HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 10 1999LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 10,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number.
II.Members Present:Craig Berry
Herb HawnBillPutnam
Judith Faust
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Rohn Muse
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
City Attorney:Steve Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
JUNE 10,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.LU99-02-02 —A Land Use Plan in the Rodney Parham
Planning District for properties located on the north
side of the 9000 Block of West Markham Street,between
Brookside Drive and Westbrook Circle,and on the
northeast corner of West Markham Street and Brookside
Drive;from Single Family to Suburban Office.
B.Central City Redevelopment Corridor Design OverlayDistrict
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-6681 North side of the 13900 MF-6,R-2 &
Block of Cantrell Road OS to 0-3,
MF-12 &OS
2.Z-6682 3805 West Street R-2 to R-7A
and site plan
review
3.Z-6683 17415 Lawson Road R-2 to C-1
and Furniture
Repair C.U.P.
4.G-23-294 —Right-of-Way Abandonment for a 16 foot
alley within Block 13,Braddock's Addition and for a
portion of Maple Street between West 17 and West 18 "
Streets,adjacent to Block 13,Braddock'Addition.
5.LU99-16-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter
Creek Planning District located at 13701 Pleasant Hill
Road;from Single Family to Industrial.
6.LU99-17-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal
Valley Planning District located at 17503 Lawson Road;
from Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial
7.A Neighborhood Action Plan for the South End Area
Improvement Plan
Agenda,Page 2
II.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.)
8.Oak Forest Area Neighborhood Action Plan
9.Downtown Little Rock Framework Plan:Corridors Study,
6 Bridges Plan,Capitol Area Master Plan and Framework
for the Future
10.Stephens Neighborhood Area Action Plan
11.Anthony School Revised C.U.P.(Z-5820-A)
2
June 10,1999
ZTEM NO.:A FZLE NO.:LU99-02-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Rodney Parham
Planning District
Location:9002 West Markham Street
Receuest:Single Family tc Subunban Office
Source:Elizabeth Anne Short
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Rodney Parham Planning District
from Single Family to Suburban Office.Suburban Office providesforlowintensitydevelopmentofofficeorofficeparksinclose
proximity to lower density residential areas to assure
compatibility.A Planned Zoning District is required.The
proposed use of the property is a "quiet office".
EXZSTZNG LAND USE AND ZONZNG:
The property.is currently zoned R-2,Single Family,and is
approximately 0.31+acres in size.To the north,east and westaresinglefamilyhouseszonedR-2,Single Family.Directly tothesouthisashoppingcenterzonedC-3,General Commercial.
Rock Creek,which intersects Markham Street just east of the John
Barrow Road/Brookside Drive is zoned R-2,Single Family.
LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
To the north,east and west is shown as Single Family on the Land
Use Plan.Directly to the south is shown as Commercial on thePlan.Rock Creek,which intersects Markham Street just east oftheJohnBarrowRoad/Brookside Drive intersection is shown as
Park/Open Space on the plan.
Recent changes include:
October 20,1998,a change from Suburban Office to Commercial on
Markham Street Center Drive and from Single Family to Suburban
Office on the east side of Natural Resources Drive.
.June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Markham Street is shown as a minor arterial on the plan and is a
five lane at the subject property.Brookside Drive is also shown
as a minor arterial,but is built as a two-lane section.
PARKS:
There are no existing parks in the immediate area.There is open
space with Rock Creek at the intersection of John Barrow Road and
Markham Street and at the playground /soccer fields of the
Henderson Junior High School to the southeast.
BACKGROUND:
Single family homes dominate this section of Markham Street on
the north side from west of Rodney Parham Road to Sante Fe Trail
and on the south side from Pryor Street to Wedgwood Road.On the
north side of the street,they mainly face the side streets.
This application is one of four houses that face Markham Street.
This general area has been the subject of Land Use Plan
amendments before.Most recently (February 4,1999),there was
an application for Suburban Office at the intersection of Pryor
and Markham Street,two blocks west of the site.That area had
been the subject of three rezoning attempts in the past.All of
the above actions drew considerable opposition from the
neighborhood.
This amendment will create an island of Suburban Office in the
Single Family area.In this particular case,the argument of the
Suburban Office providing a buffer to the homes to the north does
not apply because of the street layout.Brookridge and the homesoffBrookridgebearnorelationtoMarkhamStreetsoany
buffering would not be required.The change to Suburban Office
would only further the intensification of Markham Street to the
north.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN
This area is not covered by a neighborhood action plan.
2
.June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Walnut Valley Neighborhood Association,Echo Valley NA,Colony
West Homeowners Assoc.,Treasure Hills NA,Sturbridge Property
Owners Association,Beverly Hills NA,Santa Fe Heights NA,
Rainwood Cove NA,and Pennbrook/Clover Hill Place NA Staff hasreceivedtwocommentsfromarearesidents.One is in support,
and one was neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(April 29,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented this item to the
Commission.Elizabeth Anne Short,the applicant,spoke to the
Commission about the history of the structure and the rentalhistory.She continued to speak of traffic volumes,views of
commercial across the street,and traffic accidents in the area.
She stated that with the congestion of the intersection,that it
was more suitable for office than single family.
Patricia Dolan,owner of 102 Brookside Drive,supports the Land
Use change proposed by the applicant.There was discussion of
where her property was in relation to the applicant's.
Commissioner Lowery asked if Mrs.Dolan would desire that her
property also be changed to Suburban Office.Mrs.Dolan statedthatshewould.He continued to ask about the rest of MarkhamStreet.Her reply was that those who front commercial areas
should.Commissioner Lowery continued and asked Mrs.Dolan if
she agreed with the number of traffic accidents in theintersection.She commented that it was at least that many,ifnotmore.
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,stated that at first,Staff viewed,the area as a large block of Single Family and that one piece of
Suburban Office did not make sense.He also stated that thisapplicationisnotunliketheapplicationatUniversityandCantrell.The effect on the residential neighborhood should betakenintoaccountifitistobechangedtoSuburbanOfficewith
3
,June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-..02-02
a PUD required.He asked will the change be compatible,or willitstartdeclineofthearea?
Commissioner Nunnley stated that he traveled the area and has
noticed a lot of for sale signs.He asked if the character of
the neighborhood has changed from owner occupied to rental.He
continued that if it had,the existing use has outgrown the
original use.Commissioner Nunnley and Mr.Lawson continued to
have a discussion concerning Brookside Drive.Mr.Lawson spokeofthehistoryofBrooksideDriveasanarterial.
Mr.John Dolan spoke in favor of the plan change.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr.Lawson to clarify his as statementthathemade.Mr.Lawson responded that it was a difficult issue
and has two sides.Commissioner Putnam asked if Mr.Lawson was
supportive of the change or not.Mr.Lawson stated support for
the change.
Commissioner Rahman spoke of expanding the area and is fearful ofthechangeandtheeffectontheNeighborhood.
Commissioner Putnam asked if this could be changed to a PZD.It
was stated that it could not.
Commissioner Faust spoke of expanding the application and also
spoke on issues concerning Brookside Drive.
Mr.Lawson offered the option of expanding the area and deferring
the application for six weeks.The new area would cover the fourlotsthatfaceMarkham.A PUD would be required and must be
compatible with the neighborhood.He stated that Staff would
notify the property owners of the expanded area.
Commissioner Adcock asked Mrs.Short if she understood the optionasoutlined.Mrs.Short commented that she has spoken to two ofthethreepropertyownersandthattheywouldbesupportiveof
being included in the application.
Discussion followed concerning deferral or withdrawal of theapplication.
Commissioner Downing asked if June 10 was enough time to notifythenewareaowners.
4
e7une 10,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
Commissioner Nunnley asked Mrs.Dolan if she had any additional
comments to give to the Commission.She asked if 102 Brookside
could be included in the expanded area.Mr.Lawson stated that
her property at 102 Brookside would be included and added the
house at 101 Brookside.
A motion was made for deferral to June 10,1999 by Commissioner
Putnam and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has reviewed the expanded area as outlined in the Planning
Commission meeting of April 29,1999.The original request
introduced an island of Suburban Office the size of one
residential lot which did not appear appropriate.A change of
six lots that face commercial and/or lie at the intersections ofarterialscanwarrantacarefulconsiderationforaLandUsePlan
change.Staff does support the change to Suburban Office for thesixhousesasshownontherevisedgraphic.The six lots in the
proposal all face Markham Street or Brookside Drive,botharterials.Further to the west,the houses on Markham face the
side streets.Staff also does not support any further expansion
of the Suburban Office category for either side of Markham Street
in this vicinity or further to the north on Brookside Drive.
Staff does not guarantee that any or all PZD's filed in this areaofSuburbanOfficewillbesupportedbyStaff.Compatibility
with the neighborhood is the prime objective of any PZD in a
Suburban Office area.Redevelopment of the area should be
accomplished through a Master Plan or in a uniform manner,not
one lot at a time.This would help to reduce the number of curb
cuts and lessen future traffic congestion on an already congestedsite.
Staff has received forty-one comments from area residents since
the original filing date.Six are in support,thirty-four are
opposed to the change,and one was neutral.The comments reflect
phone calls,faxes,and letters received by staff with duplicate
comments removed.
5
.June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented the updated positionofthePlanningStafftothePlanningCommissionandexplained
the expansion of the boundaries.Staff felt that an expansion of
the boundaries to include six lots warranted careful
consideration and could be supported by Staff while a land use
change on one lot did not.Mr.Minyard added that Staff does not
support any further expansion of the boundaries and could not
guarantee approval of any PZD filed in this area.
Chairman Ernest asked if Planning Staff was reversing the policyofdroppingpropertyownersfromanareaoflandusechangeif
such owners opposed a land use change.Commissioner Ernest also
asked if dropping property owners from the expanded area of
change would shrink the area of the proposed change to a spot
change not much larger than the original application.
