HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 02 1998LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 2, 1998
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Craig Berry
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Rohn Muse
Hugh Earnest
Larry Lichty
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Judith Faust
Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING AND PLANNING AGENDA
APRIL 2, 1998
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Z -4933-F One Source Rezoning Requirements
B. Z-6439 Southwest corner of R-2 to C-3
Kanis and Edswood Roads
C. Z -4373-C 1518-1520 Wright Ave. 0-1 to C-1
II. PLAN ISSUES:
1. LU 98-17-01
Land Use
Plan Amendment
-Crystal Valley
District
- east side of
Crystal Valley
Road, north
of Stagecoach Road
2. LU 98-10-01
Land Use
Plan Amendment
- Boyle Park
District
- west side of
the 3900 Block
of John
Barrow Road
3. LU 98-16-01
Land Use
Plan Amendment
- Otter Creek
District
- east side of
Stagecoach Road,
south of
Baseline Road.
4. LU 98-14-03-A
Land Use
Plan Amendment
- Geyer Springs
East District - 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
III. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
S. River Mountain Neighborhood Plan
6. Master Street Plan Amendment for the removal of the
Candlewood Connector
7. Master Street Plan Amendment to align Southridge Drive
and Pleasant Ridge Road
8. Amendment to Little Rock Code Section 36 to add
undisturbed natural area district
9. Amend the Land Use Plan to add undisturbed natural areas
category
Agenda, Page Two
IV. REZONING ITEMS:
10. Z -4325-C
11. Z-6467
V. ANNEXATION•
East side of the
9400 Block of Stagecoach
Road
5301 Mabelvale Pike
NW Territory Subdivision Annexation
K,
MF -18 and 0-2
to O-1
R-2 to C-4
r
-:
3NId
A
a W
N N
cq
W
Y
N
r
Z
O
W
p
U n
S LL m�
w
O
w
X
]
�RONSpN
K
NOlIIWMi 005
Z
s
SaNiyd S
vi O
�^
vJ 4
V
H1
ININdS 3A30
W
31
m
w
r
W
----
�_
w W
l^
O U
it
i.-_ b1S
pµ0
/ a
w
>
,
_
5
yo�o
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
the width for the total boundary length.
6. That the Board of Directors denied the request for a
waiver of 1/2 commercial street improvements to Kanis
Road on the frontage of the property.
Additional requirements:
7. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of
Kanis including a 20 feet radial dedication at the
northeast and southeast corner of property.
8. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline of
the new arterial to the east.
9. With development construct half street improvements
including sidewalks, for Kanis Road to collector
standards. Provide design of streets in accordance with
Master Street Plan prepared by Professional Civil
Engineer.
10. Construct 5 feet wide sidewalk including access ramps,
on the back of right-of-way of Chenal Parkway, and the
new arterial.
11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
12. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
11,000.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus
Route.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan
recommends Commercial use. There is no land use plan issue.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.09±
acre tract from •PCD" Planned Commercial Development to "C-
3" General Commercial. The property is currently
undeveloped and wooded. The applicant proposes unspecific
future retail development for the site once it is rezoned.
The parcel is part of the larger One Source Home Center PCD.
On December 26, 1990, Mechanics Lumber Company PCD was
approved for the 8.8± acre tract located at the southeast
corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. The PCD
established a 3 lot development with a hardware store/lumber
yard to be built on the larger of the 3 lots (Lot 1). No
uses or site plans were approved for the two smaller lots at
that time, including this subject property which was
identified as Lot 3. On December 20, 1994, Worthen Bank
Pa
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Eugene M. Pfeifer, III
James E. Hathaway, Jr.
15701 Chenal Parkway
Rezone from PCD to C-3
Future retail development
1.09± acres
Vacant, wooded tract
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Chenal Parkway Right -of -Way and undeveloped/
wooded tracts zoned 0-3 and C-2
South - One Source Warehouse and Lumber yard, zoned PCD
East - Construction office and contractor's storage
yard, zoned R-2
West - One Source Warehouse and Lumber Yard, zoned PCD
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Below is the result of discussion with the developer and
Board of Directors action:
1. Ordinance 17,009 gives the developer permission to
install a drive onto the new north -south arterial and
establishes a procedure for when this drive would need
to be removed.
