Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 14 1999LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 14,1999 4:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the September 16,1999 Special Meeting.The minutes were approved as presented. III.Members Present:Pam AdcockBillPutnam Judith Faust Hugh Earnest Bob Lowry Obray Nunnley,Jr. Craig Berry Mizan Rahman Richard Downing Members Absent:Herb Hawn Rohn Muse City Attorney:Steve Giles i 1 LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING OCTOBER 14,1999 4:00 P.M. I.DEFERRED ITEMS: A.College Station Land Use Plan B.College Station Extraterritorial Zoning C.Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance Amendment II.NEW ITEMS: 1.Z-6739 3710 Baseline Road R-2 to C-4 2.Z-6749 2300 Andover Court MF-18 to 0-3 3.LU99-09-05 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630 District from Single Family to Commercial for 3023 West 7 Street 4.LU99-13-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the 65 Street East Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office for 4807 Ballinger Road 5.LU99-15-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from Commercial and Multifamily to Mixed for 9125 Mann Road 6.LU99-15-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from Single Family to Light Industrial and Park/Open Space for an area west of Mabelvale Pike and north of Baseline Road 7.LU99-20-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family to Office for 6400 Patrick County Road 8.Pfeifer East Annexation Pub ic Hearing tems 3 RIVER PROE VALLEY a 1-6 1-630 KANIS AMIS 12THoR WTC WRIGHT Q Vl AM ROOSEVELT I-430 5 ROOSEVELTI LAWSON X FRAEIER PIKE LAWSON 2EUBER DAVI Bi 4 8 TR g O'DODD 65TH 65TH RAINES +VALLEY TY UMITS g DIXON BASEUNE ~1 Y 5 g DIXON 365 HARPER CL OTTER MABELVALE A VA T SUNKER K WEST K MNSON I HR ALEXANDER YER SPGS.C OFF CUTOFFChz CUTOFF CITY UMITS T544 EL 365 ASHER I6T PRATT 145TH Planning Cornrnission Agenda October 14,3 999 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B NAME:College Station Land Use Plan Amendments and Extraterritorial Zoning STAFF REPORT In March of 1997,the College Station community was hit by a tornado and experienced significant damage.As part of the effort to rebuild College Station,a federal grant was awarded to construct a community sewer system.Because of the grant,College Station made a request to the City of Little Rock to extend sewer service outside the city limits to serve the community.(The grant requires the area to be served to remain unincorporated and not part of the City ofLittleRock.)In the fall of 1997,the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended extending the City's sewer service to College Station.Included in the Planning Commission'action was a recommendation to extend the City'zoning jurisdiction to College Station to ensure that the redevelopment of community would not overtax the sanitary sewer system.Final action by the Board of Directors to extend the zoning did not occur until October 1998 (Resolution No.10,376).The delay was due to a number of issues and final approval of the contract between the City of Little Rock,the College Station Sewer ImprovementDistrict,and Pulaski County. Ten years ago,the City of Little Rock expressed the intent, by resolution,to extend zoning to three areas in the City' planning area.Two of the defined areas,on the western edge of the City,were zoned within several years after passage of the resolution.The third area,Area III,which includes College Station,has never been zoned.In 1996,afailedattemptwasmadetoextendzoningjurisdictiontoallofAreaIII.The process was initiated because a group of College Station residents had submitted a petition requesting zoning protection for the community.All of AreaIIIwasincludedintheeffortbecauseofthe1989 resolution.There was strong opposition from property owners throughout the area and the Board of Directors denied the ordinance zoning Area III.(Because the current effort only involves the College Station community,another resolution was needed to define the new area for zoning.) October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) In December 1998,Staff met with the College Station Community Redevelopment Coalition to begin the process of zoning College Station.The Coalition is made-up of representatives from five community organizations and they are: ~College Station Community Development Corporation ~Progressive League ~Watershed Project ~College Station Credit Union ~Sewer Improvement District In addition to the regular meetings of the Coalition,two community meetings were held.One was with major property owners and business interests.The other one was for all property owners. As part of the process to extend zoning to College Station, the Coalition first reviewed the future land use plan for the community,the College Station-Sweet Home District Plan. This effort also included reviewing the College Station Recovery Plan,a document developed after the tornado by the community and a team of consultants.The plan included a review of existing conditions,community goals,housing needs,planning concepts and recommended actions.The Coalition felt the plan provided a good framework for developing changes to the land use plan and zoning the community.The recovery plan provided some concepts for strengthening College Station's identity and creating a sense of community. The review of the land use plan resulted in a number of recommended changes,some minor,and others more significant.The proposed amendments to the plan are asfollows: 1.Reducing the commercial area in the vicinityofBankheadDriveandE.34 Street.2.Eliminating the multi-family along Bankhead Drive and changing a number of blocks for low-density residential. 3.Creating a mixed-use node at Bankhead Drive and East 37 Street —includes the site of the former health clinic. 2 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) 4.Changing one block at Bankhead Drive and East 30 to public institutional,an existing church. 5.Park open space to public institutional for land south of the elementary school. 6.Commercial to mixed use and low density residential on the south side of Frazier Pike . 7.Commercial to multi-family,on the south side of Frazier Pike —location of an existing nursing home. 8.Single Family,multi-family and commercial to mixed use on the north side of Frazier Pike. 9.Multi-family and commercial to low density residential,north of Frazier Pike and adjacent to commercial and mixed use areas. 10.Park open space to public institutional— location of the new community center and health clinic. 11.Public institutional to park and open space on the north side of Frazier Pike. 12.Commercial to mixed use on the north side of Frazier Pike and the western edge of the "commercial"blocks on Frazier Pike. 13.Commercial to single family on both sides of 3M Road and west of Frazier Pike. 14.Single family to public institutional,thesiteofafuturechurch. (See accompanying sketch for exact locations of proposed changes and numbers correspond to those on the map.) And finally,there is an area south of Frazier Pike and east of Jones Street,within the city limits,currently shown on the plan as agricultural.The current development patternisprimarilyresidential,which has been reinforced by the platting of the Apple Blossom Subdivision.It is recommended that this area be amended from agricultural to single family. From the very beginning,the coalition agreed that both the land use plan and zoning needed to reinforce College Station as a residential community.Therefore,the proposed zoningforalargepercentageoftheareaisR3SingleFamily.R3 has a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet,which is consistent with the existing platting in College Station. 3 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) The purpose and intent section for R3 states the"....district is established in order to provide an appropriate district for existing developed areas occupied by smaller scale single family housing while at the same time maintaining reasonable standards of light,are and similar amenities for living."Also,R3 allows two-family residences (duplex)as a conditional use which appears to be an appropriate density for infill development in College Station. In addition to strengthening the community'residential character,the coalition also wanted to re-establish Frazier Pike as the "town center"or commercial core.(The recovery plan mentions that "the historic heart of College StationliesalongafourblockstretchofFrazierPike.") Currently,there are a number of established nonresidential uses along Frazier Pike and the recommendation is to zone eight of these sites as part of this process.The suggesteddistrictsareMF18,C1,and 01.The proposed rezonings on Frazier Pike are in conformance with new land use plan and recognize existing uses.The zoning plan also recommends that an existing commercial use at East 33'nd Bankhead Drive be zoned C3.It appears that some of the property is currently in the city limits and classified C3;both the current and new plan recommend commercial for the location. Throughout the process,there were two overriding factors the coalition,the planning committee,kept on the table when making decisions and they were: ~Preserve and reinforce College Station as a residential neighborhood;and ~Strengthen Frazier Pike as the community's commercial core or "Town Center". The Coalition feels that the proposed land use changes and zoning are consistent with the two points listed above,twoofthecommunity'primary objectives. In addition to zoning the College Station area,there is astripoflandsituateddirectlynorthofI-440 that is outside the city limits and not zoned at this time.This acreage was included in the 1998 resolution and needs to be zoned through this current effort.The land is undevelopable and a significant percentage is either in the 4 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) floodplain and floodway.To be consistent with other extraterritorial zoning and the College Station zoning,itisrecommendedthatthisacreagebezonedR2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the land use plan amendments and the proposed zoning plan for College Station and the R2 zoning for the land area adjacent to I-440. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Staff informed the Planning Commission that there were no outstanding issues and the items were placed on the Consent Agenda.There were no objectors present.The Commission voted to recommend approval of the land use plan amendments, the zoning plan for College Station and the R-2 zoning for the area adjacent to I-440.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The College Station items are back before the Planning Commission because of action taken by the College Station Community Redevelopment Coalition,the planning group for this process'fter the Commission acted on the proposed plan amendments and the zoning plan,the Coalition met and voted to zone two additional areas to classifications other than R-3 Single Family.One parcel is located on the north side of Frazier Pike and the other one is situated on theeastsideofBankheadDr.,between East 37 and East 38(Staff informed the Coalition that the items would have to go back to the Commission for review and action because of the requested changes.) For the Bankhead Dr.location,the Coalition is requesting aC-1 zoning for approximately half of a block.Currently,there are three structures on the property,a single familyresidence,a church and a building that is unoccupied.Itisstaff'understanding that one of the structures has been used as an eating establishment,but not at this time.The owner has indicated that he is planning to open the restaurant again and would like commercial zoning.