Mr.Minyard stated that dropping the properties in opposition tothechangewouldnotcreateaspotchangebasedonthefactthatthenewrequestwouldstillbelargerthantheoriginalrequest.
Walter Malone,Planning Manager,commented that Staff would notbeopposedtoalandusechangeifthePlanningCommissionwishedtoremoveaportionofpropertiesfromalanduseplanchange.
Jim Lawson,of Planning Staff,stated the final decision to
remove a property from a land use change request should be made
by the Planning Commission.Mr.Lawson also stated that the
Planning Commission had the right to change a land use plan
amendment.
Commissioner Ernest stated that the decision to change this landuseamendmentwastheresponsibilityofthePlanningCommission.
The applicant,Mrs.Elizabeth Ann Short,spoke in support of the
amendment.Mrs.Short claimed that four of the six property
owners supported the application.Mrs.Short stated that she didnotwantHeavyCommercialortodestroytheneighborhoodand
complained of heavy traffic in front of house.In addition,Mrs.Short mentioned the noise and traffic congestion resulting fromthebusstopinfrontofherhouse.Mrs.Short does not want to
change the look of her house so that it would be suitable for aquietofficetypeofuseandnotdestroytheresidential
6
pune 10,1999
1
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
character of the neighborhood.Mrs.Short also mentioned the
noise generated in the commercial area across the street.Mrs.
Short claimed that Brookside Drive is indeed a main artery.
Commissioner Putnam asked how long Mrs.Short lived at the
residence.Mrs.Short stated that she owned the house for
thirty-five years.
Commissioner Downing asked Mrs.Short if she could provide the
Commission with evidence about the consent of the property owners
in the area in question.Mrs.Short provided evidence to Staff
concerning the consent of property owners in support of the
application.
Mrs.Lynn Robinson spoke in opposition to the application.Mrs.
Robinson stated her concerns that Suburban Office uses in the
area would increase traffic in the neighborhood.
Mr.Bill Clay spoke in opposition to the application and stated
that he is representing his mother who owns property at 108
Brookside Drive.Mr.Clay expressed his mothers concerns about
security in the neighborhood,loss of privacy,loss of property
values,noise,extra traffic,and litter.Mr.Clay concluded
that his mother opposed rezoning of the property to commercial
uses.
Commissioner Ernest recognized John McDonald who turned in a card
in opposition to the application but who did not wish to speak.
Mrs.Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters,voiced opposition
to the application.Mrs.Bell expressed concerns that this
application would result in strip development along Markham
Street and that the current character of the neighborhood should
be persevered.
Mrs.Virginia Bland,9008 W.Markham Street,spoke in oppositiontotheapplicationandstatedthattrafficandnoisewasanormal
part of any neighborhood.She also mentioned that she spent alotofmoneyonyardmaintenance.
Mrs.Christine Patterson spoke in opposition to the application.
Mrs.Patterson stated that she lived less than a block away from
the area in question and that she did not receive a notice
concerning this application.Mrs.Patterson expressed concern
7
,June 10,1999
j
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
about the potential for increased traffic and the setting of a
precedent of changing the land uses along the north side of
Markham.
Mr.John Dolan spoke in support of the application.Mr.DolanstatedthatSuburbanOfficewouldnothurttheneighborhoodand
that changes could be made to Brookside to reduce and slowtrafficinthearea.
A lady from the audience spoke in opposition to the application
and told about her son'efforts to have speed break placed onBrookside.Commissioner Ernest stated that speed breaks raised a
separate set of issues.
Commissioner Ernest asked Mr.Minyard to clarify which property
owners consented to the land use change.Mr.Minyard addressed
the issue based on the letters he received.The property ownerofthehousenotlistedonthemapwasinsupportofthe
application as supplied by Mrs.Short.Mr.Minyard stated that
owner of the property at 9010 W.Markham supported the
application instead of opposing it.A break in support of theapplicationstilloccurredinthemiddleoftheareaunderconsideration.Mr.Minyard stated the tally was four in support
and two in opposition.Mr.Minyard added that the two no votes
were properties located in the middle of the area under
consideration.
Mary Carroll,9006 W.Markham,stated opposition to theapplication.
Commissioner Putnam commented that approval of this application
would set a precedent that would lock the city into approvinglandusechangesallalongMarkhamStreet.A discussion tookplaceconcerningthepossibilityofthisitemcreatingadominoeffectthatwoulddestroythecharacteroftheneighborhood.
Commissioners expressed concerns about preserving the stabilityoftheneighborhoodwhileallowingforchange.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the land use plan asappliedforinitemA.A discussion took place between staff andtheCommissionconcerningtheissueofchangingthesizeoftheareacoveredbythelanduseplanamendment.The Commission
decided to vote on Item A according to the expanded boundariesestablishedintheapplication.Mr.Lawson stated that if the
8
June 10,1999
I
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
application failed,the Planning Commission could modify the area
covered by the land use plan amendment and submit a substitute
motion.
A motion was made for approval of the land use plan change asstatedaccordingtotheareaoutlinedintheapplicationandfailedwithavoteof2ayes,7 noes and 2 absent.
9
'June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:B
NAME:Central City Redevelopment Corridor
Design Overlay District
SOURCE:Downtown Neighborhood Association
Downtown Neighborhoods Plan
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 the ordinance and
went into detail on the regulations.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 also stated that there was
concern about the "mass"regulations and the section of
"materials"that dealt with materials that resemble the
appearance of wood,brick or stone.She asked the Planning
Commission to act quickly on their directions to staff.
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 until the DNA could take the
neighborhood through an educational process on the DOD.Staff
agreed to the notice process.
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reminded the Commission we were to
hear from Ms.Wells about the neighborhood's efforts to
communicate the issue and decide where we go from here.Ms.
Wells distributed a letter to the Commission.
Kathy Wells,Chair of "Downtown Plan for the Future",stated she
had met with the East of Broadway and South of Roosevelt groups.
The "East of Broadway"group is supportive.They believe the
standards will help the area.The South of Roosevelt group while
wanting some design standard believe this is being done to them.
Therefore,they do not wish to have these standards.
Thus the area should include the area east of Governor Mansion
area not in Historic District and exclude the area south of
Roosevelt Road.There was some discussion about the "original"
overlay.The consensus was to contact owners in the corridor.
Ms.Wells asked that a draft of the letter be shown to the
neighborhood groups prior to mailing.Mr.Malone agreed thatstaffwoulddraftaletterandpassitbytheneighborhoodspriortocontactofthepropertyowners.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the June 10,1999 meeting.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has met with representatives from both neighborhoodassociationsandcommitteemembersofthe"Downtown Plan for theFuture".A notice of public hearing was mailed out to all
properties (approximately 600)within the CCRC.Staff hasreceivedcallsaskingquestionsoncertainaspectsofthe
overlay.At the time of printing the agenda,staff has received
one letter in favor.
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Shawn Spencer,Planning Staff,updated the Planning Commissioners
on the status of the CCRC.At the time of the Planning
Commission meeting,Staff had received approximately 20 phonecallsallinfavoroforneutral.Staff had also received oneletterinfavorwhichwasincludedintheagenda.
Kathy Wells,chair of "Downtown Plan for the Future",presented
Planning Commission members with a letter of support signed by an
additional 30 property owners.Ms.Wells and other supporters of
the CCRC spoke in favor of the Design Overlay District and asked
Planning Commission members to vote favorably for the ordinance.
There was discussion between Planning Commission members andStaffabouttherecommendationintheletterthatwasinthe
agenda.Staff stated that the recommendations in the letter had
not been mailed to the 600 property owners and the ordinance
could not be changed during this meeting.
A motion was made to approve the CCRC Design Overlay District
as presented.Motion was seconded.Motion carried.9 ayes,
2 absent.
3
J D H N D .J A R R A R D
A R C H I T E C T —P L A N N E R
1 700 SQLITH SPR IN G STREET
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72206
3 MAY 1999
SHAWN SPENCER,PLANNER II
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,DEPT.OF PLANING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 WEST MARKHAM
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1334
RE:DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR DOWNTOWN
DEAR MS.SPENCER,
THANK YOU FOR THE COPY OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.THE NEED OF PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THE AREAS NOT PROTECTED BY CA PITOL ZONING OR THE MACARTHUR HISTORIC DISTRICT IS
PARAMOUNT IF DOWN TOWN IS TO STABILIZE AND RE-ESTABLISH ITSELF AS VIABLE RESIDENTIAL SETTING.
THE RECENT ERECTION OF MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY AT 15TH AND ROCK IS AN EXCELLEM EXAMPLE OF
iNSENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.TO MY DISAPPOIMMENTTHE ORDNANCE,AS IT
IS NOW WRITI EN,WOULD ALLOWTHAT SAME DEVELOPMENTTO BE BUILT.THE ORDINATE GIVES LITTLE
GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING BE INSERTED TO GIVE A ROUGH GUIDE AND THAT A COMMITI EE
OF THREE MEMBERS OF EACH NEIG HBORHOOD BE APPOINTED TO RECOMMEND A COURSE OF ACTION TO
CITY STAFF WHEN APPLICATIONS ARE MADE.
MY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE:
1.ROOF LINE:A ROOF PITCH SHALL MATCH ROOF PITCHES THAT ARE PREVALENT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN NO CASE BE LESS THAN 4 TO 12 PITCH.
2.MATERIALS:SAME AS DRAFT PLUS:EXTERIOR MATERIAL DETAILS OF CORNERS,DOOR AND
WINDOW TRIM,FACIA HEIGHT ETC.SHALL BE SIMILAR TO THOSE PREVALENT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
3.DESIGN GUIDELINES:BUILDINGS WIDER THAN 60'4"AT A STREET FRONT SHALL HAVE SET BACKS
IN THE FACADE TO EMULATE VOIDS AND SOLIDS OF TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET FRONTS.