2. The Board of Directors determined that the $20,000
requested for contribution towards construction of the
intersection of the arterial with Chenal was not an
appropriate request. To our knowledge there was not
formal waiver but a determination that this request was
not appropriate.
3. That Public Works and the developer's engineer agreed to
an area of additional right-of-way at the northeast
corner of the lot for purposes of construction of a
right -turn lane at a future date. This right-of-way is
shown on a plat of the amended PCD prepared by White-
Daters dated 1-16-96.
4. That One Source agreed to an in -lieu for the
construction of a right -turn lane on Chenal Estimated
cost is $25 to $30 thousand dollars.
5. That the developer agreed to construct 1/2 of the length
of the arterial on the east side of the property, but
that the cost would not exceed 1/2 of the cost of 1/2 of
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
Branch amended PCD was approved for Lot 2, at the corner of
Chenal and Kanis, with a bank listed as the only approved
use. On November 21, 1995, One Source Home Center amended
PCD was approved which combined the subject Lot 3 with the
larger Lot 1 to allow for expansion of the hardware
store/lumber yard and all permitted and conditional uses in
the C-3 district. On September 16, 1997, the Worthen Bank
Branch amended PCD was revoked for Lot 2 and that lot was
zoned C-3. The applicant is now requesting that this lot
(Lot 3) also be zoned C-3. This technically means the One
Source Home Center PCD will be amended to remove this 1.09±
acre tract from the PCD. This action will have the effect
of leaving the One Source Home Center on Lot 1, as it is
now. This subject property, Lot 3, can then be developed
for C-3 uses.
Staff believes the C-3 zoning request is reasonable for this
site. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends
Commercial for this site and the properties abutting to the
east, west and south. The Plan recommends Commercial and
Office for properties across Chenal Parkway, to the north.
The PCD zoned property to the west and south is occupied by
the One Source Home Center and Lumber Yard. A construction
company/contractor's storage yard is located to the east.
The large tracts of 0-3 and C-2 zoned properties across
Chenal Parkway are currently undeveloped and heavily wooded.
The PCD which currently covers this lot allows for all
permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 district.
Rezoning the site to C-3 will eliminate the conditional uses
as "by -right." Development of the site will have to comply
with the Chenal/Financial Centre Design Overlay District
guidelines regarding signage, lighting and utilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning as
conforming to the Land Use Plan and being compatible with
uses and zoning in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 13, 1997)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
STAFF UPDATE•
A disagreement has arisen between the developer and Public
works regarding the Public works requirements related to the
rezoning. These issues have been brought back to the
Planning Commission for resolution.
Revised Public works Comments as of January 27, 1998.
Below is the result of discussion with the developer and
Board of Directors action:
1. Ordinance 17,009 gives the developer permission to
install a drive onto the new north -south arterial and
establishes a procedure for when this drive would need
to be removed.
2. The Board of Directors determined that the $20,000.00
requested for contribution towards construction of the
intersection of the arterial with Chenal was not an
appropriate request. To our knowledge there was not a
formal waiver but a determination that this request was
not appropriate.
3. That Public works and the developers engineer agreed
to an area of additional right-of-way at the northeast
corner of the lot for purposes of construction of a
right -turn lane at a future date. This right-of-way is
shown on a plat of the amended PCD prepared by white-
Daters dated January 16, 1996.
4. That One Source agreed to an in -lieu for the
construction of a right -turn lane on Chenal Estimated
cost is $25 to $30 thousand dollars or developer may
construct lane.
5. That the developer agreed to construct half of the
length of the arterial on the east side of the
property, but that the cost would not exceed half of
the cost of half of the width for the total boundary
length. with development construct half street
improvements including sidewalks for the arterial or
construct full width improvements half the length of
the arterial.
6. That the Board of Directors denied the request for a
waiver of half collector street improvements to Kanis
Road on the frontage of the property.
4
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
Additional requirements:
7. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline
of Ranis including a 20 feet radial dedication at the
northeast and southeast corner of property.
8. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline
of the new arterial to the east.
