficpatterntoShacklefordRoadtothesouth.
Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification as to the nature of
the expansion.
Commissioner Faust stated that hotel motel is listed as aconditionalusein02.She asked of the applicant why he was
seeking to change the Land Use Plan.Mr.Robinson replied that
they were seeking an actual use for a hotel in C-3.If the site
was larger,it could be filed in C-2;or if detailed plans wereavailable,the PCD could be amended.Commissioner Faust statedthatshewasstillnotclearandaskedMr.Minyard if she was
missing something.Mr.Minyard reiterated that the applicant
does not have detailed plans of what they want to do.He furtherclarifiedtheoptionsofrevisingthePCD,02 with a CUP inOffice,and changing the Land Use Plan amendment.Mr.Minyardfurtherstatedthatconversationshadtakenplacewiththe
applicant to explain all the options and that the applicant had
chosen to revise the Land Use Plan in lieu of providing specific
plans for development.
Commissioner Putnam asked if they owned the land.Mr.Robinsonstatedthattheyhaditundercontractsubjecttocommercial
zoning.Discussion followed that the Commercial on the Land Use
3
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-11-02
Plan would open up a multitude of uses in addition to the hotel
uses.Mr.Putnam asked to have specific plans for development on
the site and not open it up for all commercial applications.
Commissioner Berry stated to the applicant that if the applicant
was turned down for the Land Use Plan amendment,that he
suspected that they would be back with a conditional use permit.
Jim Lawson interjected that the applicant wants C-3,not a
conditional use permit.Commissioner Berry wanted to clarify
that nothing restricts the applicant from coming back and
applying for an expansion of his current PZD under Office on the
Land Use Plan.Mr.Lawson stated that he did not think that was
the case,and that the applicant's deal would be off if he did
not get the C-3 zoning.
Mr.Robinson stated that when Mr.Hammond buys a piece of
property to develop,he wishes to have commercial zoning that
permits the development.He spoke of timing to buy the property,
develop the plans,and obtain the zoning.He stated that he does
not have the detailed plans at this time.
Commissioner Putnam spoke of amending the PCD.Mr.Lawson statedthattheapplicantwantsC-3 zoning which would not require any
PZD or any review.
Commissioner Mizan asked if the land could be sold after being
changed to C-3 if a downturn in the hotel market occurred.Mr.
Robinson stated that the land could be sold but due to street
patterns and topography,the site does not lend itself to be
there unless there is a direct relation to the hotel.
Mr.Lawson stated that he is not necessarily opposed to the
extension of the hotel,but what does not make sense to the staffisthefactthatCommercialwouldbefrontedbyOfficeonKanis
Road.He further explained that was not his intention,butstatedthatwouldbethecase.
Mr.Robinson spoke of the future of the intersection of Embassy
Drive,Centerview Drive and Kanis and the land use pattern.
Commissioner Downing asked Mr.Lawson to explain the zoning
process.Mr.Lawson stated that if it were changed to commercial
today,they would come back for C-3 zoning.Then it would be
sold to Mr.Hammond and at some point it would be developed by
Mr.Hammond.If it comes in with more than one building,it
would require site plan review.If it were one huge building
4
Mar a 18,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-11-02
with a parking deck,he would just need to get a building permit.
There is uncertainty as to how this relates to the PCD that was
approved.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women voters,stated her oppositiontotheproposedLandUsePlanchange.She stated that it is notinthebestinterestofthecitywithoutknowingalotmoredetails.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr.Lawson if there was some way to
allow this to pass.Mr.Lawson stated that he had been thinking
and was not able to come up with any solution yet.
Commissioner Downing stated when the real world considers future
expansion;pieces of property do not always fall into place atthetimethattheirplansareready.He continued to speak of
surrounding uses and the compatibility of those uses with the
proposed use.
Commissioner Hawn spoke of the Kanis Road Land Use Plan that wasrecentlyadopted.
Commissioner Faust noted the March 2,1999 adoption of the Land
Use Plan along Kanis.She spoke of the options of C-3 and the
adopted Land Use Plan does not preclude the development of thehotel.