4.RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS:RENOVATIONS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS SHALL NOT ALTER THE
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS SHALL BLEND WITH THE EXISTING
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
5.APPLICATIQNS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY CITY PRESERVATION OFFICER FQR COMPLIANCE
BEFORE A PERMIT IS ISSUED.
THANKS AGAIN.
SINGER
JOHN D.JARRARD
A.I.A.{501)375-4249 N.C.A.R.B.
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6681
Owner:Jeanne and Dan McKinstry,
Anne and James Threet,Richard
and Marcia Watkins
Applicant:James E.Hathaway,Jr.
Location:North side of the 13900 Block of
Cantrell Road
Recpxest:Rezone from R-2,MF-6 and OS to0-3,MF-12 and OS
Purpose:Future multifamily and office
development
Size:39+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped,wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2
South —Vacant lots;zoned R-2
East —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2
West —Shopping center,zoned C-3 and undeveloped,
wooded,zoned 0-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS (For Future Reference)
1.Two commercial streets intersecting Cantrell Road,with
330 foot spacing will not be allowed.Recpxired minimum
spacing between commercial streets is 600 feet.Platted
right-of-way north of Josephine Street may be used.Allstreetsrecpxire60feetright-of-way and 36 feet
pavement.
2.Construct right turn lane on Cantrell Road.
3.Construct access to PK/OS area.
4.Streets need to be named and approved by this office.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA Express Bus Route extends down Cantrell Road to the
south of this site.
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6681
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The Pankey,Walton Heights-Candlewood,Secluded Hills and
Westbury Neighborhood Associations,all owners of property
within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300feetwerenotifiedoftherezoningrequest.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The property is located in the River Mountain PlanningDistrict.At its March 18,1999 meeting,by a unanimous
vote,the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the
Plan for this site.The Plan amendment was from Single
Family and Low Density Residential to Mixed Office
Commercial,Office,Multifamily and Park/Open Space.On
April 20,1999,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,993,approving the Land Use Plan Changes.This rezoning
request conforms to the recently approved Plan Change.The
2+acre tract shown as Mixed Office Commercial is not
included in this rezoning request.A planned development
will be filed at a later date for that site.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped,wooded,39k acre tract from R-2 Single Family,
MF-6 Multifamily and OS Open Space to 0-3 General Office,
MF-12 Multifamily and OS Open Space.The northern 18.9 acre
portion is proposed to be rezoned from R-2,MF-6 and OS to
OS.The middle 10.4 acre portion is proposed to be rezoned
from R-2 and MF-6 to MF-12.The southern 9.6 acre portionisproposedtoberezonedfromR-2 to 0-3.No specific
development is proposed at this time.
The current zoning of the property is as follows:
4.13+acres zoned OS
16.39+acres zoned MF-6
19+acres zoned R-2
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6681
The resulting reclassification will be as follows:
18.92+acres zoned OS
10.4+acres zoned MF-12
9.6+acres zoned 0-3
The property is located north of Cantrell Road,between the
Pankey Community and Walton Heights-Candlewood.A 100 foot
wide Entergy easement bisects the northeast corner of thesite.This easement and additional undeveloped property
separate the property from the Walton-Heights Candlewood
neighborhood.Portions of the property to the south,
between this site and Cantrell Road,are undeveloped,
including the future site of the Pankey Community Center.A
couple of single family homes at the north end of IvesStreetarenearthesoutheastcornerofthesubject
property.The OS zoning will be nearest these homes.The
Candlewood Shopping Center and an area of undeveloped 0-2
property abut the site on the west.The R-2 property to theeastisheavilywoodedandundeveloped.
The proposed rezoning conforms to the recently amended Land
Use Plan and is compatible with uses and zoning in the area.
Zoning the 18.9+acre tract to OS will preserve a heavily
wooded hillside and will provide an appropriate buffer
between any development on this site and nearby residential
properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request,as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
The applicant was present.There were several interested
parties present,both in opposition and in support of the
item.A petition of opposition containing 72 names had been
received by staff and forwarded to the commissioners.Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
Jim Hathaway,the applicant,addressed the Commission and
outlined the following five reasons why the rezoning should
be approved:
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6681
1.This is not a piecemeal application.An attempt has been
made to look at the land use within this area and the
surrounding area.
2.This application has staff support.
3.This application exactly matches the previous Land Use
Plan Amendment which was approved by the Commission and
the City Board.
4.The rezoning represents a zoning pattern that is
reflective of a good land use pattern,with uses reducing
in intensity as the property moves away from Cantrell
Road.
5.Nearly 19 acres of the site are being zoned open space
which preserves the wooded hillside and serves as a
buffer.
Gerald Dienel,of 13701 Rivercrest,spoke in opposition.He
stated that the increased density of development would add
to traffic woes on Cantrell Road.He stated that he would
prefer to see an actual development plan.
Prentis Miller of 4916 Ives Street,Elvin Miller of 5009
Josephine Street and Selma Miller Douglas of 13640 Cantrell
Road spoke in opposition to the rezoning.Selma Douglas
made reference to the petition of opposition and read from a
portion of the petition.She voiced concerns about traffic
on Cantrell Road.
Belver Nelson,of 5204 Ives Road,spoke in opposition and
expressed concern about traffic on Cantrell Road.
David Werling,of 13801 Rivercrest Drive,stated that he
would prefer to see a development plan.
Charles Nickerson,of 10570 Bainridge,stated that he felt
the proposed rezoning offered an excellent transition from
Cantrell Road to open space on the north.Mr.Nickerson
stated that he felt the plan protected the area from further
commercial development.
Bill Mauldin,president of the Walton Heights-Candlewood
Neighborhood Association,stated that he was not opposed to
the rezoning.He stated that the association would like to
4
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6681
work with the developer throughout the process to arrive at
a project that is acceptable to all parties.
Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission and responded to
several concerns that had been voiced by those in
opposition.He stated that,contrary to the petition
presented by Ms.Douglas,the property was not in Pankey and
did not include any of the Pankey neighborhood.He stated
that this rezoning would not increase taxes on the nearby
residences and nothing about the rezoning would cause
residents of Pankey to lose their homes.Mr.Hathaway
stated that the traffic generated by this development would
be a small percentage of the volume that Cantrell Road is
designed to accommodate.
In response to a cpxestion from Commissioner Putnam,Mr.
Hathaway stated that access to the site would be off of
Cantrell Road at a point to be determined later.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,spoke in
support of the rezoning.Mr.Lawson stated that the
proposed rezoning pattern was superior to that currently in
place.Mr.Lawson made note of the proposed 19+acres of
open space zoning.He stated that the property would still
have to be reviewed by the Commission for platting and,more
than likely,site plan review.
Commissioners Putnam and Berry voiced their support for the
proposal.
A motion was made to approve the rezoning recpxest,as filed.
The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,1 noe and
2 absent.
5
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6682
Owner:Martha Garcia
Applicant:Martha Garcia
Location:3805 West Street
Request:Rezone from R-2 to R-7A andsiteplanreviewforplacementofamanufacturedhome.
Purpose:Placement of 1980 or newer
single-wide,manufactured home
Size:.26 acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped,wooded lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family;zoned R-2
South —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2
East —Single Family;zoned R-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
No Comments.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA Bus Route extends down West 36 Street,2 blocks to
the north.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The Westbrook,John Barrow,Campus Place and Kensington
Place Neighborhood Associations,all owners of property
within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300
feet were notified of the rezoning and site plan review
request.
June 10,1999
I
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6682
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The property is located in the I-430 Planning District.The
Land Use Plan recommends Single Family for the site.R-7Aisasinglefamilyusedistrictwhichconformstothe
adopted plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .26 acrelotfromR-2 Single Family to R-7A Manufactured HomeDistrictandtoapproveasiteplanforplacementof a 1980+
single wide manufactured home on the lot.
The property is located at the western edge of the John
Barrow Neighborhood in an area comprised of single family
homes on typically sized R-3 and R-2 zoned lots.An area of
undeveloped,R-2 zoned property extends to the south.Older
single family homes are adjacent to the north and east.A
newer single family subdivision is developing across WestStreet,to the west.The nearest single family homes in the
area range from older,frame structures to newer brick and
frame structures.A few other manufactured and mobile homes
are scattered throughout the larger area around this site.
The R-7A manufactured home district recognizes a need'or
manufactured home placement in the City.This district
provides for ownership of structure and lot for those homes
approved by the department of housing and urban development
under Title VI of Public Law 93-383,USC 5401 et seq.The
permitted use of a lot zoned R-7A is either one manufactured
home or one on-site constructed dwelling per lot.
The applicant is required to submit a site plan for review
by the Planning Commission at the time of the rezoning
request.The proposed home must meet the required front,rear and side yard setbacks of 25 feet,25 feet and 5 feet
respectively.Placement of the home must meet the followingsitingcriteria:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen
(14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport features.c.Permanent foundation.
2
June 10,1999
I
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6682
d.Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the
neighborhood.
e.Underpinning with permanent materials.f.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
g.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standards.
The home is required to be placed on permanent foundation
supports with anchorage complying with the City's building
codes.
The applicant has proposed to place a 1980+single-wide
manufactured home on the lot.The home meets or exceeds all
required setbacks.A single driveway will access the site
from West Street.The maximum sized home proposed is 16'
80'lthough it may be shorter than 80 feet in length.
Staff believes the proposed home to be a reasonable use of
the property.R-7A is a single family zoning district which
conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-7A rezoning.Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan for
placement of a manufactured home on the lot subject to the
siting criteria established in Section 36-262(d)(2)and
anchorage complying with the City'building codes.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 6,1 999)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and
briefly described the proposal.