9. With development construct half street improvements
including sidewalks, for Ranis Road to collector
standards. Provide design of streets in accordance
with Master Street Plan prepared by Professional Civil
Engineer.
10. Construct 5 feet wide sidewalk including access ramps,
on the back of right-of-way of Chenal Parkway, and the
new arterial,
11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
12. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count
of 11,000.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 5, 1998)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested a
deferral to the February 19, 1998 agenda. The item was
placed on the Consent Agenda and the deferral was approved
by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 19, 1998)
Staff gave a brief introduction of the item and turned the
issue over to Public Works for further explanation.
David Scherer, of Public works, gave a detailed history of
the property development, including Lots 1-3 of the One
Source Addition. He described the Public Works issues
associated with the property. He referred to items numbered
1-12 in the agenda write-up. Mr. Scherer also reviewed the
various agreements (concerning street improvements) reached
during the rezoning actions associated with this property
since 1990.
Jim Hathaway, representing the property owner, addressed
the Commission. Mr. Hathaway stated that the street
improvements that Mr. Scherer refers to were requirements
associated with a proposed expanded PCD for Lot 1 and 3 in
1995. He stated that the applicant never agreed to the
5
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
street improvements and that the proposed expanded PCD
application was withdrawn. Mr. Hathaway also discussed the
history of the property, Lots 1-3. Mr. Hathaway stated that
he is requesting a waiver of the street improvements to
Kanis Road based on the most recent Public Works
requirements. He stated that he has a problem with only two
(2) of the twelve Public Works comments. He stated that he
has a problem with comments #6 and #9. He stated that these
two comments related to Kanis Road improvements for Lot 1
and not Lot 3. Mr. Hathaway gave reasons for requesting the
waiver of the improvements.
Commissioner Hawn asked if a platting issue was involved
with this issue.
Mr. Scherer stated that Lots 1 and 2 had been final platted,
but Lot 3 had not.
There was a very detailed and lengthy discussion relating
to the boundary street improvements to Kanis Road and the
history of the property.
The Commission instructed both Mr. Scherer and Mr. Hathaway
to provide briefs to the Commission detailing their
individual views and opinions of the issues at hand along
with details regarding the history of the property and past
Planning Commission and Board of Directors actions
pertaining to the property and Kanis Road issues.
A motion was made to defer the item to the April 2, 1998
Planning Commission agenda. The motion was approved by a
vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
David Scherer, of Public Works, addressed the Commission.
He stated that the issue is whether or not the street
improvements to Kanis Road should be made adjacent to Lot 1,
One Source Addition. He stated that the improvements were
tied to the final platting of Lot 3 and that the
improvements should be done to commercial street/collector
standards. He stated that Mr. Hathaway is asking for a
waiver of the improvements.
Chairman Lichty asked if the recent north -south platted
street altered the need for improvements on Kanis.
Mr. Scherer explained that it has not.
Commissioner Putnam asked if there was a requirement for
street improvements with the development of Lot 1.
Mr. Scherer stated that there was.
6
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
Commissioner Putnam asked if the improvements were waived.
Mr. Scherer stated that they were not. He stated that they
were deferred until the final platting of Lot 3.
Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission. He stated that he is
not asking for a waiver.
Chairman Lichty asked about the commitment for improvements.
Mr. Hathaway stated that the issue is that the rezoning of
Lot 3 required improvements for Lot 1 that were not required
before. He stated that there was never any agreement to do
the improvements.
There was a general discussion regarding the commitment to
do the improvements to Kanis Road adjacent to Lot 1.
Chairman Lichty referred to letters written by Joe white and
Gene Pfeifer. He stated that the letters acknowledge the
improvements to Kanis Road.
Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that a case could be
made that the improvements were required with the original
PCD.
Mr. Hathaway stated that the PCD was approved without the
requirement that the improvements to Kanis Road be made then
or at a future date.
Chairman Lichty referred to the Planning Commission and
Board of Directors minutes. He stated that it was clear
that a waiver of street improvements was not approved.
Mr. Hathaway stated that the approval of the PCD, plat and
building permit did not include the requirement for the
street improvements.