Commissioner Berry spoke of the Land Use Plan trying to mitigate
impact,but without knowing what the development is,the
Commission is afraid of going commercial and continued to speakoftheprocess.Chairman Earnest noted that with performance
zoning the same conversation would be taking place.
Walter Malone of staff,added that this property was not changedintheKanisCorridorLandUsePlanthatwasrecentlyadopted.Discussion followed with Commissioner Putnam as to whether thissitehadbeenthesubjectofaLandUsePlanamendmentbefore.
Mr.Lawson stated that it was the piece to the southwest of thesite.He continued to speak about both the applicant and thecitylimitingtheirrisksconcerningbuyingandzoningoftheproperty.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the motion and the
motion failed with a vote of 3 ayes,7 nays and 1 absent.
5
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:LU99-19-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Chenal Planning District
Location:Chenal Pkwy east of Kirk Road
Receuest:Office to Commercial
Source:Baker Kurrus,Winrock Group
PROPOSAL /REQUE S T:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District fromOfficetoCommercial.The Commercial category includes a broad
range of retail and wholesale sales of products,personal
services,and general business activities.Commercial activities
vary in type and scale,depending on the trade are they serve.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned 02 and is approximately 3.5 acres
in size.To the north is undeveloped pastureland zoned MF18 and
shown as MF on the land Use Plan.To the east of the site,across Kirk Road,is a Texaco Station and other C3 property shown
as Commercial.To the south is the new Kroger and proposed
shopping center that is shown as Mixed Office Commercial and a
PCD.To the east is the Highland Valley United Methodist Church
zoned R2 CUP in a Public Institutional Land Use classification.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
December 15,1998,three changes to Public Institutional to
recognize area churches as part of the Rock Creek Neighborhood
Plan.
May 6,1997,a change from Single Family,Public Institutional,
Multi Family,Neighborhood Commercial,Park/Open Space to Single
Family,Low Density Residential,Public Institutional,Office,
Neighborhood Commercial and Commercial for an area north of Kanis
Road and generally east of Chenal Parkway.
December 5,1995,a change from Multi Family,Suburban Office and
Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family,Neighborhood Commercial
and Suburban Office north of Chenal Parkway and East of Kirk
Road.
September 19,1995,various changes in an area west of Chenal
Parkway and north of Kanis Road.
Mar.18,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-01
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial and Kirk Road is
shown as a Collector on the plan.This section of Chenal is
currently a four lane undivided road,but final plans for the
roadway will include medians similar to the other sections of
Chenal.
PARKS:
This site is near the western edge of the Rock Creek Park thatlieswithinthemedianofChenalParkway.
BACKGROUND:
This section of the city has seen major growth in the past tenyears.With this growth,large areas of land have been changed
from the original Multi-family classification to more intensive
uses,such as commercial and office.Currently,there is a
supply of land that has been classified on the Land Use Plan tothesemoreintensiveusesandhasnotbeendeveloped.These
areas should be developed before more land is changed to the moreintensiveuses.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
This site is included and is on the western boundary of the Rock
Creek Neighborhood Plan.The plan states in an objective of the"Office and Commercial Development Goal"to "Encourage Little
Rock,not only in the Rock Creek Neighborhood but also citywide,to adhere to the adopted land Use Plan.Encourage a policy of
reviewing the entire plan comprehensively and thoughtfully everythreetofiveyearsandmakingplanamendmentsextremelyrare."
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Parkway Place N.A.,Gibraltar/Pt.West/Timber Ridge,HillsboroughN.A.,Marlow Manor N.A.,St.Charles Neighborhood Association,
Johnson Ranch N.A.,Aberdeen Court N.A.,Hunters Cove P.O.A.,Carriage Creek P.O.A.,Bayonne Place P.O.A.,Eagle Pointe
Property Owners Assoc.,Glen Eagles Property Owners Association,
Hunters Green Property Owners Assoc.No comments have beenreceivedpriortoprinting.
2
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-01
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Brian Minyard presented the item to the Commission.He briefed
the Commission on meetings with the applicants that occurred
since the printing of the agenda.At the time of the printing of
the agendas,Staff could not support the change to Commercial on
the site.However,with the stipulation of the required PZD on
the property,Staff could support the amendment.