There was no further discussion and the Committee forwarded
the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
The applicant,Martha Garcia,was present and spoke to the
Commission through Armando Martinez,a Spanish language
interpreter.There were several objectors present.Staff
3
June 10,1999
ZTEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6682
had received several telephone calls and 1 letter in
opposition to the request.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had sent
the required notice of public hearing 5 days prior to the
public hearing,not 15 days as required by the Commission's
bylaws.The Commission made note of the number of objectors
present as well as the number of telephone calls and the
letter regarding the issue.A motion was made to waive the
bylaws and to accept the notice as performed by the
applicant.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
Staff then presented the item and recommended approval of
the R-7A zoning request and of the site plan for placement
of a single-wide manufactured home subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation
above.
Martha Garcia briefly addressed the Commission and asked for
approval of her application.She stated that the home would
be a 1999 model.Zn response to a question from
Commissioner Adcock,Ms.Garcia stated that she would try to
make the home fit in with the neighborhood.She stated that
she wanted to be a good neighbor.
Sandy Becker,president of the Westbrook Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition to the item stating that
the neighborhood was specifically opposed to mobile homes.
Mr.Becker stated that he had a petition of opposition with
40 signatures.(Staff did not receive the petition)Mr.
Becker stated that Westbrook was not opposed to Ms.Garcia
as a person but to her proposed home.
Craig Ford,a home builder in the Stonehedge development
adjacent to West Street,spoke in opposition to the item.
Vince Crawford,a real estate agent with listings in the
area,spoke in opposition.
Norma Walker,president of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition.
Willene Lensing,of 3800 Weldon Avenue,spoke in opposition,
stating that this application was the beginning of an
"invasion"of mobile homes.
4
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6682
Jo Carson,of 3723 West Street,spoke in opposition.She
stated that she felt the proposed manufactured home would
cause property values in the area to decrease.
Ms.Garcia told the Commission that she had already
purchased the land and made a down payment on the home.She
stated that she felt the proposed home would fit in with the
neighborhood because there were other similar homes in the
area.A neighbor responded that there were not a lot of"trailers"in the area.
In response to a question from Commissioner Berry,Steve
Giles of the City Attorney's Office,discussed the Federal
Regulations regarding manufactured homes.Mr.Giles stated
that manufactured homes could not be denied based on
construction standards.He stated that cities may regulate
the placement of manufactured homes through zoning and site
plan criteria and that cities may initiate aesthetic
standards to help assure compatibility.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated
that the issue was an R-7A rezoning request and the
Commission should consider the impact of the rezoning on the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Berry stated that the city must address the
issue of affordable homes,including manufactured homes.
A discussion then followed between the Commission and staff
in which staff outlined the different ways that the Code
addressed single-wide vs.multisectional manufactured homes
and the siting criteria for manufactured homes.
It was noted that the applicant was proposing a 1,280 squarefoothome,similar in size to the new,1,300 square foot
homes being built in Stonehedge Subdivision to the west of
the site.
A motion was made to approve the rezoning and site plan.
The vote was 5 ayes,2 noes,2 absent and 2 abstaining
(Putnam,Adcock).The motion failed due to the lack of
6 votes.
After a brief break,during which some of those persons in
opposition had left.A motion was made to expunge the
previous vote.That motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes,1 noe and 2 absent.
5
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6682
A motion was made to approve the rezoning request and thesiteplan.The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
1 noe,2 absent and 2 abstaining (Putnam,Adcock).
6
June 10,1999
I
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6683
Owner:Jon Paul Nichol
Applicant:Vanessa and Byron New
Location:17415 Lawson Road
Request:Rezone a portion of this site
to C-1 and approve a
conditional use permit for
furniture repair.
Purpose:To build new furniture repair
business on the site.
Size:Total:2.08 acres;
proposed for C-1:1.0+acres
Existing Use:Single wide mobile home on rear
portion of tract
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family,manufactured home;zoned R-2
South —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2
East —Undeveloped;zoned R-2 and various commercial;
zoned C-1
West —Single Family on large tracts;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Lawson Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements
to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not served by CATA.
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6683
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
There is no neighborhood association in this area outside of
the city limits.All owners of property within 200 feet of
the site were notified of the rezoning and conditional use
permit requests.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
At its April 29,1999 meeting,the Planning Commission
approved expanding the neighborhood commercial node at
Lawson and Sullivan Roads westward to encompass the northern
'c of this site.The Board of Directors is scheduled to act
on the plan amendment at its June 1,1999 meeting.The Plan
Amendment was a direct result of the applicant'request to
rezone the north half of his property to C-1 for a proposed
furniture repair business.The request conforms to the
recently amended land use plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The requests before the Commission are to rezone the north
1+acre of this R-2 single family zoned 2.08+acre tract to
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and to approve a conditional use
permit to allow for a furniture repair business to be
located on the C-1 zoned portion.An older single wide
manufactured home is located on the southern half of thetract.The manufactured home will be occupied by the
applicant and this portion of the site will remain zonedR-2.The applicant proposes to construct a new,40'
80'uildingonthenorthhalfofthesite.
The property is located outside of the city limits but
within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction.Theextraterritorialboundaryislocated700-800 feet west of
this site.The area is very rural in nature with the
predominate land uses being single family homes on largetractsandlargetractsofundevelopedproperty.A small
commercial node is located just east of this site,at theintersectionofLawsonandSullivanRoads.Several small
businesses are located at that intersection.The properties
immediately adjacent to the east,west and south of the site
are undeveloped.
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6683
On April 29,1999,the Planning Commission recommended
approval of an amendment to the Crystal Valley District Land
Use Plan to expand the Neighborhood Commercial Node at
Lawson and Sullivan Roads westward to encompass the north
half of this property.The Board of Directors is scheduled
to act on the plan amendment at its June 1,1999 meeting.
The Plan Amendment was initiated by the applicant to
accommodate his C-1 rezoning request for a furniture repair
business.
C-1 is the appropriate zoning designation for the site based
on the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation.
The applicant proposes to construct a new 40'80'uilding
on the site to house his furniture repair business which is
currently located farther east on Lawson Road.Furniture
repair is a conditional use in the C-1 district.The
business will be located on the northern half of the
property.The applicant will live in the manufactured home
which is located on the south half of the site.A gravel
driveway provides access to the site off of Lawson Road.
The applicant will construct a small,paved parking lot off
of this driveway to accommodate customers at the business.
His business is not a high traffic generator and 4-5 parking
spaces should be sufficient.
This site would be permitted to have a ground-mounted sign
which is 36 feet tall and 160 square feet in area,based on
allowable signage in the commercial zones.Staff believesitwouldbeappropriatetorestrictsignagetothatallowed
in office zones due to the rural,predominately residential
nature of the area.Ground mounted signs in the office
zones are limited to 6 feet in height and 64 square feet in
area.Staff believes this sign limitation would help the
proposed development be more compatible with the
neighborhood.
The applicant has indicated a desire to preserve as many
trees as possible on the site.The specific location of the
small parking lot may need to be moved to accommodate right-
of-way dedication for Lawson Road and the applicant'desire
to preserve trees.
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6683
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-1 zoning.Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use
permit to allow furniture repair on the C-1 zoned portion of
the site subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with Public Works Comments
2.Compliance with the City'Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
3.Construction of a 5 space parking lot
4.Signage is to be limited to that allowing in office
zones.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 6,1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item andbrieflydescribedtheproposal.
There was no further discussion and the Committee forwarded
the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the C-1
zoning and of the conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the staff
recommendation above.The applicant offered no additional
comments.
The rezoning and conditional use permit were placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
June 10,1999
REZONZNG
ZTEM NO.:4 FZLE NO.:G-23-294
Name:Maple Street between West
17 and West 18 Street and
Alley in Block 13 Braddock's
Addition-right-of-way
Abandonment.
Location:Approximately 280 feet of
Maple Street south of West
17 Street and Alley in
Block 13 between South Oak
Maple Streets.
Owner/A licant:Stephens School /DCZ Robert
Brown
~Re est:To abandon the 25 feet wide
by 280 feet long street
right-of-way and 16 feet
wide by 240 feet long AlleyinBlock13Braddock's
Addition.
STAFF REVZEW:
1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa
Maple Street is not constructed as a public street.
2.Master Street Plan
There is no need for existing street on the Master
Street Plan.Oak and Pine Streets can provide adequate
access.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
Applicant agreed to dedicate additional right-of-way
for West 17 and 18 Streets.
4.Develo ment Potential
Little Rock School District plans to construct new
school and community center at this location.
1
June 10,1999
REZONING
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:G-23-2945.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is made up of a of single family
houses.
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and tenants were notified
of the public hearing.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Entergy —has no objection to the abandonment.
ARKLA —has active gas line,which can be relocated.
Southwestern Bell —has no objection to the
abandonment.
Water Works —has 8 inch water mains in Maple Street R-
0-W that needs to be relocated at the developer
expense.
Wastewater Utility —has no objection.
Fire Department —has no objection.
Neighborhood and Planning —has no objection to
abandonment.
8.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Abandoning this street will have no adverse effects on
the public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Maple Street,between 17 "and
18 Streets,and alley in Block 13 abandonment subject to:
1.Construction of all abutting street improvements in
conjunction with building permit.3.Public Works approval of street construction plans and
providing maintenance bond for all abutting streets
in conjunction with building permit.
2
June 10,1999
REZONING
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:G-23-294
PLANNING COMMISION ACTION June 10,1999
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:LU99-16-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek
Planning District
Location:13701 Pleasant Hill Road
Rereuest:SF to I
Source:U-Liner-Mid America Inc.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District
from SF to I.The proposed use for the property is
expansion of an existing non-conforming use operated by U-
Liner-Mid America Inc.The Industrial (I)land use category
encompasses a wide variety of manufacturing,warehousing
research and development,processing,and industry related
office and service activities.Industrial development
typically occurs on an individual tract basis rather than
according to an overall development plan.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Residential Single
Family and is approximately 7.5 acres in size.The site in
question is currently a non conforming industrial land use.
The location is in a rural area inside city limits with a
residential area located nearby to the southeast on Sherri
Marie Drive.