(It 5 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) should be noted that an eating place is a conditional use in the C-1 district.)The proposed land plan identifies Bankhead Dr.and East 37 for mixed use.Zoning the property to C-1 does raise some issues that the staff feels the Commission should be made aware of. 1.Early on in the process,the Coalition established some criteria for zoning property to a classification other than R-3.The Coalition considered several factors when reviewing other zoning classifications including zoning established uses,the zoning conforms to the proposed land plan, and commercial zoning should be located on Frazier Pike. 2.Zoning property that does not have an established use on it is in conflict with the procedure that was used when zoning was extended to the extraterritorial areas west of the city limits. The other property in question is located on Frazier Pike and request is to reclassify the parcel OS Open Space.The land is owned by the county,leased to the College Progressive League,and the plan has always to develop the site for a playground and park.The proposed land use plan does recommended Park/Open Space for the property and the OS zoning should have been included in the zoning plan approved by the Commission.Funding has been secured for the improvements and it appears to be a real project. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) Tony Bozynski,Department of Planning and Development staff, presented the item and reviewed why the College Station issue was back before the Commission.Mr.Bozynski reported that College Station Community Redevelopment Coalition met on September 13 and voted to request that,two additional areas be zoned to classifications other than the base R-3 zoning.Mr.Bozynski described what took place at the September 13 meeting and said the Coalition passed a motion to zone one parcel on Frazier Pike to OS Open Space and a second site on Bankhead Drive to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.He also noted that the Coalition's action occurred after the Planning Commission vote on September 2 to recommend approval of the land use plan amendments and zoning plan.Mr.Bozynski said there was a lengthy debate 6 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) among the coalition members about adding the two areas because of the process that had been used to develop the zoning plan for the College Station community.Mr.Bozynski then proceeded to describe the two properties in question. He said the proposed OS parcel was located on the north side of Frazier Pike and the land was owned by the county and leased to the College Station Progressive League.The long- term plan has been to use the land for a park and Mr. Bozynski indicated the OS zoning should have been included in the original zoning plan.Mr.Bozynski said that staff did not have a problem with adding the OS area to the zoning plan.Mr.Bozynski went on to say that staff did have some concerns with the proposed C-1 area on the east side of Bankhead Drive.Mr.Bozynski explained that the other parcels being recommended for MF-18,0-1 and C-1 were existing uses and the Bankhead Dr.site did not have a commercial use on it at this time.Mr.Bozynski described what was on the property and said the owner told the Coalition that his plan was to develop the property for a commercial use.Mr.Bozynski said that he informed the Coalition that the zoning plan would have to go back to the Planning Commission because of adding the two parcels.Mr. Bozynski concluded by saying staff agreed with adding the OS zoning,but not the C-1. There were some questions about the proposed zoning and Mr. Bozynski clarified that the Coalition did not vote to recommend any changes to the plan use plan.He said the only issue before the Commission was to amend the zoning plan by adding the two parcels. Dexter Doyne,vice-chairman of the College Station Redevelopment Coalition,then addressed the Commission. Mr.Doyne described the reasons the Coalition voted to request the change for Mr.Kelley,the owner of the property in question for the commercial zoning.Mr.Doyne said that Mr.Kelley operated a restaurant in the past and has plans to open another eating place on the site.Mr.Doyne said that Mr.Kelley informed the Coalition of his plans on several occasions during the planning process and the Coalition did vote to make the zoning change after the Planning Commission acted on the plans.Mr.Doyne then discussed the Frazier Pike property and said the community needed a playground area and the Progressive League was in the process of obtaining the necessary funds.Mr.Doyne then responded to some questions and there were some comments about various issues. 7 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) There was a lengthy discussion about C-1 zoning and staff responded to a number of questions. Mr.Doyne spoke again and said the goal of the Coalition was to preserve the residential character of the community.He also said that the community wants to accommodate those businesses that have operated in the past and plan to operate in the future and that was the consideration for Mr. Kelley's property. There was additional discussion about C-1 and C-3 uses. Christopher King spoke and said he was against zoning the community.Mr.King said that people in the community want to do what they have been doing without somebody telling them what they can do with their property.Mr.King told the Commission that he moved from Little Rock to get away from the city telling him what he could do and could not do. He said there was strong opposition to the zoning in the community and the Coalition's role was to help people recover from the tornado.Mr.King made some additional comments and said he was against zoning College Station. The Commission asked some questions and was informed that the land use plan and zoning would go to the Board of Directors as a package. Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,reminded the Commission that zoning was part of the process for College Station to get sewer service.Mr.Lawson also provided some background on the process and how it got to this point.Mr.Lawson said that it would seem to be reasonable to have zoning control in an area that would be served by city sewer. Mr.King made some additional comments and responded to several questions.Mr.King again restated that a number of people were opposed to the zoning. Rev.Benny Kelley,owner of property on Bankhead Drive, addressed the Commission.Rev.Kelley had some questions about what was permitted in C-1 and what he would be allowed to do if the C-1 zoning was granted. 8 October 14,1999 ITEMS NO.:A AND B (Cont.) Tony Bozynski attempted to answer the question and said a conditional use permit would be needed for a restaurant. Rev.Kelley spoke again and said that a restaurant is was only one of the uses he was considering and would like the ability to do other uses on the property without having to come back to the Commission.Rev.Kelley then asked the Commission if they would recommend C-1 for his property. Rev.Kelley said he was not opposed to the proposed C-1 zoning for his property and understood that he would have to come back to the Commission for approval of a conditional to allow an eating establishment. There was some additional discussion about the planning process and other issues. A motion was made to approve the College Station land use plan.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. A motion was made to approve the College Station extraterritorial zoning plan as presented by the staff which would include the change to C-1.There was some discussion and the motion was withdrawn. A motion was made to approve the College Station extraterritorial zoning including the proposed OS zoning. There was some discussion prior to the vote.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. A final motion was to approve C-1 (on Bankhead)as recommended by the Coalition.There was some discussion about the staff's position and the Coalition'recommendation.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and 2 absent. 9 ! A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK TO ZONE THE COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY LOCATED WITHIN THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING JURISDICTION. WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock has authority to zone property within 3 miles of the city limits under revised Arkansas Statute 19-2829;and WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock wishes to have orderly and compatible growth within areas adjacent to the City which could become part of the City of Little Rock;and WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock Board of Directors by Resolution No.8,170,passed on June 20,1989,expressed the City's intent to zone this area adjacent to the City;and WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock is preparing to extend sanitary sewer service into the College Station Community;and WHEREAS,the Little Rock Planning Commission,after conducting a public hearing,recommended approval of the extension of sewer service to College Station subject to the implementation of zoning for the area to receive sewer service. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SECTION 1.That the City of Little Rock intends to exercise the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance within the area of the College Station Community located within the Little Rock Planning Boundary and shown on the attached map described as Exhibit "A." ADOPTED:October 6 1998 ATTEST:APPROVED: s/Robbie Hancock s/Jim Daile City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: 0/idiom-Carpenter City Attorney I U/ I2 EAST ROOSEVELT 12 g KG"CIaQ,R2 I2 R2 J 44O 0$..--''C3 Rt Area of Proposed '~i Ia 'ONED Extraterritorial'. M :=XI I.0 .Zoning& '7 +0 gy Jl ~I2':';.i..':.-"PRAZIER PIKE .C' D)n O AF 4a o ea ~~~-~ 0~' 0gIi" Cl M0':g NOT ZONED l I 1 dl 0 ~'I g)n // Area Zoning 0 College Station Extraterritorial Zoning . Yicinity Map P October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C Name:Zoning Ordinance Amendment for revised landscape standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. RecCuest:fo remove the current standards derived from Landscape Ordinance and establish new standards within the WCF section. Source:Citizen request and Board of Directors This amendment is the result of various persons pointing out the lack of site treatment on a number of WCF sites around the city. These were typically located such that abutting zoning or use didn'require screening or landscape materials. This circumstance is directly related to the standard's being provided by an ordinance not geared to towers or small sites. A request was made of staff to develop new language for WCFs that will address the small site dimensions but incorporate some of the minimum tree spacing,shrub placement and opaque screening employed on commercial sites. The staff developed the landscaping and tree placement with a fixed site screening fence on all sides.This fence will act as a back drop for the landscaping while the greenery will break up the solid fence face. Copies of the ordinance have been mailed to the local WCF providers with notice of the Commission meeting date.Also,all persons on the ordinance review list (38)plus Plans Committee were notified and provided ordinance draft. Plans Committee Re ort: At its meeting on June 30,the Plans Committee briefly discussed the proposed ordinance.There were several comments about the need for change and several persons offered wording change.The changes were made and draft 2 is attached to this agenda item. October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) PLANS COMMITTEE:(JULY 22,1999) The Chairman advised all interested persons in attendance that late filing of concerns by the provider firms required this matter be deferred to August 19,1999. This item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral.A motion was made to approve the Consent Agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 28,1999) At its meeting on July 28,the Plans Committee reopened discussion of the proposed ordinance.Present to speak on the issue were four members of the Committee,Planning Staff and several persons responding to the staff notice to attend. Staff pointed out that Mr.Stodola representing Southwestern Bell was not present but that a notice was sent to his office of the time and place,others notified were in attendance. A lengthy discussion followed with concerns offered about some of the language in the ordinance draft as addressed by Mr.Stodola, such as provision of a water source and what that meant.StaffwillpursuethatpointwithSteveGiles. Commissioner Hawn pointed out that the group of people working on the landscape ordinance intended to make this issue apart oftheirordinanceifpossible.Discussion followed as to the appropriateness of that action.The consensus approved to bethatthisamendmentshouldbepursuedsincethelandscaperewrite probably will take longer and be controversial.Another lengthydiscussioninvolvedMr.Norm Floyd,a registered objector and attendee at the July 22 meeting.He presented thoughts on what he understood the amendment was to cover.At the conclusion ofhiscomments,Commission Downing and others commented this item should be placed on the August 19 agenda for full discussion and Mr.Stodola was advised to be there.Staff determined that since Mr.Stodola was absent that another notice would be mailed advising him of the meeting and a need for him to be present. Copies of the materials presented to the Plans Committee are included in this agenda for full commission review. 