Baker Kurrus,the applicant,opened with a comment that if the
Land Use Plan is amended to allow a PZD on the property,hisclientswouldimmediatelyreturnwithaspecificplanforthesitecreatedaccordingtotheconditionsstatedinthePZD.Mr.
Kurrus stated that the Winrock group will make proposals based on
recommendations from city staff and neighboring property owners.
In addition,Mr.Kurrus wanted to demonstrate that the proposed
use would be less intensive than an office development.
Mr.Frank Riggins,landscape architect for the applicant,statedthatplansforthissitewouldbesensitivetolanduseissuesin
the area and would generate less impact on the surrounding
properties that the current Land Use Plan allows.Mr.Riggins
described the physical characteristics of the property.As a car
dealership,this development is not likely to exceed two stories.
Mr.Kurrus described the nature of the property and presented
photographs and written documentation of the steps it would taketomakethepropertyusable.The applicant also described
neighboring land uses along Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road.AfterlistingtheproposedalterationstothesitetotheCommission,
the applicant closed with comments about the changing nature of
the auto sales business.
Mark Johnson,a member of the Rock Creek Coalition of
Neighborhoods,spoke in opposition to the proposed land use
change.The Coalition wishes to maintain the current quality of
development along Chenal Parkway.
Commissioner Putnam stated that the area under consideration has
consisted of non-conforming run down structures and piles of
manure for the past thirty-five years.Mr.Putnam added that the
3
Mar .18,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-01
objectionable non-conforming land uses in the area could use some
improvement.Mr.Johnson replied that the neighborhood
association did not oppose all development in the area but felt
that an office building would look nicer than a car dealership.
Commissioner Putnam mentioned that the applicant's proposal would
resemble a car dealership located in the Riverdale neighborhood.
Mr.Johnson argued that the applicants did not consult with the
neighborhood association to belay the fears of association
members.Commissioner Putnam replied that the applicant probably
did not know that the Rock Creek Neighborhood Association
impacted this area.
A question was asked of Mr.Johnson about what concerns the
neighborhood association had regarding possible traffic impactsofanofficebuildingonthearea.Mr.Johnson replied that he
had not heard about any specifics of the proposed developmentuntilMr.Kurrus and Mr.Riggins made their presentation.Mr.
Johnson stated that the proposal sounded as if it would create anicedevelopmentintheareabutthattheneighborhood
association focussed its concern primarily on the intensity of
development in the area.Mr.Johnson added that if
representatives of the applicant were to meet with
representatives of the association,the association might changeitsposition.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr.Lawson what the applicant needs to
do to get the staff to agree to a change of land use in thisarea.Mr.Lawson replied that any proposals needed to meet the
approval of everyone effected by the development.Conversation
continued concerning the nature of the type of car sales a PZD
would allow on the property in question.
Mr.Kurrus stated that in the luxury car market,customers
already know what they want and luxury car dealerships do not
need large inventories.A luxury car dealership will have fewercarsinthelotthananofficebuildingandthattheproposedcardealershipwouldfeaturealow-rise structure.The profile of
the car dealership would be similar to the Mercedes dealership(also owned by the applicant)at Riverside.
Commissioner Faust asked what merits this proposal possessed that
the previous land use change on Embassy Drive did not have.Mr.
Lawson mentioned that Mr.Hammond did not have a specific
proposal for a PZD.Mr.Hammond may or may not decide to
4
Mar~.18,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-19-01
implement a project to expand the hotel.The land use change to
commercial would have allowed any number of uses not compatible
to the area.Mr.Hammond did not want MOC on the property.
Commissioner Mizan asked if a PZD could not be done under the
current Land Use Plan.Mr.Lawson replied that he did not know
how a car dealership could fit on a plan designating a site ofofficeusewithoutachangeinlanduse.Commissioner Mizan
wondered why the Land Use Plan needed changing if a PZD allowed
auto sales.Mr.Lawson stated that a PZD would not have the
authority to allow car sales in a PZD zoning district in an area
designated by the Land Use Plan for Office use.The land use
designation for the site would require to be changed in order for
a PZD to allow auto sales.This item would change the land use
from office to commercial so a PZD could accommodate an auto
dealership.