All of the property bordering the site in question lies in
an R-2 Single Family residential zone.A small MF-6 Multi
Family zone sits on the southwest corner of the Pleasant
Hill /Vimy Ridge Road intersection.C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial zoning covers a small tract of land on the
northwest corner of the County Line /Vimy Ridge Road
intersection.The northeast corner of the County Line /
Vimy Ridge Roads intersection consists of C-3 General
Commercial.
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-01
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
March 19,1996;a change was made from PK/OS to I on the
northeast corner of Alexander and Vimy Ridge Roads.
November 21,1995,a change was made from Mixed Residential
to SF west of Vimy Ridge Road between County Line Road and
Alexander Road (either side of Pleasant Hill Road).
The property in question lies in a Single Family (SF)land
use area.All of the properties surrounding the proponent'
property lie in a large Single Family (SF)future land use
area west of Vimy Ridge Road.The areas of Low DensityResidential(LDR)use located in the general vicinity of the
proponents property are at the intersection of Peasant Hill
Road /Vimy Ridge Road,the northwest corner of County Line
and Vimy Ridge Road,and on Vimy Ridge Road across from SubStationRoad.A small area of Commercial (C)serves as a
neighborhood commercial node on the north side of theintersectionofAlexanderandVimyRidgeRoad.To the north
a Mixed Office Commercial (MOC)land use area sits on the
south side of the intersection of Alexander and Vimy Ridge
Road.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pleasant Hill Road is shown as a collector street on the
Master Street Plan map.The plan shows that Pleasant Hill
Road will be extended to create a loop connecting Vimy Ridge
Road in the east to Alexander Road in the north.The plandesignatesa60'ide right-of-way for standard collectorstreets.Vimy Ridge and Alexander Roads are shown as minorarterialsontheMasterStreetPlanMap.The map shows
County Line Road as switching from minor arterial status tocollectorstatuswestofVimyRidgeRoad.Vimy Ridge,
Alexander,and County Line Roads are built as rural two laneroads.Pleasant Hill Road is a narrow paved drive.
PARKS
None.
BACKGROUND:
2
~June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-01
The most recent development in the area is the development
of commercial properties on the north side of County Line
Road at the intersection of Vimy Ridge Road.The site itselfisnotdirectlyaccessedbyaroaddesignedspecificallyfor
heavy vehicles.Pleasant Hill Road is currently listed as a
private street in the Street Index.The proposed future
land use for the property is expansion of an existing non-
conforming use.With the exception of the residential area
to the southeast,the rural land surrounding the proponent'
property remains undeveloped.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The Chicot West /I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan covers
the area under question.The Housing and Neighborhood
Revitalization Goal included an action statement of
concentrating urban development in the northern portion of
the district and saving the southern portion of the district
as an "urban reserve."The implementation portion of the
plan recommended the designation of a large tract of Single
Family (SF)land uses west of Vimy Ridge Road.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Otter Creek Homeowners Association,Quail Run
N.A.,Rolling pines N.A.,and Meyer Lane N.A.Staff has
received 3 comments from area residents.One is opposed to
the change and two were neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented the position of
the Planning Staff to the Planning Commission.
A conversation followed between the Commission and Staff
about issues concerning the merits of recommending Land Use
Plan amendment instead of a PID as a first step in the
process for the applicant to take.Mr.Minyard stated that
a PID could be done without a land use plan amendment.
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-16-01
However,the applicant wishes to expand a non-conforming
use.In order for the applicant to expand their non-
conforming uses,they must change the zoning that in turn
requires a land use plan change.
Mr.Bob Lowe of McGetrick 6 McGetrick spoke in support of
the application representing the applicant.The applicant
uses the property in question for sales and distribution.
The applicant wishes to construct buildings for research and
development.Manufacturing does not take place on the site
nor will it do so in the future.
Mr.Jerry Zerkel,14101 Pleasant Hill Road,spoke in
opposition to the application.Stated that U-Liner bought
property from an excavation company three years ago and
expanded industrial and offices uses at the site.
Mr.Gary Briggs,14103 Pleasant Hill Road,spoke in
opposition to the application.Mr.Briggs questioned the
legality of the non-conforming use of the property and felt
that such uses at this site degraded the residential
character of the neighborhood and adversely effected
property values.
Vice Chair Adcock asked why the staff report did not include
information about the former business located at the site.
A conversation followed between the Commission and staff
concerning code enforcement issues relative to the site.
Vice Chair Adcock stated preference for a PID over a land
use change.A conversation followed between the Commission
and Staff concerning the issues surrounding the possibility
of a PID at the sight.Mr.Walter Malone,Planning Manager,
explained the process and stated that consideration of the
proposed land use plan amendment was merely the first step
in a process to allow expansion of the applicant's business.If the land use amendment is turned down,the applicant
could apply for a PID.If the PID failed,the business
could still operate but could not expand.A conversation
followed in which Mr.Zerkel stated that the neighborhood
did not oppose continuance of the business and Mr.Bob Lowe
expected that his client would apply for a PID.
A motion was made for approval of the land use plan change
and failed with a vote of 0 ayes,9 noes and 2 absent.
4
~June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:LU99-17-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Crystal Valley
Planning District
Location:17503 Lawson Road
~Re eet:SF to NC
Source:Terry Moore
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley PlanningDistrictfromSFtoNC.
The applicant wishes to establish a seasonal snow cone shop
on the property.Neighborhood Commercial (NC)categoryincludeslimitedsmallscalecommercialdevelopmentin close
proximity to a neighborhood,providing goods and services tothatneighborhoodmarketarea.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property,located outside city limits,is currently
zoned R-2 and is approximately 2.1 acres in size.The
immediate neighboring zoning on all sides is zoned R-2
Single Family Residential.Near by to the east is a small
area zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial surrounding the
Lawson/Sullivan Road intersection.On the north side ofthatintersection,is an area zoned C-1 occupied by a
backhoe contracting business and a coin operated car wash.
On the southeast corner is a vacant commercial lot with two
small buildings zoned C-1.Located on the southwest corneroftheintersectionisabuildingthatcontainsacustom
home furniture upholstery shop and a flea market/auction
zoned C-1.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
February 4,1992,a change was made from Single Family (SF)to Neighborhood Commercial (NC)at the intersection of
Lawson Road and Sullivan Road.
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-17-02
On all four sides of the site lie Single Family (SF)future
land use areas.To the east is a pending land use amendment
for the property at 17415 Lawson Road (LU99-17-01)before
the City Board
that may extend the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)land uses
toward the west.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
The document shows both Lawson Road and Sullivan Road as a
minor arterials.Both are two lane rural roads with open
ditches.
PARKS:
The master parks plan does not show any existing or proposed
parks in the area.
BACKGROUND:
This section of Lawson Road lies in a rural area of Pulaski
County and outside Little Rock city limits.The City
established the current Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
boundary that crosses Lawson Road on March 1,1988.The
area in question lies fully within the ETJ boundary.In
1992 the zoning of the property surrounding the intersection
of Lawson Road and Sullivan Road changed from the initial
R-2 Single Family Residential zoning established in 1988,to
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
If the pending land use amendment for the property for
17415 Lawson Road is approved by the City Board,the NC uses
on the southwest corner of the intersection will extend
further to the west to abut the current proponent's
property.The result of both amendments is a strip
development pattern along Lawson Road.The district plan
concentrated commercial development on major intersections
to prevent strip commercial development.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
None.
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-17-02
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Crystal Valley Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented the position of
the Planning Staff to the Planning Commission.
Mr.Lawson mentioned that the applicant might need a CUP for
a seasonal snow cone shop and stated the need for a more
flexible process for a seasonal business.
After discussion between the Planning Commission and staff,
Mr.Lawson stated that the applicant intended to build a
permanent building for a seasonal snow cone shop and that it
was not a temporary structure.Mr.Lawson stated that
almost anything could be sold out of a commercial structure.
Commission Chair Ernest asked if this was more of a long-
range issue to prevent the stripping out of Lawson Road.
Mr.Minyard stated that the Neighborhood Commercial at the
intersection of Lawson and Sullivan Road was intended to be
a commercial node and not as the beginning of strip
development.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion for approval of the land use
plan change and failed with a vote of 0 ayes,9 noes and
2 absent.
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:7
NAME:South End Area Improvement Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In the spring of 1998,Housing and Neighborhood Programs as well
as Planning and Development met with the following neighborhood
associations about starting a neighborhood plan in their area:
Community Outreach Neighborhood Association,Meadowbrook
Community Club,South End neighborhood Association,South End
Neighborhood Developers and South Little Rock Community
Developers Association.A "Town Hall"meeting was held on May 2,
1998 at the Thrashers Boys Club.Invitations were sent to every
residence in the area as well as local businesses and churches.
This meeting included a brief summary of the process of a
neighborhood plan and break out sessions in which useful
information was gathered from the residents and stakeholders.
The raw data that was noted at the Town Hall meeting was reviewed
by the steering committee.The steering committee met every
other week for the next twelve months and discussed various
topics of concern in depth.From these meetings goals,
objectives,and action statements were developed and refined.
After a draft plan was finished,a "Plan Preview"was held at the
South End Alert Center.This second "town hall meeting"was to
present the plan back to the residents and business leaders.
Every person that had previously attended a meeting and all
businesses and churches received notice of the meeting.Comments
that were garnered from the meeting were discussed and action
statements were changed to reflect the input.
As part of the neighborhood planning efforts,changes to the
Future Land Use Plan and to the Zoning of numerous properties are
pending.Staff recommended approval of these items that were
heard at the April 29,1999 Planning Commission meeting and were
approved by the Planning Commission.These items will be heard
at the June 1,1999 Board of Directors meeting.