2 'I October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999) The Chairman asked that staff present item B. Richard Wood of staff presented an overview of the material offered in the agenda.He commented on this being an ordinance directed by the Board of Directors and that it dealt with W.C.F. only and then those new or modified structures.This ordinance does not deal with existing circumstance.By use of a small sketch,Wood pointed out the typical site plan of a 50' 50'easeareaandatreatmentthisordinancecouldimpose. Wood also noted the changes made to the ordinance by Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,that having to do with a water source.After closure of Wood'comments,Commissioner Faust noted that she had a somewhat different take on the committee discussion.She said the committee had expected Mr.Stodola to attend and discuss the text and his proposals.She followed that by saying the ordinance was acceptable with Mr.Giles change. Chairman Earnest noted the reason the Commission deferred this last time was so Mr.Stodola could meet and discuss with the committee his changes. Wood then indicated a page in the attachments to item B is a Public Works suggestion that would be appropriate to add and covers maintenance. Commissioner Adcock then raised the issue of coverage of existing tower sites.The issue was directed to Mr.Giles,"Is there a way to go back and pick up all those existing?"Mr.Giles responded by outlining how such might be accomplished through amortization.He said it would be very complicated.There followed some comments by several commissioners with no resolution of the question. A question was then posed as to collocation and whether that would trigger this ordinance,given that most of the towers to be erected are in place.Mr.Giles responded,that,due the permitting process in place most collocation would not trigger it unless tower height or some structural change was made such as height,simply attaching a new antenna array would not.Giles reminded the Commission,the ordinance existing was a statement that the city wanted fewer towers and encouraged collocation. Collocation would not be an amendment to a site.A brief discussion followed with comment by Commissioner Putnam about the 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) e-mail to Tony Bozynski and the ordinance construction.Staff explained that the language is proposed and for the Commission to accept or reject.Mr.Giles pointed out he will rewrite those anyway. The Chairman then recognized Mr.Norm Floyd who stated he was presented for himself.He continued by saying he was a proponent for stronger cell tower regulation.He stated that he understood from staff that the Commission would receive a copy of a revised cell tower ordinance,he was directed to write.This was a 14 page draft,and he would provide them with copies. The Chairman and others commented on having heard that a rewrite was working.Mr.Floyd continued by saying he was against this ordinance as being too little,too late.He suggested that the current regulations were not enforced and he offered more comments on codes enforcement.Additional thoughts were identified such as abandoned towers and removal. Following Mr.Floyd was Mr.Mark Stodola,attorney for Southwestern Bell Wireless.Mr.Stodola offered a brief history of his involvement an proceeded to discuss the several paragraphs he submitted at the earlier meeting.Mr.Stodola stated that he would echo Mr.Floyd's comment,that it's a matter of enforcement not a need for new regulation.He continued in response to the Commission'apparent desire to hear his thoughts on his written material.He discussed the current city code application of buffers and landscaping,and how they apply.He talked about occasional physical or practical impossibilities.He then moved his comments to a 8 feet fences as proposed.He said that isn' a landscaping feature and is different than existing requirements.The fence could be complied with if necessary but that the fence creates a new set of problems,such as security. He said,perhaps if not in a residential area there may be some rational reason to use chain link. The presentation then moved to discussion of "provision of a water source.Mr.Stodola offered comments as to how this is contrary to the manner in which other use/development is October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) regulated.He expanded his thoughts on vegetation and replacement as well as the practical difficulty in water supply on rural type locations. He closed his comments by addressing the retention of trees within the usual 50'50'se area as primary use area.He pointed out concerns with leaves and limb problems with sensitive electronics.Further,that,perhaps this is an enforcement issue as opposed to a new ordinance. The Chairman then recognized commissioners for questions. Commissioner Muse offered a question on collocation loss by these regulations. Mr.Stodola responded by discussing the proposed tree spacing affected driveway and equipment buildings.There would be problems with modifying the footprint of the site and maintaining the mandated 30 foot spacing.Mr.Giles added thoughts on this problem. Commissioner Faust pointed out that since the ordinance doesn' place a zero point,the providers using common sense could dictate how they allocated the trees.A lengthy discussion followed with no specific solution resulting. Commissioner Adcock,in response to a brief discussion of Mr. Stodola's committee absence,asked how many other providers were noticed.Staff responded by saying that there were four,three in addition to Southwestern Bell. Wood addressed the notice question by saying he notified four current providers that we review and issue permits.There being no additional questions for Mr.Stodola the Chairman identified one more speaker. Mrs.Dottie Funk,identifying herself as speaking for the City Beautiful Commission.Mrs.Funk offered a lengthy commentary which touched on comments of Mr.Putnam and others. Mrs.Funk said she sent copies of the ordinance draft to various persons on the tree task force to gain comment from them on this issue,and the attachments added by staff are hers. 5 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) Mrs.Funk then moved her comments to height of towers and how trees of 20'eight or so would not screen much.She said Bob Callans,a landscape architect,recommended larger trees be used. Three inch instead of two inch on 30 feet intervals with 30 feet height.She offered examples of how smaller trees don'work. Chairman Earnest inserted comments on the current task force efforts and how they might want to incorporate this material. Mr.Giles said the Board wants an ordinance from them quickly and at a meeting the night before,the task force realized that towers have some idiosyncrasies that do not apply to general commercial uses.He further offered comment on Mr.Stodola' design concerns. There then followed discussion of 8 feet screening and security, followed by another discussion of water source. The Chairman then recognized Ms.Janet Berry for comments.Ms. Berry indicated her objection to the ordinance is that there is no provision for current,in use,towers to be brought up to these standards.She said she has always objected to what she saw at the base of towers.She urged the Commission to deal with existing towers. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Adcock for a question to what happens if the item is voted down and one vote would doit.Mr.Lawson said that would be up to the Commission,torecallitlaterorsenditbacktothecommittee. A lengthy discussion followed on deferral with Commissioner Adcock moving to defer.(The motion was not seconded.) Wood then asked permission to respond to some of the points made by various speakers.This dealt with enforcement,tree spacingetc. Commissioner Adcock then restated her position which was,lets see if there are more people with ideas that might be used. The Chairman asked Wood if draft 4 in today'packet is the draft coming forward at this time and does it include all of the suggestions that have come forward.The response was "no"thatistheversionapprovedbythePlansCommitteeandthenmodified by Giles concerning water source. Commissioner Faust then stated that the committee did not draft the ordinance but did ask that Mr.Giles review the water 6 I October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) section.Wood agreed with Commissioner Faust that was correct and the committee had worked through an earlier draft that was later amended by Mr.Giles. Commissioner Faust then offered concerns about the Board'charge to the Planning Commission and its history.She stated she didn'want to defer it but with 6 present,absent 6 votes to do something it will be back on some table somewhere. The Chairman then voiced what those present were feeling and that being some level of frustration.He addressed Mr.Giles by asking if Mr.Giles hadn'said he was receptive to making changes.Giles said he had not really considered that,but if the Commission feels he should look at it,he could. Commissioner Downing said he is experiencing the same sense of frustration that Commissioner Faust expressed.That is,the Board has conveyed to staff a request for immediate return of an ordinance to deal with this issue. Downing said his understanding was the Board of Directors can do what it wants in this matter but wants commissioner input.If the Commission failed to approve this draft,then staff would report that to the Board.Commissioner Downing then asked whenthisitemwouldgototheBoardofDirectors.Wood responded by saying probably the second Board of Directors meeting in September. Commissioner Downing then asked Giles if he thought a redraft could be done,reviewed by Plans Committee and then to the BoardofDirectorsbythatdate. A discussion then followed between Commissioners Faust and Downing about not having a draft with the suggested changes. Wood suggested that,since next Wednesday is Plans Committee meeting (August 25)that he could set aside the regular items to deal with this.Commissioner Faust said that is OK but,are we going to be better prepared on Wednesday than now? 7 l October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) Wood then offered comment to the effect that staff has reservations by the subjective nature of some of Mr.Stodola's comments and problems inserting them. Jim Lawson then identified a staff member from the Water Works, Marie Dugan who wanted to comment on water source. The Chairman at this point said,"This hearing will have two more minutes then we will move on." Marie Dugan offered her thoughts as to the expense of a source for some of the tower sites. Stephen Giles followed by stating his redraft dealing with water source intended that to mean something as simple as a neighbor's garden hose.He said the previous draft was too rigid. Commissioner Muse was recognized for a comment.He asked Mr. Stodola how he would respond to Ms.Funk'remark about how to provide water. Stodola indicated he thought that those sites are different from overlay zones and site plans and that this ordinance draft would require some kind of hydrant and a water line to serve the site regardless of where the site is located.He said that the existing requirement is replacement of dead vegetation.He extended his thoughts by saying they would like to keep all the trees on a site but that they have to stay alive.He said providers are already supposed to be maintaining the sites monthly.He said this ordinance presents a unique and extraordinary expense.In response to a statement of Chairman Earnest,Mr.Stodola said he could do some drafting on this.He said he had not been presumptive enough to volunteer that but, that he would work with staff. The discussion expanded to fences and other ordinance features. Commissioner Faust commented to Mr.Giles that staff has said the earlier draft didn'mean other than that water be provided by some means. Giles responded by saying that he Highway Department uses a water truck to water highway vegetation. 