Chairman Earnest expressed concern that the Land Use Plan should
only be changed out of a compelling public interest.
Commissioner Putnam mentioned that current land uses near thesitewerenotattractivecomparedtopossiblefutureuses.
Commissioner Muse asked Mr.Kurrus why existing commercial areas
were not suitable for the proposed car dealership.Mr.Kurrus
replied that a site considered to the east could only be viewed
by westbound traffic.Another site in a C-3 district would have
impacted more neighborhoods.The site in question for this item
impacts fewer residential areas and could be viewed by passingtraffic.
Commissioner Muse asked why the applicant wishes to move the
Acura dealership from its current location on Cantrell Road.Mr.
Kurrus replied that the Winrock group wishes to establish a
dealership for a different brand of cars at the Cantrelllocation.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the size of the site.The
applicant stated that the site is six acres on one map and aboutthreeandahalf-acre on the Pagis maps.Mr.Kurrus also
mentioned the Winrock group wants the entire property zoned for
commercial uses to allow a luxury car dealership.The applicantwillbesubmitproposalstothestaffandtheplanningCommissiontoallowthecityandneighborstomakechangesnecessaryto
minimize impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Adcock made a motion to approve the motion and the
motion passed with a vote of 8 ayes,2 nays and 1 absent.
5
Mar 18,1999
ITEM NO.:9A FILE NO.:LU99-09-01A
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I —630 Planning District
Location:South side of 12 Street and north side of 11 Street
between Elm Street and Lewis Street,northwest and
southwest corners of Pine and 18 Street as well as
Cedar and 23 Street,and the intersection of Pine and
20 Street
Recenest:Single Family tn Mixed Use
Source:Stephen's Area Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I —630 Planning District from SF to
MX.Mixed Use (MX)represents services which provide for a mixtureofresidential,office and commercial uses to occur.A Planned
Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or
commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The proposed properties are currently zoned R3,03,and C3.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 3,1996,A change was made from Multi-family to Low
Density Multifamily,Mixed and Public Institutional to the area
north side of Asher Avenue from Valmar Street to Brown Street.
July 6,1993,A change was made from Low Density Multifamily to
Neighborhood Commercial to the area south of 12 Street and eastofBookerStreet.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pine and Cedar Streets are shown as a Collector on the plan.
PARKS:
There are limited number of parks and recreational space.Fletcher
Park is located at the southeast corner of I-630 and WoodrowStreet.Curran Conway Field is located on the south side of 24 "
Street between Monroe Street and Harrison Street.
Mar 18,1999
ITEM NO.:9A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-01A
BACKGROUND:
The proposed area comes out of the Stephens Area Neighborhood
Action Plan.Early in 1998,the City of Little Rock together withleadersoffiveStephen's area neighborhood associations joined todiscussthedevelopmentoftheStephen's Area Neighborhood ActionPlan.All involved viewed the collaboration as an opportunity tounifyandrevitalizetheStephen's area.
On March 9,1998,the entire Stephen's community -consisting ofresidents,property owners,business owners,and civic leaders were
encouraged to attend a Town Hall meeting at the Garland ElementarySchool.The purpose of the meeting was to solicit neighborhood-
wide support for the development of a plan.
As a result of these neighborhood meetings,residents and localmerchantswantedtorecognizeexistinguses.The proposedpropertiessouthof12"Street recognize existing uses and createsdiversityforfutureuses.The three business nodes south of 12StreetarecurrentlymarginalbusinesseszonedC3.By recognizing
them on the Land Use Plan,the Steering Committee feels that thiswouldcreateaviableandneighborhoodfriendlybusinessnode.Inaddition,the proposed properties north of ll Street between ElmStreetandLewisStreetestablishespotentialuseforsmallretailcommercial,office,and residential space.Thus,a Mixed Use (MX)land use classification allows property owners to promote acombinationoftheseuses.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the property owners and the followingneighborhoodassociationsCapitolHillNeighborhoodAssociation,Forest Hills Neighborhood Association,Love NeighborhoodAssociation,Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Association,and StephensAreaFaithNeighborhoodAssociationwereallnotifiedthroughtheSteeringCommittee.All five of these neighborhood associationsareveryactiveintheStephensAreaNeighborhoodActionPlanandareinsupportofthechanges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the changes are appropriate.