At this time,the steering committee requests that the City via
the Little Rock Planning Commission and the Board of Directors
will accept the action plan as a resolution and help the
neighborhood work toward the goals presented in the plan.
one 10,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
A Neighborhood Action Plan for the South End Area Improvement
Plan.
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented the item of the
Planning Staff to the Planning Commission.
Mr.Minyard gave a brief history of the process,described the
plan,and introduced the committee.
Mrs.Ellen Carpenter,Chairperson of the Steering Committee,gave
a brief overview of the goals and objectives of the plan.Mrs.
Carpenter listed the plan goals of improving the neighborhood
through stricter zoning controls,improvement of housing
conditions,revitalization of neighborhood structures,
improvements of infrastructure,improvement of public safety,
improvement of parks,and encouragement of economic development.
Commissioners expressed praise for the steering committee.
Vice Chair Adcock asked Bob Turner,the assistant Director of
Public Works for definitions of projects listed for
infrastructure improvements.
Mr.Turner defined the process involved in prioritizing projects.
He also expressed gratitude to the South End Steering Committee
for the time spent in prioritizing of the projects.He also
expressed concerns about fulfilling the projects due to funding
limitations.
Commissioner Faust expressed hope that the neighborhood
associations would stay active to foster the implementation of
the plan.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion for approval of the neighborhood
action plan and passed with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
2
RESOLUTION NO.125
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,AREGLNSAS IN
SUPPORT OF THE SOUTH END AREA IMPROVEMENT
PLAN.
WHEREAS,the area residents and NeighborhoodAssociationsformedaSteeringCommitteetodevelop aneighborhoodPlan;and
WHEREAS,the residents and other "stakeholders"in theareparticipatedinaTownHallmeetingtodiscussandidentifyareaconcernstoincludeintheplan;and
WHEREAS,After several months of work by the Planning
Committee,a set of goals and objectives were developed andpresentedtotheneighborhoodataPlanPreviewmeeting;
and
WHEREAS,this Plan (Goals,Objectives and Action
Statements)provides a way for both neighborhood based
groups and others working in and around the neighborhood to
advance the desires and meet the needs of the residents.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planing Commission of the City ofLittleRockdoessupportthevisionandgoalsasexpressesintheSouthEndAreaImprovementPlan.
ADOPTED:
g /o
ATTEST'
RETAR CHAI
June 10,1999
I
Item No.:8
Name:Oak Forest Area Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In early 1998,the City of Little Rock and the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR)joined together with leaders of
five Oak Forest area neighborhood associations to discuss the
development of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan.In March 1998,
a Town Hall meeting was held to provide residents,property
owners,and business owners with the opportunity to contribute
ideas on issues of importance in the plan.Attendees of the Town
Hall meeting broke up into smaller groups to brainstorm issues to
be considered for the plan.
After the Town Hall meeting,a steering committee was formed.
The committee consisted of residents and business owners who
expressed interest in serving and committing to the process of
developing the actual plan.The steering committee met bi-
monthly for over six months.One of its first responsibilities
was to participate in informational meetings sponsored by various
city departments,such as Police,Planning,and Parks and
Recreation.These and other relevant departments came before the
steering committee to describe the responsibilities of their
respective departments and to address issues of importance to the
committee.
The next step for the steering committee was to use the
information taken from the Town Hall meeting and from other
sources,such as the results of a telephone survey conducted by
UALR to determine those issues most important to the residents,
property owners and business owners.Those issues became the
points used to develop the goals,objectives and action
statements.
It became apparent early in the planning process that the
steering committee wanted to develop a plan that could be used tofostertherevitalizationoftheOakForestarea.Specifically,their draft plan addresses Community Image,Parks and Recreation,
Public Safety,Housing,Transportation and Traffic,Youth
Programs,Economic Development,and Infrastructure.The
residents are very concerned about the lack of infrastructure
improvements in their neighborhoods;the elimination of
"eyesores"and better enforcement of city codes as they relate to
maintenance of housing;adequate activities for the neighborhood
youth;improved relations with police;more home ownership;
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)
better enforcement of speed limits;and sustainability of the Asher
Avenue and 12""Street commercial corridors.
While most of the other neighborhood plans have included proposed
changes to land use and zoning,the Oak Forest steering committee
decided to review the land use and zoning for their area
independent of the plan as part of an implementation process.As a
part of implementation,the committee may give a more in-depth
review of the land use and zoning in the area and suggest
modifications that would better reflect the goals of the
neighborhood.
In April 1999,a second Town Hall meeting was held to present the
goals,objectives and action statements to the neighborhood.It
was after this Town Hall meeting that the steering committee was
able to finalize its draft and identify priorities for each of the
eight goals.
The Oak Forest Area Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee is
presenting to the Planning Commission and Board of Directors a
draft plan with hopes that it will be supported by resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution of support.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Tony Bozynski,Assistant Director,Director of Planning and
Development introduced the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan for
endorsement by the Planning Commission.He presented a map and
described the boundaries for the plan area.He also explained the
University of Arkansas at Little Rock's (UALR)role in the process.
UALR offered a lot of technical assistance to neighborhood through
the process.
Mr.Bozynski gave an overview of processmentioning the initial
Town Hall meeting in March 1998;the establishment of the steering
committee;and the development of the goals,objectives and action
statements.Once the committee felt they were to a point of having
a good draft,it was presented back to neighborhood in a final Town
Hall meeting for community buy-off and then the steering committee
went back and identified top priorities,as identified in the
plan.He noted that Staff feels this is a "doable"plan and that
many action statements can be reasonably accomplished within a one
to three year period.
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)
Hugh Earnest,Chairman of the Planning Commission spoke briefly
missing an opportunity to provide upfront for all neighborhood
association detail information from rental inspection program.He
explained that he was going to become more insistent on getting
that information to the steering committees early in the planning
process.He commended Mr.Bozynski for acknowledging that the
Rental Inspection Program information would be put in the plan
before its final form.
Tony Bozynski agreed with Chairman Earnest's concerns and explained
that the rental inspection districts are large and include many
more neighborhoods than Oak Forest.He said that he has asked that
the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs start breaking
the data out by planning areas and assured the commission that it
would be a part of Oak Forest's final draft.
John Fisher,Chairman of the Steering Committee,Oak Forest
Neighborhood Plan identified himself as the chairman of the
steering committee and as a resident of the Oak Forest community.
He said that Oak Forest wants what mostly every other neighborhood
in Little Rock wants —safety,excellent housing,and
infrastructure.He continued by saying that Oak Forest filled
their plans with things that would not require the City's coiffures
to be full of money.Instead,their plan calls for many prideinstillingprojects.
Mr.Fisher described Oak Forest as a community on the brinkmeaningitcouldteetereitherupordown.Many things that are going on
in Oak Forest,such as new housing,community gardening,and
improvements at Curran-Conway Park,illustrate the neighborhood's
commitment to getting it back on the upswing.
Commissioner Earnest asked if the future land use plan was to be
amended through the adoption of this document or if it will come at
a future date.
Mr.Bozynski explained that a review of the land use and zoning
will be done as part of an implementation process.
Herb Hawn,Planning Commissioner,expressed concern that the plan
does not address the revitalization of Asher Avenue.He did notfeelthatthebusinesseswereinvited,asked,consulted or involved
in the development of the plan.
Mr.Fisher explained that businesses were given invitations and
many opted not to accept.He alluded to a group of business owners
along Asher Avenue who are working on a business plan for the area
and stressed that this steering committee did not want to "reinvent
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)
the wheel".The committee offered to help this business group as
needed.He also stressed that churches and businesses were invited
and in some cases participated in the plan development.
Commissioner Hawn encourage the steering committee to consider
reaching out to businesses in the area because he felt the time was
right since Asher's revitalization efforts might be improving.
Craig Berry,Planning Commissioner,reemphasized Commissioner
Hawn'concerns and said that he was disappointed that the phone
survey was directed only to household (not including businesses andinstitutions).
Commissioner Berry also expressed concern about a statement in the
Market Study prepared by Urban Planning Associates,Inc.It said
that "absolutely no rezoning or conditional use recpxests should be
granted in the residential portion (of a two to six block area ofFairParkAvenuetoUniversityAvenue)that are not consistent with
single-family home ownership."He felt like it discouraged
neighborhood commercial or mixed-use projects.
(After some dialogue between staff,Mr.Fisher,Commissioner Berry)Judith Faust,Planning Commissioner said that she thought the
statement pointed to a specific area so that tight structure may be
focused on that strip.She said that there could be other parts in
the plan which do encourage mixed-use,small scale,neighborhood
commercial development.
Mr.Fisher agreed with Commissioner Faust.
Commissioner Faust asked if the Oak Forest Initiative (OFI)would
be taking the lead on implementation of the plan and asked if OFI
would be represented by people from all five neighborhood
associations.
Mr.Fisher assured her that OFI would lead in the implementation of
the plan and would be represented by all associations.
A motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution supporting
the Oak Forest Neighborhood Action Plan as submitted in Item 48.
The item passed 9-0 (Commissioners Nunnley and Muse were absent).
4
RESOLUTION NO.126
AN RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE C ITY OF L ITTLE ROCK I ARKANSAS IN
SUPPORT OF THE OAK FOREST AREA
NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS,the area Residents and Neighborhood
Associations formed a Planning Committee to develop a
Neighborhood Plan;and
WHEREAS,the residents and other "stakeholders"in theareaparticipatedinaTownHallmeetingtosetavisionandidentifyissuestoincludeinplan;and
WHEREAS,after several months of work by the Planning
Committee,a set of goals,objectives,and action statements
were developed and presented to the neighborhood at several
meetings and were distributed to various groups andindividualsintheneighborhood;and
WHEREAS,this Plan (Goals,Objectives,and Action
Statements)provides a way for both neighborhood-based groupandothersworkinginandaroundtheneighborhoodtoadvancethedesiresandmeettheneedsoftheresidents,propertyowners,and business owners;and,
NOW I THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANN ING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,AIUCANSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planning Commission of the City ofLittleRockdoessupportthevisionandgoalsasexpressedintheOakForestAreaNeighborhoodActionPlan.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
C T Y CHAI
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:9
Name:Downtown Planning Efforts
STAFF REPORT:
The report serves as a guide to combine four planning efforts
into a clear unified document designed to address the planning
issues effecting the Little Rock Central Business District.The
report combines the following:Downtown Little Rock:Framework
for the Future,Downtown Corridors Plan,Six Bridges Framework
Plan,and Capitol Zoning District:Capitol Area Framework Master
Plan.Other studies underway effecting the future of Downtown
include transportation planning for a light-rail system,analysis
for the proposed Clinton Presidential Library,and economic
research for housing and new development in Downtown.