8 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) Commissioner Putnam offered that large sites like Wal-Mart didn' have to do it by sprinklers,etc.but if it died they were required to replant. At the conclusion of Putnam's remarks,the Chairman said he was ready for someone to make a motion to defer to Plans Committee or vote on the ordinance before us. Chairman Earnest continued by saying that he kept hearing Mr. Giles say that there is some tweaking of this ordinance that he would like to make. Mr.Giles said that when the staff wrote the original ordinance we had to learn about the industry keeping both neighborhood and provider interests in mind.He said he hadn't had time to do that here through the three drafts.Chairman Earnest said that "the current ordinance is landmark but we need some direction." A brief discussion followed with comments on the Board requested immediate ordinance return and need to be more thorough.Giles said that probably he and Mark Stodola could come up with something that would satisfy the industry concerns and still not water down the text. Commissioner Downing then offered a motion to defer the ordinance to the next Plans Committee for further discussion. A brief review of calendar indicated the next best committee meeting would be September 8. It was stated a draft would be expected for committee review on September 8. A second was made,the motion passed by vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr.Norm Floyd to provide the commission members with copies of his ordinance. PLANS COMMITTEE REPORT:(SEPTEMBER 8,1999) The Committee held two meetings on the revised approach to thestaffWCFLandscapeOrdinance.At the first meeting on September 8 ,Mr.Stodola was present to discuss his position on redraft. The Committee discussed several changes to text clarifying both definition and application.In as much as Mr.Stodola and Mr. Giles had not met to work out language,Mr.Stodola left the 9 ' October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) meeting with direction to do a revised draft and report back to Committee on September 22. PLANS COMMI TTEE REPORT:(SEPTEMBER 22,1999) On September 22,1999 the Committee was presented with a draft document.The Committee discussed the various sections,made suggested changes and then directed Mr.Giles to place the ordinance in final form with the suggested changes (attached). The Committee directed staff to place the ordinance on October 14 agenda for consideration by full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) The Chairman recognized Mr.Malone of staff.Mr.Malone introduced the item and passed the matter to Mr.Giles of the City Attorney's Office.Mr.Giles offered an update of the status of the ordinance since the last meeting in September.He stated that his office has looked at the ordinance draft,taking into consideration the comments of Mr.Stodola representing a wireless communication company.He said that he went back and redrafted some of the provisions.The first provision reviewed was definition of primary use area,because it was referred to in the earlier draft but not defined.He said it will be defined as:"The footprint of the W.C.F.site which includes but may not be limited to the concrete pad or gravel surface,equipment structure and fence."He felt this would give guidance. He then moved to Section "C".1 and said there was discussion with the Plans Committee about their concerns and what the landscape provisions would actually cover.It was decided that new W.C.F.with new application with support structure (a tower mounted facility)and collocated W.C.F.with new building construction (new building meaning those new equipment structures not including the small cabinets that are for equipment at a tower site usually for digital systems).Those W.C.F.'s attached to existing building are not included. Mr.Giles then read the text of this provision which sets forth the landscaped strip and content,ingress and egress,fencing per 36-593 of Code.Mr.Giles stated by inclusion in this fashion itsatisfiesthesecurityfencerequirement.He then discussed the contents of the landscape strip."2 trees of 2 inch caliper at 20 feet minimum height at maturity,plus evergreen shrubs of 30 10 ' October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:C (Cont.) inches in height on 3 inch centers intended to cover the entire ground at maturity." Mr.Giles then pointed to the ordinance language on retention of existing trees in the 6 foot strip and within the primary use area except for access.He said that was not in the original ordinance draft.He further discussed using existing vegetation to fill requirements when approved by the Planning Commission as part of a T.U.P.review,or by staff review.The next element of his presentation covered the requirement for maintenance of vegetation in the landscape strip.This dealt with the issue of water source.He then pointed out the change in security fencing to permit 8 feet.Giles closed his presentation by saying Mr. Stodola agreed with the changes. The Chairman then recognized Mr.Norm Floyd.He passed around some photos of a tower site in southwest Little Rock.He stated that they will show why he is for the ordinance.He indicated the poor landscaping maintenance on this site.He said enforcement is the issue not just more regulation without strengthening enforcement. There were no other persons present to discuss the issue.A motion was made to approve the ordinance draft as presented by Mr.Giles.The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 11 I 1 ORDINANCE NO.DRAFT 9-30-99 2 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE 4 CODE OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LITTLE 5 ROCI(,ARKANSAS CONCERNING WIRELESS 6 COMMUNICATION FACILITY REGULATIONS; 7 PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF THE 8 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROVISIONS OF 9 ARTICLE XII;AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 10 -WHEREAS, 12 WHEREAS, 14 15 WHEREAS, 16 17 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF 18 DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCI(,ARKANSAS. 19 SECTION 1:Chapter 36,Article XII,Section 36-590 is amended 20 to add in alphabetical order with other defined terms the definition of 21 "Primary use area"as follows: 22 Primnry use nren is the footprint of the WCF site which 23 includes but may not be limited to the concrete pad or 24 gravelled surface,equipment facility,support structure 25 and fence. 26 SECTION 2:Chapter 36,Article XII,Section 36-593(c)is 27 amended to provide for deletion of the current language of (c)(1),(2)and 28 (3)and its substitution with replacement language as follows: 1 (c)Lnndscnping nnd screening 2 (1)New WCF with support structure,collocated WCF with new 3 building construction,and Attached WCF with new building 4 construction shall be screened and landscaped as follows: 5 a.Every site for WCF with support structure shall 6 contain a permanent six (6)foot landscape strip 7 parallel with all sides of the primary use area and 8 outside of the opaque fence,except for a space for 9 ingress and egress to the primary use area. 10 b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed, 11 finished side facing outward,around the primary use 12 area to provide screening and a background for 13 required landscaping within the six (6)foot landscape 14 strip. 15 c.The opaque fence shall also satisfy the security fence 16 requirement of section 36-593(f). 17 d.The landscape strip on each side of the primary use 18 area shall be planted with two (2)trees of a 2"caliper 19 which will grow to a minimum twenty (20)feet in 20 height at maturity.The space between trees shall be 21 planted with evergreen shrubs of thirty (30)inch 22 height on 30 inch centers at planting,sufficient to 23 cover at maturity the entire ground area within the 24 landscape strip. 25 (2)Existing mature trees shall be retained within the six (6)foot 26 landscape strip and all leased or owned areas outside the 27 28 2 1 primary use area except for reasonable ingress and egress. 2 (3)Existing vegetation on a WCF site may be used in lieu of 3 required landscaping when approved by the Planning 4 Commission for TUP applications or by -staff in other WCF 5 applications. 6 (4)The permanent six (6)foot landscape strip required by this 7 section shall be maintained in such a manner as to assure that 8 vegetation grows to mature height.Any planting within the 9 strip shall be replaced if dead or diseased.Replacement 10 vegetation shall be the minimum number,type and size 11 required in this section. 12 (5)All new or amended WCF with support structure applications 13 shall include a detailed landscape plan for placement and 14 maintenance.The use of existing vegetation within the WCF 15 site shall be noted on the plan as to how it will fulfill the 16 requirements of this article. 17 SECTION 3.Section 36-593 (f)Security fencing,is amended 18 only by changing the term "six (6)feet in height"to "eight (8)feet in 19 height."The balance of the current language of that subsection shall 20 remain the same. 21 SECTION 4.SEVERABILITY.In the event any portion of this 22 ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional,such 23 declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the 24 ordinance,which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so 25 declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part 26 of this ordinance. 27 28 3 1 SECTION 5.REPEALER.All laws,ordinances and regulations 2 and parts thereof in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the 3 extent of such inconsistency. 4 SECTION 6.This Ordinance shall talce effect from and after 5 its passage. 6 7 PASSED: 8 ATTEST:APPROVED: 9 10 ROBBIE HANCOCI(JIM DAILEY CITY-CLEM(YOR 12 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 13 14 THOMAS M.CARPENTER 15 CITY ATTORNEY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6739 Owner:William David Green,Jr.or Mary Jayne Green Applicant:William David Green,Jr. Location:3710 Baseline Road Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-4 Purpose:Build a new tire store Size:.79+acres Existing Use:Vacant lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Single Family;zoned R-2 South —School;zoned R-2 East —Vacant lot;zoned R-2 and Various Commercial uses;zoned C-4 and R-2 West —Auto repair;zoned R-2 and Single Family; zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1.Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2.Community Road is listed as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. WITH BUILDING PERMIT 3.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. 4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to occupancy. 