2
Mar 18,1999
ITEM NO.:9A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-01A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and
passed with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Mare.18,1999
ITEM NO.:9B FILE NO.:LU99-09-01B
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -I —630 Planning District
Location:North and south side of 12 Street from Woodrow Street to
Oak Street,northwest corner of Woodrow and 13 Street
~Re est:Single Pamilp to Mixed Use
Source:Stephen's Area Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I —630 Planning District from SF to
MX.Mixed Use (MX)represents services which provide for a mixture
of residential,office and commercial uses to occur.A Planned
Zoning District is repaired if the use is entirely office oz
commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
Properties along 12 "Street are currently zoned R4,R5,03,or C3.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 3,1996,A change was made from Multi-family to Low
Density Multifamily,Mixed and Public Institutional to the area
north side of Asher Avenue from Valmaz Street to Brown Street.
July 6,1993,A change was made from -Low Density Multifamily to
Neighborhood Commercial to the area south of 12 Street and east of
Booker Street.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
12 Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan.
PARKS:
There are limited number of parks and recreational space.Fletcher
Park is located at the southeast corner of I-630 and Woodrow Street.
Curran Conway Field is located on the south side of 24 Street,
between Monroe Street and Harrison Street.
Mar~18,1999
ITEM NO.:9B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-01B
BACKGROUND:
The proposed area comes out of the Stephens Area Neighborhood Action
Plan.Early in 1998,the City of Little Rock together with leaders
of five Stephen's area neighborhood associations joined to discuss
the development of the Stephen's Area Neighborhood Action Plan.All
involved viewed the collaboration as an opportunity to unify andrevitalizetheStephen's area.
On March 9,1998,the entire Stephen's community -consisting of
residents,property owners,business owners,and civic leaders were
encouraged to attend a Town Hall meeting at the Garland Elementary
School.The purpose of the meeting was to solicit neighborhood-wide
support for the development of a plan.
During these neighborhood meetings,residents and local merchants
wanted to develop incentives that encouraged economic development
throughout the plan area.The Steering Committee met one evening
and toured some of the local businesses and held their meeting at
the businesses.As a result of these incentives,the Steering
Committee and local merchants have proposed a small businesscorridoralong12Street.The committee feels that 12 "Street has
the potential to become a viable small business corridor.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the property owners and the following
neighborhood associations Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,Forest Hills Neighborhood Association,Love NeighborhoodAssociation,Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Association,and Stephens
Area Faith Neighborhood Association were all notified through theSteeringCommittee.
All five of these neighborhood associations are very active in the
Stephens Area Neighborhood Action Plan and are in support of the
changes.Staff has received one letter in opposition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the changes are appropriate.
2
Mar~18,1999
ITEM NO.:9B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-01B
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Shawn Spencer of Planning staff presented the case with the
surrounding land uses and zoning.Mr.Spencer explained that the
proposed amendment area is the first result of the upcoming
Stephens Area Neighborhood Action Plan.
Henry Barton,president of the Stephen's Area Steering Committee,
was present to explain the intent of the proposed amendment area.
He also briefly explained the progress of the Stephens Area
Neighborhood Action Plan.Staff has received one letter in
opposition from the neighborhood.Commissioner Adcock asked why
the property owner was opposed to the change.Mr.Spencer and
Mr.Barton explained that the property owner did not state any
reason for opposition.
Staff recommended approval of the change.The item was approved
with a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
3
FEB—8 ~—8 -99 MON 12 44 ASSOC I ATED PLUMBERS 58''968285 P 81
p.o.sox 7608
CEILED
February 1,1999 FPg 0 1999
age
Himanshu Patel
City of Little Rock
Ho.'t&
Department of PIanninnni g D op
Little RoRock,Ark.72201-1334
R81 Jones &Worthen Elk-017
Dear Sir:
Lot-OOI all of Lts.1,2,&3
This is to notify you we do noonot wish to change the L
fo
o no 'e and Use category
or this property,
Sincerely,
Associated Plumbum ers,Inc.