The Downtown Little Rock:Framework for the Future,prepared by a
committee of stakeholders and the Planning Staff,report
identifies major issues for the defined Downtown area,with
special attention given to a vision for downtown,objectives and
recommended actions.The Downtown Corridors Plan,written by the
UALR Donaghey Project for Urban Studies and Design,proposes the
redevelopment of a network of key corridors,as an urban design
strategy,to help restructure and revitalize Downtown's urban
form.The Six Bridges Framework Plan,written by Donaghey and a
team of consultants,addresses the prominence of both sides of
the Arkansas River as a catalyst for Downtown Revitalization and
presents recommendations for guiding its long-term growth.The
Capitol Area Framework Master Plan,developed for the Capitol
Zoning Planning Commission by consultants,addresses the area
surrounding the State Capitol and specifies development
regulations for the Capitol Zoning District Commission to
administer.
The Framework for the Future is a broad and general document by
nature.It recommends incentives for (re)development that
stresses mixed use and reinforce the basic ideas and concepts for
a Downtown.The other three documents address more specific
issues or areas.Each within the over arching issues presented
by the Framework in which private development is encouraged and
directed toward the community'vision for Downtown.
P'une 10,1999
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
The Report differs from the four plans through viewing Downtown
as a unique business district serving not only as the heart ofLittleRock,but as the Central Business District of the State of
Arkansas.The compilation of the four planning efforts create a
comprehensive framework for the future development of downtown.
At this time City Staff hopes the City via the Little Rock
Planning Commission and Board of Directors will accept the
downtown plan and help the area work toward the goals presented
in the report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Tony Bozynski,Assistant Director,Department of Planning and
Development,described the Downtown Little Rock Framework Plan as
an effort to reach closure on planning efforts that have been inexistenceforacoupleofyears.It consists of four plans,identified as the Downtown Little Rock Framework for the Future,
the Downtown Corridor Study,the Six Bridges Framework Plan,and
the Capitol Area Framework Master Plan.The Capitol Area
Framework Master Plan falls within the Capitol Zoning Planing
Area and the Capitol Zoning Commission recently adopted it.
Mr.Bozynski described how the plans came to be coordinated into
an overall planning document for Downtown Little Rock and
explained that staff is asking for support of the goals and
visions of all four documents so that there will be a recognized
strategy for Downtown.
Mr.Bozynski continued with an overview of the history of the
current Downtown Plan and the process for developing the
Framework.He explained that,through the Future Little Rock
process,a suggestion to develop a new Mater Plan for the
Downtown area was made and staff began this process with a
stakeholders meeting.The plan area was divided into 4 sub-area
(shown on map)for planning purposes:State Capitol Area,Central
Business District,MacArthur Park,and Hangar Hill area.
Planning Committees were established for three of the four sub-
areas.Those committees were able to identify the issues of
concern for Downtown Little Rock and after several months twelvecriticalissueswereidentifiedandavisionwascreated.A
Steering Committee was also formed and it represented all of thethreeplanningareas.The Steering Committee addressed thecriticalissueswithactionsandtriedtorefinethevision
statement.It also looked at possible land use changes and the
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
possibility of new zoning for downtown area.Five meetings were
held throughout the City at which the Framework for the Future
Plan was presented.
Mr.Bozynski described the plan as general in nature and
summarized several recommendations that could be taken from it:
new zoning for downtown;urban design concept for major
corridors;development of light rail system;mixed use downtown;
and creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment.He noted
that the light rail and urban design strategy studies are
complete and the zoning review is in process and may be ready for
presentation by September.
George Wittenberg,Director,UALR Donaghey Project for Urban
Studies and Design,detailed the Corridors Study and the Six
Bridges Framework Plan.He said that the framework Plan was a
process that included a lot of concepts.He felt that the
Commissioners were faced with figuring out how they would use
these plans when faced with making decisions about the various
applications,which are presented to them.He suggested that
they adopt an attitude or approach that would allow the planning
commission to ask applicants how their projects would reinforce
the City's vision for the Downtown area.
Hugh Earnest,Chairman of the Planning Commission stated that if
something like this were in place Axciom might have been
convinced to let people walk closer to the building.
Mr.Wittenberg continued with a slide presentation describing the
four plans.
Judith Faust,Planning Commissioner,was impressed with the
overlap and consistency of vision for all the plans and was
especially impressed with the name for the Six Bridges Framework
Plan.She asked that,for the record and in the interest of
history that Mr.Wittenberg remind the Commission where the name
came from.
Mr.Wittenberg explained that four years ago a plan was done for
the Riverfront Park in North Little Rock and Frances Ross was a
member of the group working on that study.She brought some old
photos of the area for that group to review and they noticed a
comment using the term "six bridges"written on the back of oneofthephotos.Everyone decided that it was a nice idea for a
name,not knowing that it would later be used for a bar and manyotherthings.He said that it places in people's minds an imagetothearea;thus,supporting the vision.
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
Kathy Wells introduced herself as a participant in the Framework
Planning Process for the Central Business sub-area.She wanted
to support the plan and focus attention on things that brought
residential areas to the table in the first place.She urged
that "we not get so wrapped up in our great vision that we
neglect grounding them in important realities."She said that
people can not live legally in an industrial zone,which half of
this area still is,and lenders are not sending money to put up
townhomes and apartments in residential areas that are illegally
zoned.She said that she is troubled to hear that meaningful
zoning changes will not be talked about until September and she
hopes that the Commission would advance that date.
Chairman Earnest said that he believed there was a challenge
before the commission to link the vision to the reality of all of
the players.At 9:25 p.m.,he was not sure that enough
discussion was had.He asked that the commission not act
summarily on this.
Mr.Wittenberg said that the plan is in two parts.Tonight's
presentation was about the vision part and the second part has to
do with implementation.He asked that the commission approve the
vision tonight to set into motion.Then the implementation could
be started —by the end of this year.
Bob Lowry,Planning Commissioner,expressed concern that four
commissioners were absent and that they barely had a quorum —so he
motioned to defer issue until next meeting.The motion was
seconded.
Richard Downing,Planning Commissioner,said that the commission
needs to start the visionor the commission will always be
reactive rather than proactive.
Chairman Earnest continued to stress that the commission needed
more time to discuss the implementation process of "selling thevision".
Commissioner Faust said that there is work to be done and that
the City ought to be leading not following on that work.She
continued by saying that the commission will never get enough
time in a public hearing,especially when they are discussed at
the end of the public agenda.She suggested the committees and
informal meetings are the avenue to address things such as these.
4
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
Commissioner Earnest said that if the commission could promise
not to drop this and plan to discuss these issues,then he would
support tonight.
Mr.Bozynski suggested that the next informal planning commission
meeting be devoted to this issue.He stressed that staff wouldlikefortheCommissiontoactontheresolutiontonight.
After further discussion regarding whether to act or not on the
resolution,Chairman Earnest agreed to act on the resolution
tonight if,by early December,the commission has addressed andiscomfortablewithimplementation.
The motion to defer failed (1-6).Herb Hawn,Planning
Commissioner,made a motion to "support the Downtown Little Rock
Framework Plan as presented in conceptual form realizing that wefeelthereisquiteabitmoreworktomaketheconceptintoaviabletoolthatwecanuse."The motion was seconded and passed(7-0).
5
I
RESOLUTION NO.127
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK ~AEUCANSAS IN SUPPORT OF THE
PLANS FOR THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN
LITTLE ROCK.
WHEREAS,a committee of "stakeholders"was formed to
develop a plan for Downtown;and
WHEREAS,after several months of work by the Planning
Committee,a set of goals and objectives was developed and
distributed to various groups and individuals in Downtown;
and
WHEREAS,this Downtown Framework (Goals,Objectives
and Action Statements)provides the basis on which
(re)development of Downtown can be achieved;and,
WHEREAS,the Donaghey Project for Urban Studies and
Design developed design concepts for various corridors in
Downtown;and
WHEREAS,the Downtown Framework and corridor design
concept were presented for comment at meetings throughout
the City;and,
WHEREAS,the Six Bridges Framework Plan by the
Donaghey Project for Urban Studies and Design and
consultants was developed with input from various
"stakeholders"over three meetings;and,
WHEREAS,the Capitol Area Framework Master Plan,
developed for the Capitol Zoning Commission by consultants
updates the previous standards in order to preserve the
Capitol Area has been reviewed and modified based on
comments from businesses and residents.
NOW ~THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANN ING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARIGLNSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planning Commission of the City ofLittleRockdoessupportthevisionandgoalsasexpressed
in the plans for the future of Downtown Little Rock.
ADOPTED:
6-pc-'tq
ATTEST:APPROVED:
SE TAR CHAI
June 10,1999
Item No.:10
Name:Stephens Area Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
Early in 1998,the City of Little Rock together with leaders of
five Stephen'area neighborhood associations joined to discuss
the development of the Stephens Area Neighborhood Action Plan.
All involved viewed the collaboration as an opportunity to unify
and revitalize the Stephens area.