5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 6.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.7.No driveways will be allowed from Community Road.All access for business should be from Baseline Road only. October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6739 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is located on a CATA Bus Route. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site and the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association were notified of the rezoning request.At its September 14,1999 meeting,the Association voted not to oppose the C-4 zoning request and voiced pleasure that the proposed business was coming into the neighborhood. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is located in the Geyer Springs East PlanningDistrict.The adopted Plan recommends Commercial for this property and the adjacent properties fronting onto Baseline Road,from Community Lane to Scott Hamilton.The site falls within the area covered by the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan which was endorsed by the Commission at its September 2,1999 meeting.The Board of Directors is scheduled to act on that Plan at its November 2,1999 meeting.The Neighborhood Action Plan did not propose any zoning or land use plan changes.The C-4 zoning request conforms to the adopted Plan.When developing the site,the applicant should be sensitive to the abutting residential properties on the north. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant, .79k acre tract from R-2 Single Family to C-4 Open Display Commercial.Once the property is rezoned,the applicant proposes to build a new tire store on the site. The property is located within the commercial node established by the Baseline-Scott Hamilton-Hilaro Springs Roads intersection.Uses and zoning in the immediate area are varied.The R-2 zoned property immediately adjacent to the west,at the corner of Baseline and Community,is occupied by a nonconforming auto repair business,a C-4 use. 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6739 The R-2 zoned lot adjacent to the east is vacant.A paint company and an auto paint and body shop are located just beyond this vacant lot on the C-4 and R-2 zoned properties to the east.The R-2 zoned properties on the north side of Baseline Road,at the Scott Hamilton intersection,contain a variety of retail and auto related uses.Single family homes are located on the R-2 zoned properties to the north and across Community Lane to the west.An undeveloped tract of 0-3 zoned property is located at the corner of Community and Baseline.The R-2 zoned properties across Baseline Road to the south are occupied by an elementary school (which also houses the Baseline Alert Center),a single family home and a nonconforming apartment development. The Geyer Springs East District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for this site and the other properties on the north side of Baseline Road,from Community Lane to Scott Hamilton.The C-4 request conforms to the adopted Plan and is compatible with uses and zoning in the area.The appropriate locations for the C-4 district are along heavily traveled major traffic arterials.Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial. The site is currently vacant and,when developed,will have to conform to city code in respects to landscaping, buffering and screening.Appropriate buffers and screening will have to be incorporated into the development plan to protect the adjacent residential properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) The applicant was present.There was one objector present. One letter of opposition from an adjacent property -owner had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. In response to a question from the Commission,staff responded that a tire store would be allowed in the C-3 zoning district,with a conditional use permit. The applicant,William Green,Jr.,addressed the Commission. Mr.Green stated that he would develop the site to conform 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6739 to city code and that he accepted that he could not take access to Community Road.He stated that the development would be focused to Baseline Road and that he wanted to be sensitive to the needs of his neighbors.Mr.Green stated that a tire shop was not a noisy operation and that he would keep the air compressor in the building.He stated that the business operated only during normal daytime business hours. Mr.Gxeen stated that he was currently located further down Baseline Road and he had been in business for 13 years. Ramona Ball,of 8712 Community Road,addressed the Commission on behalf of her sister Isabella Pagnucci,who lives at 8717 Community Road.Ms.Ball stated that she was opposed only to the rezoning of the 49'100'ortion of Mr.Green's property that fronts onto Community Road and is closest to Ms.Pagnucci'home. In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam,Bob Turner of Public Works,discussed his department's comments in the agenda. Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff,descxibed the required buffer and landscaping for the perimeter of the site which is adjacent to Ms.Pagnucci'property. Mr.Green described his proposal to combine this lot with the property adjacent to the east for development of the hire stoxe.Staff interjected that the zoning map showed that adjacent property to be zoned R-2 Single Family.Mr. Green stated that he had been told that the adjacent property was zoned C-4.Mr.Green also stated that he was opposed to the requirement to dedicate additional right-of- way for Baseline Road. Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,suggested that the item be deferred to address the zoning of the adjacent parcel.The applicant agreed to the deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the December-2-,—1999 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: After conducting a thorough review of the issue,staff determined that the property adjacent to the east of the 4 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6739 subject property is indeed zoned C-4.The zoning map had been incorrectly posted.The property was zoned C-4 in 1990.It has also been determined that the required right- of-way dedication for Baseline Road is 1.63 feet.Staff informed the applicant of these issues.In response,the applicant agreed to dedicate the required right-of-way. Additionally,the applicant has dropped the 49'100'+ portion of the tract which fronts onto Community Road and is nearest Ms.Pagnucci from the rezoning request.That portion of the tract will remain zoned R-2. Staff felt it was appropriate to bring the issue back to the Commission at the next meeting rather than waiting 6 weeks.Ms.Ball and Ms.Pagnucci have been advised of the November 11,1999 hearing date and of the amendment to the application. 5 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6749 Owner:Bailey Properties,LLC Applicant:Rett Tucker Location:2300 Andover Court Request:Rezone from MF-18 to 0-3 Purpose:New office development Size:1.79+acres Existing Use:Vacant tract SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Pavilion in the Park Office and Commercial development;zoned C-3 South —Multiple building condominium development; zoned PUD East —Large assisted living center;zoned PRD West —City Park;zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1.Andover Court is listed as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. WITH BUILDING PERMIT 2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4.Driveway shall conform to Sec.31-210 and Ordinance 18,031. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT A CATA Bus Route is located on Cantrell Road,approximately one block north of this site. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site and the Andover October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6749 Square Neighborhood Association were notified of the rezoning request. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is located in the West Little Rock Planning District.On July 22,1999,the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Use Plan for this site,changing its designation from multifamily to office.On August 17,1999,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,090,which amended the Plan,as recommended by the Commission.The 0-3 General Office zoning request conforms to the new land use designation of office. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant, 1.79+acre tract from MF-18 Multifamily to 0-3 General Office.No specific development has been proposed for thesite. The property is located on the west side of Andover Court, approximately 400 feet south of Cantrell Road.Pavilion in the Park,a mixed use (Office and Commercial)development, occupies the C-3 zoned tract adjacent to the north of thesite.The property is bounded on the west by Reservoir Park.A large retirement community development,Andover Place,occupies the PRD zoned property across Andover Court to the east.The PUD property to the south contains the multi-building Andover Court condominium development.0-3 General Office is an appropriate transition zoning from the commercial development on Cantrell Road to the residential development to the south. The West Little Rock District Land Use Plan was-recently amended,changing the designation of this site from Multifamily to Office.The 0-3 General Office zoning request conforms to the newly amended plan. As was previously mentioned,the site is currently vacant. Development of the property will be required to conform toallapplicablecitysitedevelopmentcodes,including screening,landscaping,buffers and stormwater drainage. 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6749 There is a substantial difference in the elevation of this site and that occupied by the condominium development to the south.Any development of this site should be sensitive to the existing adjacent residential properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the recgxested 0-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) The applicant was present.There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that one telephone call of opposition had been received from an adjacent property owner.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The item was placed on the Consent,Agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:LU99-09-05 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I-630 Planning District Location:3023 West 7th RecCuest:Single Family to Commercial Source:James M.Brown PROPOSAL /REQUEST Land Use Plan amendment in the I-630 Planning District from Single Family to Commercial.Commercial represents a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products,personal and professional services,and general business activities. Commercial activities may vary in type and scale,depending on the trade area they serve. The applicant wishes to use the property for antique auto restoration and storage.In the future,the applicant anticipates opening a gallery to sell stone sculptures. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-3 Single Family and is approximately .31+acres in size.The property is surrounded on the north,south,and east by R-3 zoning.The property to the west is zoned R-4 Two Family.The R-3 zone to the north has a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for the Woodruff Elementary School.The Lamar Porter Field occupies the property diagonally opposite from the applicant's property at the 7 and Johnson Street intersection.Thelotwestoftheapplicant's property serves as an unpaved parking lot for the ball field.Single family dwelling units occupy the residential areas to the east and south of the applicant's property. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: To the north,an area shown as Public Institutional covers the property of the Woodruff Elementary School and the Lamar Porter Field.Areas to the east and west extending south to I-630 are shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan. On April 20,1999,various changes were made from Single Family to Mixed Use in an area eight blocks long located five blocks to the south of the applicant'property on 12 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-05 Street one block west of Woodrow Street. On February 16,1996,a change was made from Multi-Family to MOW (now classified as Service Trades District)two blocks east of the site in question on the southeast corner of 7 Street and Woodrow.Changes were also made from LMF to Office on the north side 7 Street three blocks to the east of the applicant's building at Appianway Street and from LMF to Single Family at 6 Street and Appianway Street.In addition,various changes were made from Multi-Family to Neighborhood Commercial and from Multi-Family and LMF to Mixed Use along Pine and Cedar Streets near the UAMS campus. On June 7,1994,a change was made from Industrial to Mixed Use on the east side of Woodrow St.nine blocks to the south of the property in question at 16 Street. MASTER STREET PLAN: This block on Johnson and 7 Streets are shown as local residential streets on the Master Street Plan. PARKS: The property of the Boys Club and Lamar Porter Field is located on the street corner opposite from the applicant' property at 7 and Johnson Street. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN The applicant's property lies within the study area covered by the Woodruff Neighborhood Area Plan.Neighborhood image objectives relevant to this case are the identification of historic buildings and increased code enforcement.Community preservation objectives include the identification of historic features of the neighborhood,and rectification of code violations.The structure on the applicant's property was historically a gas station when Johnson Street served as a collector street and this section of the neighborhood contained commercial uses.The site in question-is-alamo under enforcement for zoning violations. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property is located in an older urban area and originally served as a gas station.Historically Johnson Street,not Woodrow,served as the collector street for the neighborhood.Most of the new development in the 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-05 area has occurred in conjunction with the UAMS campus west of Cedar and Pine Streets.Most of the commercial activity in the neighborhood occurs on Markham Street.The applicant's property is located in a section of the neighborhood that is isolated from most of the business activity in the neighborhood and is primarily single family. Currently,the property in question is under zoning enforcement for zoning violations resulting from the restoration of antique automobiles.A legal non-conforming automobile repair business is located on Woodrow Street two blocks east of the applicant's property.The applicant's property is located in a central area of the neighborhood that is conducive for citizens to congregate by virtue of the nearby school and baseball field.The school is a major traffic generator in the neighborhood.However,the area is isolated from areas designated for commercial future land uses and commercial zoning. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Capital View N.A.,Pine to Woodrow N.A.,and Capital Hill N.A.Staff has received two comments from area residents.One is in support and the other is opposed to the change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate as filed at this time.A change to Commercial at this location will intensify land uses in this neighborhood.A Commercial designation on the Land Use Plan would not guarantee protection the historic integrity of the structure,nor insure compatibility with neighboring uses. However,staff would support a change to Mixed Use.Staff believes that Mixed Use would better serve properties no longer used for the original business.Mixed Qse~uld allow redevelopment of a structure to a use compatible in design with the neighborhood while protecting the historic integrity of the structure.Any Planned Zoning Development (PZD)approved should insure compatibility of the business with the operations of the elementary school and the surrounding residential areas such as prohibiting outside storage. 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-09-05 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) The applicant amended his application to request a change from Single Family to Mixed Use from Commercial.This amended item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 4 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:LU99-13-02 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —65th Street East Planning District Location:4807 Ballinger Rd. R~eeat:Single-Family tc Suburban Office Source:Emmanuel Ilodiamya PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street East Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office.The Suburban Office category provides for low intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential to assure compatibility.A Planned Zoning District (PZD)is required. The applicant proposes to open an out patient family counseling office. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The applicant's property is zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately .94+acres in size.Currently,a single- family residence occupies the site.A railroad track runs through a tract of wooded property in an R-2 zone on the north side of Ballinger Road.Single-family dwelling unitssitonBallingerRoadinanR-2 zone to the northeast of thesiteinquestion.A small vacant apartment complex occupies the property to the southeast in an R-5 Urban Residence zone.The neighborhood to the south and west consists of single family dwelling units built on property zoned R-3 Single Family. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The property is located in,and surrounded by,areas shown- as Single-Family. On July 6,1999 a change was made from Single Family to Park/Open Spaces and Mixed Commercial and Industrial on Woodcrest Drive between Battle Road and Southern Oaks Drive about a half-mile southwest of the applicant's property. On June 4,1996,a change was made from Commercial to Industrial on Forbing Road west of the Geyer Springs October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-02 intersection about a three fourths of a mile southwest of the applicant's property. On February 20,1996 a small change was made from Commercial to Suburban Office and Mixed Use on Geyer Springs Road near the intersection of Forbing Road about three fourths of a mile southwest of the applicant'property. MASTER STREET PLAN: Ballinger Road is shown as a local residential street on the Master Street Plan. PARKS: The applicant's property is located south of the Benny Craig Park. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The applicant's property is not located in an area covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The property in cpxestion matches the rural characteristics of the houses along Hoffman Road with large lots and houses near the front of the property.It sits next to the edge of residential subdivision characterized by smaller lots typical of mid-sixties and early seventies development.The vacant apartment complex located southeast of the applicant's property was developed at the rear of the neighboring property while retaining the house at the front of the property.The Union Pacific Railroad tracks separate the applicant'neighborhood and the neighborhood to the north. Suburban Office has been used in other areas as a buffer between more intense uses and Single Family.In this case, there is nothing to buffer since all of the abutting uses are residential. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Wakefield N.A.and Geyer Springs N.A.Staff 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-02 has received no comments from area residents.The applicant provided us with a petition that contains 35 signatures of support from area residents.Wakefield Neighborhood Association,in which this application lies,is in support of the change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The applicant's property is located in an area completely surrounded by residential uses.The applicant's property is located on a residential street.A change to Suburban Office would intrude on the residential character of the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) The applicant requested a deferral due to ill health.The bylaws were waived for the five-day notice.This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.This item was deferred to the December 2. 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:LU99-15-02 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Springs West Planning District Location:9125 Mann Rd. ~Re est:Commercial S Multi-Family to Mixed Use Source:Tom Folkner,Tom'Tavern PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from Commercial &Multi-Family to Mixed Use.Mixed Use provides for a mixture of residential,office,and commercial uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District (PZD)is required if the use is entirely office or commercial oriftheuseisamixtureofthethree. The applicant wishes to use the property for a tavern, apartments and a mini-storage warehouse. Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the entirety of the Commercial area which includes the West Baseline Alert Center.Expansion of the boundaries will make the boundaries more logical.With the expansion of the review area,the entirety of the commercial area shown on the land use plan between Stardust Trail and Terrace Place would be eliminated. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The applicant's property,approximately 1.93+acres in size,is zoned a mixture of C-3 General Commercial along Mann Road and R-2 Single Family and R-5 Urban Residence zoning on Terrace Place.The expanded area is 2.65+acres.The West Baseline Alert Center,at the northeast corner of Stardust--— Trail and Mann Road is zoned C-3 General Commercial.A commercial building at the corner of Terrace Place and Mann Road is also zoned C-3.Three apartment buildings located on Terrace Place are zoned R-5.The remainder of the surrounding properties,including a mobile home park across the railroad tracks to the north,is zoned R-2. October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-02 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The property is shown as Commercial along Mann Road and Multi-Family for the remainder.The land north of the property lies in a Commercial land use area with frontage on Baseline Road.Multi-Family borders the property on the east side.The property to the south is shown as Single Family. On June 15,1999 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office and Service Trades District at the northwest corner of Baseline Road and the Mabelvale Pike /I-30 interchange about a mile northwest of the applicant's property. On December 5,1995,a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use on Mabelvale Cutoff west of Chicot Road about a mile southeast of the applicant's property. On December 6,1994,a change was made from Park Open Space to Commercial at Baseline and I-30 about three-quarters of mile northwest of the applicant's property. MASTER STREET PLAN Mann Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Collector street from Baseline Road to Mabelvale Main Street.The Master Street Plan also indicates a proposed Class I Bikeway that will follow this section of Mann Road and link Forbing Road to the proposed South Loop. PARKS: The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed parks for this area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The applicant'property is located in the area covered ~b the Chicot West /I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.The Economic Development goal of the plan includes the objective of retaining existing businesses.The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal contains the objectives of concentrating development in the more urbanized northern section of the study area (wherein this lies)while 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-02 encouraging home ownership throughout the study area.The Community Image goal includes the objectives of stricter code enforcement and zoning reviews in the study area. ANALYSIS: All development along Mann Road is along the south side of the street because of the railroad right-of-way that parallels Mann Road on the north.This area was annexed in 1980 and the use pattern of residential and pockets of commercial uses was already in existence.There are other pockets of commercial uses along Mann Road.However,verylittlenewcommercialdevelopmenthastakenplacealongthis section of Mann Road.Much of the residential uses to the south consist of the single-family residential patterns characteristic of the 1960'and 1970'.Typically,heavier uses,which would include mini-storage,would be placed on arterials or at least the intersection of a collector and an arterial.Mixed Use will allow non-residential uses in this area surrounded by multi-family and single family residential uses,intruding deeply into the residential area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:West Baseline N.A.,Cloverdale N.A.,and the Town and Country Neighborhood Association.Staff has received three comments from area residents.One is in support,one was neutral,and one is negative. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The depth of the applicant's lot would allow non-residential uses to penetrate deeply into the residential subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. This item was deferred to the December 2. 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO 6 FILE NO.:LU99-15-03 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Springs West Planning District Location:8806 Mabelvale Pike RecCuest:Single Family to Light industrial and Park/Open Space. Source:E.G.Fendley,Delta —Coleman Inc. PROPOSAL /REQUEST Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from Single-Family to Light Industrial.Light Industrial provides for light warehouse,distribution or storage uses,and/or other industrial uses that area developed in a well-designed "park like"setting.Park/Open Space includes all parks,recreation facilities,greenbelts, flood plains,and other open space and recreational land. The applicant wishes to develop the property for industrial uses. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the area of review north to include previously zoned I-2 land and the Fourche Creek floodway. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The original application is a vacant wooded tract of land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 19.54+acres in size.The zoning of the expanded area is R- 2,R-7A Mobile Home and I-2 Light Industrial.The undeveloped property to the north and west of the expanded area is zoned R-2.The Arkansas State Highway Department headquarters occupies the property to the south in an R-2 zone.The partially developed property to the east of the area is zoned I-2 and is currently developed-as--such-. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The proposed amendment area is shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan.Park/Open Space is shown on the north side. A Public Institutional area is shown recognizing the Arkansas State Highway Department headquarters,which lies south of the proposed amendment.A Light Industrial area is October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-03 shown to the east while a Commercial area is shown to the south and east.Single Family areas lie to the west of the proposed amendment. On June 15,1999,A change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office and Service Trades District on Baseline Road immediately west of the Arkansas State Highway Department headcpxarters about a half-mile southwest of the applicant's property. On December 6,1994,a change was made from Park Open Space to Commercial at Baseline and I-30 about a half-mile southeast of the applicant's property. MASTER STREET PLAN Mabelvale Pike is shown as a collector street on the plan. As part of the I-30 widening and one way access road conversion,new overpasses are proposed for Mabelvale Pike and Baseline Road to cross I-30. PARKS: The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed parks for this area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: There is no recognized neighborhood action plan for this area. ANALYSIS: The proposed amendment lies in a wooded area south of the Fourche Creek.The current plans for improvements to I-30 will involve the construction of two new overpasses/underpasses for I-30 at Baseline Road and Mabelvale Pike.The changes for Baseline Road and Mabelvale Pike at I-30 may increase access to the area.In addition the recent land use plan amendment on Baseline Road next to the Arkansas State Highway Department headquarters will intensify land uses in the area.The proposed amendment was not expanded further west in order to not preclude the possibility of residential development expanding north from an existing neighborhood towards Fourche Creek.The proposed amendment would also recognize the I-2 zoning to the north of the applicant'property. 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-03 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Yorkwood N.A.,Pinedale N.A.,Santa Monica,N. A.,Allendale N.A.,Town and Country Estates N.A.,Shiloh Homeowners,Chicot N.A.,Rob Roy Way N.A.,legion Hut N.A., Mavis Circle N.A.,and Deer Meadow N.A.Staff has received four comments from area residents:two from property owners in the expanded area that is not in support of the change, another resident that was not in support and one that was neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate.A change to Light Industrial coupled with the expansion of Park/Open Space would more accurately reflect the floodway along Fourche Creek and existing zoning in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the commission. Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked for a list of uses permitted uses in Light Industrial.Mr.Minyard stated thatI-1 and I-2 zones were permitted in Light Industrial.Mr. Nunnley asked for and received a written list for I-1 and I- 2 uses. Walter Malone,of Staff,reminded that even if the item is approved,a rezoning would have to follow.A zoning change could be denied.The commission could require a PUD for thesite.The property will still be zoned R-2 Single Family regardless of the outcome of this case. Commissioner Bill Putnam asked if the boundary followed the floodway.Mr.Minyard stated that the boundary was based on FEMA floodway and explained the difference between the floodway and the floodplain. Commissioner Craig Berry asked why the expanded area was not being changed to PK/OS.Mr.Minyard stated that the boundary was based on the floodway and not the floodplain. 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-03 Mr.Terrance Dolan,the applicant,presented his case to the commission.Mr.Dolan stated that he was interested only in land use changes concerning the property owned by Delta- Coleman.The neighboring Arkansas Highway Department did not oppose proposed changes.The property is good for Light Industrial and accessible by Interstate 30. Mr.Harold Wesson spoke in opposition to the application. Mr.Wesson stated that he brought documentation to demonstrate why the application should be denied.He claimed that the owners of the property were not good neighbors and violated codes.Mr.Wesson is opposed to the road on the property.A discussion started about where Mr. Wesson lived in relation to the applicant's property.Mr. Wesson stated that the only notice he received was the supplemental notice.Mr.Wesson stated that he was opposed to some of the potential uses for the property permitted in a Light Industrial area zoned either I-1 or I-2 industrial. He also stated that Fourche Creek threatened to flood the property in question.Mr.Wesson'property value suffered due to the neighboring industrial uses. Mr.William Tully spoke in opposition to the application. Mr.Tully stated that he lived at 8804 Mabelvale Pike, adjacent to the applicant's property.Mr.Tully spoke about the past desirable characteristics of the area.The speaker then added that in 1990 a company started hauling away topsoil and the character of the area began to suffer.Mr. Tully was opposed to any more changes that would cause the environment and property values in the area to suffer.Mr. Tully wants the temporary road to be moved.Mr.Tully stated that he would rather see a nature park established on the site. Mr.Norm Floyd spoke in opposition to the application.Mr. Floyd stated he was speaking as President of the West Baseline Neighborhood Association.Mr.Floyd inspected the property and stated that heavy equipment was abandoned on the backside of the property where removal of topsoil was taking place.The soil removal was taking place in the PK/OS area.Mr.Floyd thought it was a bad idea to allow Light Industrial uses next to a residential neighborhood. Mr.Floyd closed with a remark that Mabelvale Pike was not suited for industrial traffic. 4 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-03 Commissioner Pam Adcock asked if Mr.E.G.Findley resided near the property and if he was in the audience.Mr.Dolan stated that Mr.Findley did not live near the site in question. Commissioner Judith Faust wanted to find out who is notified on a Land Use Plan amendment application.Mr.Malone stated that the supplemental notices are sent to any resident within two hundred feet of the property in question.Any property owner within the amendment area is also notified. A sign is also posted on the applicant'property. Commissioner Faust and Mr.Malone had a discussion about the practice of expanding the area under review for a land use plan change and removing properties from the area under review when owners oppose the requested change.A discussion between the commission and staff followed about the possibility of the expansion of the Winston Subdivision to the north. Commissioner Berry asked Mr.Floyd if he called PCEE to discuss alleged violation of environmental regulations on portions of the amendment area.Mr.Floyd stated that he did not because he was unsure of where the alleged violations were taking place.It appeared that topsoil was being taken and the areas of removal were being filled in with rocks. Commissioner Bob Lowery asked Mr.Tully where the topsoil was being removed.Mr.Tully stated that the excavations were taking place on property outside the area under review and not on the applicant's property.Commissioner Lowery asked Mr.Tully about the last time something was done on the property.Mr.Tully stated that fifteen years ago some trees were removed.Mr.Tully stated that he had lived in the area for the last forty-three years. Mr.Wesson stated his opposition to the expansion of the industrial area and opposed the dirt road on the applicant's property. Ms.Janet Berry stated her support for more industrial uses in southwest Little Rock.Mrs.Berry believes in the potential of the property for light industrial development but added that access to the property needs improvement. 