Walter R.Rogers,President
Mare..18,1999
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:LU99-09-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I -630 Planning District
Location:East side of Pine Street between 17 Street and 18
Street
Rsceuest:Single P aimlp to Public Institutional
Source:Stephen's Area Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I —630 Planning District from SF toPI.Public Institutional (PI)includes public and quasi publicfacilitieswhichprovideavarietyofservicestothecommunitysuch
as schools,libraries,fire stations,churches,utility substations,
and hospitals.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The proposed property and its surroundings are currently zoned R4.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 3,1996,A change was made from Multi-family to Low
Density Multifamily,Mixed and Public Institutional to the area
north side of Asher Avenue from Valmar Street to Brown Street.
July 6,1993,A change was made from Low Density Multifamily to
Neighborhood Commercial to the area south of 12 Street and east of
Booker Street.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pine and Cedar Streets are shown as a Collector on the plan.
PARKS:
There are limited number of parks and recreational space.Fletcher
Park is located at the southeast corner of I-630 and Woodrow Street.
Curran Conway Field is located on the south side of 24 Street
between Monroe Street and Harrison Street.
Maze.18,1999
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-02
BACKGROUND:
The proposed area comes out of the Stephens Area Neighborhood ActionPlan.The plan zecognises existing land use and implements theappropriatelanduseclassification.Since the proposed propertiesarecurrentlyusedasaparkinglotandaplayground,owned by theFirstBaptistChurchHighlandPark,it is thought that theadditionalareawouldmaketheboundariesmorelogical.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the property owners and the followingneighborhoodassociationsCapitolHillNeighborhoodAssociation,Forest Hills Neighborhood Association,Love NeighborhoodAssociation,Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Association,and StephensAreaFaithNeighborhoodAssociationwereallnotifiedthroughtheSteeringCommittee.All five of these neighborhood associations areveryactiveintheStephensAreaNeighborhoodActionPlanandareinsupportofthechanges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the changes aze appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and passedwithavoteof11ayesand0nays.
2
Mare.18,1999
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:LU99-09-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -I —630 Planning District
Location:South side of 26 Street between Oak Street and
Cedar Street
Roast:Single Pamilp to Mixed Commercial and Industrial
Source:Stephen's Area Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee
PROPOSAL /RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I —630 Planning District from SF to
MCI.Mixed Commercial and Industrial (MCI)provides for a mixture of
commercial and industrial uses to occur.Acceptable uses are
commercial or mixed commercial and industrial.A Planned ZoningDistrictisrequirediftheuseismixedcommercialandindustrial.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The proposed property is currently zoned R3.Property to the westiszoned03.Property to the south is zoned C3 and I2
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 3,1996,A change was made from Multi-family to Low
Density Multifamily,Mixed and Public Institutional to the areanorthsideofAsherAvenuefromValmarStreettoBrownStreet.
July 6,1993,A change was made from Low Density Multifamily to
Neighborhood Commercial to the area south of 12 Street and east ofBookerStreet.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pine and Cedar Streets are shown as a Collector on the plan.Asher
Avenue,east of Pine Street is shown as a Minor Arterial and west ofPineStreetasaPrincipalArterial.
PARKS:
There are limited number of parks and recreational space.Fletcher
Park is located at the southeast corner of I-630 and Woodrow Street.Curran Conway Field is located on the south side of 24 "Street
between Monroe Street and Harrison Street.
Mare;..18,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-03
BACKGROUND:
The proposed area comes out of the Stephens Area Neighborhood Action
Plan.Zt is the intent of the Steering Committee to recognize and
preserve any sector of employment within the study area.
Early in 1998,the City of Little Rock together with leaders of fiveStephen's area neighborhood associations joined to discuss the
development of the Stephen's Area Neighborhood Action Plan.All
involved viewed the collaboration as an opportunity to unify andrevitalizetheStephen's area.
On March 9,1998,the entire Stephen's community -consisting ofresidents,property owners,business owners,and civic leaders were
encouraged to attend a Town Hall meeting at the Garland ElementarySchool.The purpose of the meeting was to solicit neighborhood-wide
support for the development of a plan.