On March 9,1998,the entire Stephens community —consisting of
residents,property owners,business owners,and civic leaders
were encouraged to attend a Town Hall meeting at the Garland
Elementary School.This meeting included a brief summary of the
process and elements of a neighborhood plan and involved break
out sessions in which useful information was gathered.The
purpose of the meeting was to solicit neighborhood-wide support
and feedback for the development of a plan.
In mid-1998,the steering committee was established.The
committee met once a month for the next twelve months and
discussed various topics in addition to all of the data that was
gathered from the Town Hall meeting.From these discussions,
elements of the plan were developed.
The plan,developed by the steering committee is based on their
personal knowledge,information provided by "experts",and the
results of the Town Hall meeting.It consists of background
information,demographic profile,zoning and land use,
circulation,goals,objectives,and action statements,future
land use,and infrastructure project classification.The
committee agreed on seven (7)general goals.The goals focus on
youth programs,economic development,traffic and transportation,
public safety,infrastructure,housing,and neighborhood
revitalization.As part of the neighborhood planning efforts,
changes to the Future Land Use Plan have been reviewed and
approved by the Board of Directors.
After a year developing a draft plan,the steering committee
intends to hold a second town hall meeting in mid-June of 1999.
The committee hopes the City via the Little Rock Planning
Commission and Board of Directors will accept the neighborhood
plan and help the neighborhood work toward the goals presented in
the plan.
,June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to the second town hall meeting still pending,Staff
recommends deferment of the resolution of support.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Staff reported that the second Town Hall meeting had been set for
June 21'"at Garland Elementary from 6:00 —7:30 p.m.
It was placed on Consent Agenda for deferral.The vote was
9 ayes,2 absent.
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO:Z-5820-A
NAME:Anthony School
LOCATION:7700 Ohio Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Anthony School
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use permit
at 7700 Ohio Street to allow for an
additional two story classroom building,an
increase in enrollment,and changes to the
front entrance on this property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The existing school is located on a 4 acre tract on the
north side of Ohio Street,between Ohio and Zowa streets,
two blocks west of Mississippi Avenue.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has existed at this location for approximately 25
years.This property and the surrounding property to the
north,west,and south are all zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and contain primarily single family homes.
Adjacent to the east the zoning is MF-12,Multifamily
Residential,containing a condominium complex.About one
block north and east of this site there is a large area of
commercial zoning and uses along Cantrell Road and
Mississippi Avenue.
The addition will be behind part of the existing building
along Ohio Street and will not be very visible from Ohio.
The first story will be below ground level on the east side.
A six to eight foot wood privacy fence already exists all
along the east property line and the new building will not
be taller than surrounding structures.Staff believes the
school should continue to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
Pune 10,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site has two entrance drives from Ohio Street and one
exit onto Iowa Street.Traffic flow is set up to be one-way
from Ohio towards Iowa.At peak times the entire driveway
area also serves as a drop off/pick up area from Ohio all
the way to Iowa.
Currently permanent parking is in three areas.There are 12
spaces in front between the school and Ohio.There are 5
spaces behind the library on the east side of the site.
There are 26 spaces along the west side of the site.There
are 27 temporary stopping spaces along the building side of
the north and west parking areas.Therefore,there are 43
on-site permanent spaces plus 27 temporary drop-off spaces.
After the addition the ordinance parking requirement will be
60 spaces,17 of which come specifically from drop-off
requirements.The addition and entrance change would remove
6 parking spaces,5 permanent and 1 temporary,leaving 38
permanent spaces and 26 temporary drop-off spaces for a
total of 64.Five (5)additional permanent spaces are
required.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet ordinance
requirements.Prior to a building permit being issued,a
detailed landscape plan for the area around the new building
must be approved by the Plans Review Specialist.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.At south side of original building,straight curb lineisrequired.
b.Ohio Street is a commercial street.A dedication of
right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline is required.c.Construct 4 street improvements to meet Master Street
Plans requirements for commercial street standards
including a 5 foot sidewalk.An additional 6 foot of
pavement on Ohio between the two existing driveways
would satisfy this requirement.
d.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:The LR Fire Department needs to evaluate this site
2
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)
to determine whether additional public and/or private fire
hydrants will be required.Contact the Water Works if
additional and/or larger meter(s)are required.
Wastewater:Sewer is available to this site and this
project has no adverse affect on the Utility's system.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AEKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Has asked for a 30 foot easement along the east
side of the property.Applicant will need to work out this
issue with the utility company.
Fire Department:Extend east side driveway to the end of
the new building.Show fire hydrants on the site plan.
CATA:This site is not directly served by a CATA bus route,
but routes ¹16 22 are near this site on Cantrell Road.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a Revised Conditional Use Permitforthis4acretractoflandtoamendacurrentconditional
use permit to allow for the addition of a two story,13,746
square foot classroom building on the east side of the
property,behind the library.A 976 square foot metal
building would be removed to make room for the new building.
Also proposed are changes to the front center entrance to
the existing building that would change the front line of
the building along Ohio Street and cause it to extend into
the front parking lot about eight feet.The applicant has
also asked for a deferral for any street improvements.
In May 1994 the school obtained a conditional use permit for
a phased expansion which added classrooms,a gymnasium,
library and playroom.The enrollment at that time was about
265 students.Now the enrollment is about 425 students.The
proposal states that:"This addition is not planned for an
increase in enrollment but will provide additional space for
the present enrollment of the school."Therefore,staff
proposes limiting enrollment to a maximum of 440 students
without further Planning Commission approval.
3
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)
The addition meets all siting requirements and is already
screened from residential areas to the north and east,which
are the only areas potentially affected by the addition.
Public Works has requested that the school's contribution to
the street improvements being made in this area of Ohio
Street consist of an additional six foot of pavement added
adjacent to Ohio Street in between the two existing school
driveways.This would provide additional drop off area and
help reduce the traffic problems that still exist at peak
times.Traffic congestion at peak times was a big issue at
the time of the original C.U.P.
Parking requirements consist of 60 spaces,17 of which come
from drop-off spaces.The site plan shows 38 permanent
spaces and 26 drop-off spaces which would be 5 permanent
spaces short of the ordinance requirement.Those additional
spaces could be located as parallel spaces in the widened
area between the driveways on Ohio.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable facility expansion
and remain compatible with the neighborhood as long as the
building matches existing construction and the Public
Works'equestedstreetimprovementsaremade.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with Public Works Comments.
b.Comply with the City's Landscape 6 Buffer ordinances.
c.If any exterior lighting is installed,it must be
directed downward and inward to the property and not
directed toward any residential area.
d.Provide 43 permanent parking spaces on site.
e.Maximum enrollment is to be limited to 440 students.
4
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 24,1999)
Frank Riggins was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments and explained what was
needed to meet the ordinance requirement for street improvements,i.e.6 feet of additional paved area between the two driveways
with curb,gutter and sidewalk meeting the ordinance.They
stated that nothing would be needed on Iowa Street.Public Works
also addressed the issue of 'benching'n the excavation for the
new building since it would be greater than a 15 foot cut.They
agreed they could support a variance request to not bench if
desired.
The applicant clarified for the fire department that the new
building would be attached to the existing building at bothstories.Mr.Riggins also stated that he would discuss with the
owners the issues brought up caused by the proposed change to the
front entrance.The applicant agreed to provide updated figuresforenrollmentandabreakdownofclassroomsintheadditionso
current parking requirements can be calculated.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item on to the full Commission forfinalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 10,1999)
Frank Riggins,Mehlburger Firm,a representative from the
architect firm of the Wilcox Group,along with two
representatives from the school,including Kay Patton the school
director,were present representing the application.There were
two registered citizens in attendance who had questions about the
proposal,not specific objections to it.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the
conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation."
Prior to this item being considered by the Commission,a meeting
was held outside the hearing room between the two registered
attendees,two other citizens in attendance,Mr.Riggins,the two
school representatives,and staff.They discussed questions and
issues the citizens had regarding this proposal and past issues.
The result was agreement by the school on several points:1.not
use Bonnie Brae as a regular point of access for construction
5
June 10,1999
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)
crews or equipment,nor use it for parking or material storage in
connection with the construction;2.limit hours of construction
to daytime hours;3.address the issues of noise from the gym and
lights shining onto abutting residential property;4.continue
the school's policy of not renting out the school facilities to
other organizations for activities not directly including the
school;5.to carefully review impacts of school functions on
residents of Bonnie Brae,especially to not prevent access for
residents to their street and driveways.Pauline Waters and
Ruthann Varner acknowledged later in the hearing their pleasure
with the discussion and satisfaction with agreements made by the
school.
The Chairman recognized the applicant and asked that the case be
presented.Frank Riggins stated agreement with most of Staff's
conditions and the agreements reached in the meeting with the
citizens.However,he did state the applicant's desire to obtain
a waiver to the requirement to widen Ohio for three main reasons:1.this 200 foot area just in front of the school is currently a
green area and would be the only part of the north side of Ohio
that would be widened and it wouldn't connect to anything;2.
there are driveways on either end of the area of Ohio that Public
Works wants widened,which the school feels adequately serve the
school's access and drop-off needs;3.the school for safety
reasons does not want children crossing the existing driveway in
front parallel to Ohio to get to the school from an additional
drop-off area along Ohio.
Mr.Turner spoke for Public Works regarding the boundary street
ordinance requirement for the school to widen Ohio to commercial
street standards.He stated that based on his observations
regarding the condition of the ground in the area in question,
and some past history regarding the area along Ohio,that it is
already used as a parking area,and therefore,should be widened
and paved.
Kay Patton stated they don't want people parking in the area
along Ohio and would like to see no parking signs put up and
enforced rather than to pave over the limited green area that is
there now and encourage parking.
A lengthy discussion continued between several Commissioners,Mr.
Turner and Ms.Patton,to clarify what the City will be doing to
improve Ohio and what else should be done.At the conclusion,
everyone seemed to have the same understanding of the situation
on Ohio.
6
June 10,1999
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Data
ecr ta Chairman