5 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-03 She also stated that Mabelvale Pike would need widening but that homeowners in the area might loss their homes if road is widened.The project would be good for the community ifitdidnotdisruptneighborhoods. Chairman Hugh Earnest asked who was notified.Mr.Minyard replied that since the application was expanded,he went to the Tax Assessor'office to research the property owners in the area in order to notify them.Mr.Minyard had a list of ten people in the expanded area that staff notified. Supplemental notices were sent to people living in the buffer area around the expanded area.The alert center was also notified.Mr.Minyard stated that people did call after receiving notices.The neighborhood associations within the planning district were also notified. Commissioner Mizan Rahman asked Mr.Dolan who would develop the property.Mr.Dolan stated that his firm has an agreement with Mr.Findley of Delta-Coleman Inc.to develop the property. Commissioner Lowery asked Mr.Dolan if Mr.Findley owned any other property in the area.Mr.Dolan replied that Mr. Findley owned property to the west of that described in the application that is not in the amendment area. Mr.John Findley stated that he and Gordon Findley had an agreement with Mr.Dolan to develop the property.The applicant is only interested in his own property.A discussion took place between staff and the commission about the property described in the application,and the property covered by the expanded area. Commissioner Putnam reminded the Commission that a Land Use Plan amendment was being discussed,not zoning. Commissioner Richard Downing asked if the property owners in the expanded area could be excluded from the land use plan amendment if they were opposed to the change. A discussion took place within the Commission about options for accepting or rejecting the application. A motion was made to approve the change for the applicant' property and exclude the expanded area and was approved with a vote of 8 ayes,1 noes and 2 absent. 6 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:LU99-20-02 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Pinnacle Planning District Location:6400 Patrick Country Road Receuest:Single Family tc Office Source:Thelma I.Sullivan PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family to Office.The Office category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g.,legal, financial,medical)as well as general offices,which support more basic economic activities. The applicant wishes to develop offices. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is developed as a single-family residence andiscurrentlyzonedR-2,Single Family and is approximately 8.65+acres in size.The vacant property to the north is zoned R-2.A church occupies the neighboring property to the south in an R-2 zone covered by a Conditional Use Permit.MF-18 Multifamily zoning covers the majority of the vacant property across the street to the east.R-2 zoning covers vacant land to the northeast of the applicant' property while 0-2 Quiet Office zoning covers the vacant property to the southeast.The neighboring property to the west is zoned 0-3 General Office with conditions. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The applicant'property is shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan.The land to the north and west is shown as Single Family.The property to the south is-shown-as--Public —————-- Institutional,while the property to the southeast is shown as Office and directly east is shown as MultiFamily. On July 21,1998,changes were made from Single Family toOfficeandSuburbanOfficenorthandeastoftheWalnut Valley Christian School and immediately west of applicant's property. October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-20-02 On November 2,1993 a change was made from Multi-Family to Office on Ranch Drive and located about one half-mile east. MASTER STREET PLAN: Patrick Country Road is shown as a Collector street on the Master Street Plan.The master street plan also shows a proposed extension of Patrick Country Road to provide a collector street to connect with Pinnacle Road. PARKS The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed parks in the area. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The applicant'property does not lie in an area covered by a neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property lies in an area transitioning from a rural character to a suburban form.Office development has occurred in the area of Ranch Drive and Ranch Blvd. Large tracts of undeveloped land designated for Office, Suburban Office and Mixed Office Commercial exist in this area to the east and west. In July 1998,the Board of Directors approved a change from Single Family to Office and Suburban Office (20.5 acres for Office and 10.5 acres for Suburban Office.)The application in 1998 was for 20.5 acres of Multifamily and 10.5 acres of Office (with an additional 65 acres under the same ownership to the north staying Single Family.)The application of June 1998 was expanded to include additional land for Multifamily but the expansion did not cover the current area.At the time of the PC hearing,the current applicant'property was between two parcels of Multifamily on the east and west and Public Institutional and Single Family to the south and north,respectively.The Multifamily/Office amendment was approved by the Planning Commission with a 6-4-1 vote. However,with the ordinance as approved,the current applicant's property is now sandwiched between Multifamily and Office. 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-20-02 Now that the current applicant has filed for Office,it is reasonable to eliminate the peninsula of Single Family and extend the existing Office towards the east to Patrick Country Road.However,it is not reasonable to change the entirety of the application.The northern portion of the current application lies further north than the Office that lies to the west.This would be an intrusion into the lesser intensity area of Single Family. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association,Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association and the Westchester /Heatherbrae Property Owners Association.Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time asfiled. Large areas of undeveloped Office exist in this area. Expansion of Office will further increase the supply of land available for office development.Staff does not support a change of the entire area to Office.However,staff supports the extension of the existing Office to the southwest of the applicant's property towards the east in order to square off the land available for Office. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 14,1999) This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:293 ANNEXATION ANALYSIS -Pfeifer-East I.General Information Owner:Multiple Owners,Christopher O.Parker,Agent Location:North side of Highway 10,North and East of the Chenal Intersection Legal Description/Size:The SE ~/~,SW ~/~,SW ~/~',SE ~/~and the SE ~/~,SE ~/&,Section 10 and the NE ~/&,NE ~/~,NW ~i~,NE part of the SW /~NE /&part of the North /Qg NW /g and part of the SE ~/&,NW ~/&,Section 15,T-2-N,R-14-W, Pulaski County,Arkansas,containing 312.75i acres and 0 population. Purpose of Annexation Request:To receive city services. Site Configuration:An irregular shaped parcel being 3,800 feet north by south and 5,000 feet east by west. Physical Characteristics of the Site:The majority of the site is generally tree-covered and undeveloped.The land slopes downward from the north to the south. Existing Land Use:The bulk of the land is vacanC-. There is,however,an electrical substation,telephone substation,church and a private school included in the annexation. October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:293 Abutting Land Use Relationships:North -Vacant South —Vacant East —Single Family/Vacant West —Commercial/Vacant ll.A~nal sis Prospective Land Use Pattern and Compatibility with Municipal Plan:This property lies within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (zoning and subdivision).It also lies within the Pinnacle District Land Use Plan.The plan calls for single family.The applicant is proposing to develop 450 single family units.The proposed development is compatible with the City's Land Use Plan. Community Services/Facilities Effect On: Parks:No Comment received. Fire:The annexation of this property is important for the growth of the City of Little Rock,especially since it lies between Northwest Territory subdivision and F.C.Grass Farms both of which are newly annexed areas of Little Rock. Land has already been acquired for a new fire station to serve this area.It is important to remember that when the area surrounding this station site has developed to 51%of the average fire district,the fire station will need to be built,equipped with one pump and one ladder truck,and staffed with 24 fire fighters.The new station will be a requirement with or without-the-- annexation of the Pfeifer property. Police:None. 2 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:293 Public Works:Annexation should take into consideration collector and arterials shown on the current Master Street Plan.A new collector from Chenal to one of the shown Master Street Plan collectors may be required at the time of preliminary plat plat submittal to provide connectivity.Because the proposed development will be commercial in nature,we can anticipate an increase in traffic on Chenal Parkway.This may require signalization at the intersection of Highway 10 at Chenal Parkway due to annexation. As development of this property is achieved,it will result in increased street light,striping, and signage needs. Little Rock School District:No comment received. Utilities Effect On: Water:Service is not available at this time to the portion of this property that is over 410 feet above mean sea level,or to the property which is north of the ridgeline.To serve the remaining property,water main extensions installed at the developer's expense will be required.Exceptional charges apply for service to this property.Water service to a portion of this property may be available from Maumelle Water Corporation. Sewer:The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has no objection to this annexation but have the following comments:The southern and eastern portion of the annexation can be served by an extension of the Little Rock Wastewater Utility collection system.The Little Rock system is not designed to serve the remaining area to the north 3 October 14,1999 ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:293 and west.Requests for service in this area will be considered by the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee,and at the committee's direction may be approved with special conditions. III.Staff Summar and Summar Recommendation This proposal lies within the City' Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and is compatible with the City's Land Use Plan.The annexation will however create two unincorporated"islands".A small "island"of about 2.5 acres has been left out at the property owner's insistence.A much larger "island" (approximately 182 acres)will be created due to a series of previous annexations with this annexation creating the "fourth"side.While the creation of two "islands"is less than desirable,the City can initiate its own"island"annexation action in the future as it is doing now.The applicant has worked with the City to create the best annexation possible by including Wingfield Methodist Church,an Entergy substation,a Southwestern Bell substation and the Walnut Valley Christian Academy.The staff, therefore,recommends approval as filed. IV.Plannin Commission Action:(October 14,1999) The applicant,Mr.Christopher Parker was present and asked that his item be deferred.He also asked that there be a discussion on his item so that he may know of the concerns of the Commi s s ion. Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Little Rock Planning and Development made the staff's presentation.Ke stated that the staff had worked on the cost benefit analysis to refine it and make it more accurate.He also stated that this annexation would produce 4.27 dollars of revenue for every dollar of cost.He further stated that the City 4 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD oATE &4 ~9 ~Co~S~AYW BERRY,CRAIG v v v y v''v EARNEST,HUGH y v DOWNING,RICHARD v MUSE,ROHN A RAHMAN,MIZAN Y FAUST,JUDITH v v r" ADCOCK,PAM v FlSThlAM,5(L,L v NUNNLEY,OBRAY V'y v v +6 Y v- LOWRY,BOB v y v' HAWN,HERB +e~pv8t y'g ~ggf ETC R ADD'~C l ZONt: BERRY,CRAIG v EARNEST,HUGH DOWNING,RICHARD v'USE,ROHN A, RAHMANI,MIZAN FAUST,JUDITH v ADCOCK',PAM PUTNAM,'ILL y NUNNLE'(,OBRAY v LOWRY,ROB v HAWN,H RB 0 ~am Meeting Adjourned 8~f Z P.M. AYE &NAYE ~ABSENT ~ABSTAIN October 14,1999 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Date fl /& cr tar Cha'n