During these neighborhood meetings,the Steering Committee came to aconclusionthatthecommunityisnotonlymadeupofgeneralretailservices,but also businesses that may require light industrialuses.Therefore,in order to permit these various uses such as
woodwork shop,furniture repair store,financial institution,or
photography studio,it must dedicate potential sites for these uses.
Many of these uses may require deliveries and being located nearAsherAvenuewouldalloweasieraccess.
The Steering Committee has proposed a classification of Mixed
Commercial and Industrial (MCZ)for the property in question.Ztwantstoestablishadiversityinusesthatwouldincorporate
commercial and industrial to provide a modern,efficient,and well-
designed industrial facilities within a "park-like"setting.Theproposedpropertyisinaappropriatelocationandprovidessufficientspacetomeettheneedsoftheneighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the property owners and the followingneighborhoodassociationsCapitolHillNeighborhoodAssociation,Forest Hills Neighborhood Association,Love NeighborhoodAssociation,Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Association,and StephensAreaFaithNeighborhoodAssociationwereallnotifiedthroughtheSteeringCommittee.
All five of these neighborhood associations are very active in theStephensAreaNeighborhoodActionPlanandareinsupportofthechange.Staff has received one letter in opposition.
2
Mare.18,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-03
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is not in support of the change to Mixed Commercial andIndustrial(MCI).
Staff believes that an increase of any form of industrial activityshouldnotoccurnorthofAsherAvenue.However,Staff is in
support of a change to Mixed Use (MX).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
This item was placed on the consent for withdrawal.Henry Barton,president of the Stephens Area Steering Committee recpxested to
withdrew this item.The consent agenda passed with a vote of11ayesand0nays.
3
+H 'HO IC,'
'C
1 r
'I r
J 4
,/
~Web I
5
l ''I
I
k.
I
?
E 1
5S9
-tll
J
Mare.18,1999
1TEM NO.:12 OTHER MATTERS
~Suh'ect:1998 Subdivision and H.S.P.Amendments,Public Hearing
R~e est:That the Planning Commission receive the draft presented,
hear comment from the Public and direct staff as to
follow up action.
H~istor:yn January of 1998,the Plans Committee began a year long
review process,working with Planning Staff and the
Public Works staff.Public input was requested,littleoffered.ln the beginning the single task assigned the
committee was to perform a review of the Subdivision
Ordinance with respect to problem areas or updating text.
During the course of its review,the committee received a
request from Public Works staff to consider removal ofallstreetrelateddesignfromtheSubdivisionOrdinance
and place it in the Master Street Plan text.This was
favorably received and over the summer and fall months.
Public Works produced two ordinance drafts to accomplish
the task.
The first of these was an ordinance extracting certaintextelementsfromtheSubdivisionregulationsandinsertingintheirplaceareferencetotheMasterStreetPlan.
The second was reconstruction of the M.S.P.text toredirectitfromageneralplandocumenttoaspecific
design regulation.
All of the basic committee and staff work was finishedbeforetheendoftheyearwithonlyoneelement
remaining to be resolved,that being resolution ofcertaindesignstandards.There were street curvature,
sidewalks,and sight distance in particular.Public
Works staff met with various engineers and development
community persons over January and the instruments nowbeforetheCommissionare,we think,representative ofthecommoncommittee,staff and developer position withtheexceptionoftheincreaseinsidewalkstandards.
Planning and Public Works staff will be available to
answer questions.
The following will give a brief review of changes:
Mare.18,1999
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)OTHER MATTERS
1998 Subdivision and Master Street Plan Ordinance Amendments
There are three elements to the years work program:
~The basic subdivision ordinance multiple change amendments.
~The restructure of the Master Street Plan Ordinance to
absorb street design standards from the subdivision
ordinance.
~The ordinance amendment restructuring the subdivision
ordinance to delete design and refer to Master Street Plan.
The basic subdivision amendment Ordinance contains thirty-four (34)areas of change with forty (40)specific amendments.
There are:
12 Design related changes
9 Language/Structure
13 Procedural Related Changes
6 Definitions Changes
(These numbers do not include the Master Street Plan/Subdivision
Ordinance changes proposed)
The three Ordinances should be adopted in the following order:
~Basic Amendments
~Master Street Plan restructure
~Subdivision Ordinance Modification for Master Street Plan
The Subdivision Ordinance changes proposed include seven (7)
amendments that can be construed to be controversial
These are:(a)(b)(1)(o)(u)(w)(mm)
(a)This revisits the driveway spacing for all non-residential development.Public Works is major involvedparty.
(b)This grants Public Works variance authority over majordesignelementsoftheSubdivisionOrdinance.
(1)This requires engineers to submit more detailed
information on final plat filing.
(o)This requires a new approach to platting small commercialsubdivisionsbyeliminatingtheuseofculs-de-sac toterminatestreets.
2
Mar~.18,1999
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)OTHER MATTERS
(u)This provides for design standards for pipe stems when
they are prohibited by ordinance.It would only apply
when the City Board grants a waiver.
(v)This provides for tightened regulations for design of
minor residential streets.
(mm)This provides for a totally new way to regulate design oflargeparkinglots,make them function better for traffic
flow and pedestrian safety.
The M.S.P.proposals include one area of change that will becontroversial,that being.Sidewalks required on more residentialstreets.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The Chair introduced this item by saying that Commissioner Adcockrequeststheamendmentsbedeferredforfurtherdiscussion.
Several commissioners asked for clarification of the request.It
was reported that there were some street issues that required morework.
Richard Wood,of the staff,suggested that a deferral was not aproblem.The Ordinance will be held over to the next meeting,April 29,1999.
3
h =ch 18,1999
CENTRAL CITY DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT OTHER MATTERS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,gave a brief background on
the status of the Central City Redevelopment Corridor (CCRC)
Design Overlay District.Mr.Lawson stated that staff had
met with the Plans Committee,and the draft that was being
reviewed at the Planning Commission reflected the comments
from the Plans Committee.He also asked the Planning
Commission for direction on public input,boundary location,
and content.
Shawn Spencer of Planning Staff presented the draft
ordinance.Mr.Spencer reviewed the four definitions in theordinanceandwentintodetailontheregulations.Planning
Commissioners had some reservations on the "mass"
regulations and how the regulations would relate to an
undeveloped block.Discussion followed.
Kathy Wells,President of the Downtown Neighborhood
Association (DNA),was present.Ms.Wells stated that the
purpose of the Design Overlay District was to regulate only
new construction and not additions/renovations.She alsostatedthattherewasconcernaboutthe"mass"regulations
and the section of "materials"that dealt with materialsthatresembletheappearanceofwood,brick or stone.SheaskedthePlanningCommissiontoactquicklyontheirdirectionstostaff.Discussion followed.
Chairman Earnest asked Mr.Lawson if staff could meet with
Ms.Wells and work out the concerns of the Planning
Commission and the DNA.Mr.Lawson and Ms.Wells agreed to
meet on Monday March 22.Ms.Wells also asked if staff
could wait on mailing out notices to property owners untiltheDNAcouldtaketheneighborhoodthroughaneducationalprocessontheDOD.Staff agreed to the notice process.
~t
(
t
(
N
T
o
w
h
f
D.
o
.
D.
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
l
9
C'
n
Q
SE
A
(
+
PE
C
v
4J
L
4
R
+A
D
E.
f?
6'
(
A
f0
f
l3
C
5
7
8
9g
l2
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
e
v
v-
e
v'A
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
~
v'
'
e
e-
v'O
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
v
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
v'
'
'
v
y'
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
'0
v'
Y
4
I/
'
v
8
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
v'
v
e
v'D
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
v
v'
'
.
v
v'U
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
v
v
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
~
v'
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
A
e
v'A
W
N
,
HE
R
B
v
v'
e
e
2n
d
Mo
4
i
o
n
-+
pt
:
TI
M
E
:
I
N
AN
O
TI
I
I
E
OU
T
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
v
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
v
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
L6
NE
'
6
T
5,
'
O
DI
D
Ho
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
ou
7
"
dg
Z
(u
(
Q
v'A
W
N
,
HE
R
B
v'
e
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
~t
:
1
P.
M
.
AY
E
~
NA
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
~A
B
S
T
A
I
N
March 18,1999
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
Data
r're
ary Chai an