Mr. Scherer stated that the conditions of the improvements
have nothing to do with the rezoning but with the final
platting of Lot 3. He stated that the improvements were
deferred until the time of final platting Lot 3. He stated
that the street improvements for Lot 2 were deferred until
the development of that lot.
Commissioner Downing asked about factual documents.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated
that if the improvements were not waived, then there was a
requirement to do the improvements.
Commissioner Downing asked about the instances when the City
could have asked for the improvements.
7
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F
Mr. Scherer stated that the building permit for Lot 1 was
approved, deferring the Kanis Road improvements until the
final platting of Lot 3.
Chris Parker, representing the applicant, stated that the
section of Kanis adjacent to Lot 1 was downgraded to an
unclassified street in 1995 by ordinance #15,730.
Mr. Lawson stated that commercial street standards apply to
commercial developments.
Chairman Lichty asked if two votes were needed (1 for the
waiver, 1 for the rezoning).
Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator, stated that the rezoning
had already been approved and that the only vote would be on
the waiver.
A motion was made to approve a waiver of street improvements
to Kanis Road adjacent to Lot 1, One Source Addition. The
motion failed by a vote of 1 ayes, 9 nays and 1 absent. The
waiver was denied.
8
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-6439
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Edward G. & Patricia A. Matthews
J. Gardner Lile
Southwest corner of Kanis Road
and Edswood Road
Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Future commercial development
5.5 acres
Undeveloped, wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Undeveloped, zoned R-2 and MF -24; Single Family,
zoned R-2; Restaurant and Paint and Body Shop,
zoned C-3
South - Undeveloped, zoned R-2
East - Undeveloped, zoned C-3
West - Undeveloped, zoned AF
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. Dedicate 55 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of
Edswood Road (West Loop).
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the intersection.
3. Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way will be
required to 45 feet from centerline.
4. One-half street improvements are required with any
planned development for Kanis Road and Edswood Road per
the Master Street plan or provide in -lieu contribution
of 15% of development costs at time of construction.
Depending on type of development a right turn lane and
additional right-of-way dedication may be required prior
to construction.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
7. Grading permit will be required on this new development,
if it disturbs more than one acre.
8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
Arpil 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6439
10. Kanis Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
5900 vehicles.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site, located in the Ellis Mountain District, is shown
as commercial on the Land Use Plan. The request is in
conformance with the Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped, 5.5 acre tract from R-2 Single Family to C-3
General Commercial. The property is located at the
southwest corner of Kanis Road and Edswood Road. The site
is outside of the corporate city limits but is within the
City's Planning and Zoning Boundary.
The area is very rural in nature with the primary land uses
being large tracts of undeveloped woodlands and single
family homes on larger tracts of property. There are
several nonresidential uses scattered along Kanis Road, some
of which are nonconforming. Immediately adjacent to this
site are several nonresidential uses and nonresidentially
zoned properties. The vacant tract across Edswood Road to
the east is zoned C-3. Across Kanis Road, to the north,
is a large, undeveloped tract which is zoned MF -24, an R-2
zoned residential property and a C-3 zoned tract containing
a restaurant and an auto paint and body shop. An
undeveloped, AF zoned tract is adjacent to the west. The
R-2 zoned property, to the south, is for the most part
undeveloped and wooded.
It is important to note that this tract is located within
the commercial node established by the Land Use Plan for the
intersection of Kanis Road and the West Loop. Kanis Road is
designated as a minor arterial street by the Master Street
Plan. The West Loop is a principal arterial street which
extends from Chenal Parkway on the north to Interstate 30 on
the south. On the north, the West Loop ties into Rahling
Road which extends on to Cantrell Road. The West Loop is
shown by the Master Street Plan to follow the alignment of
Edswood Road and past Land Use Plan and zoning decisions
have been based on the assumption that the Kanis/Edswood
intersection will be the intersection of a major arterial
and minor arterial streets.
K
Arpil 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6439
Staff believes the requested C-3 zoning conforms to the
Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan which shows a
commercial node at this intersection. The C-3 zoning
request is also compatible with established uses and zoning
in the immediate vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 19, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.
J. Gardner Lile addressed the Commission in behalf of his
application. He described the site's conformance with the
land use plan. Mr. Lile also discussed the commercial mode
which would be established by the intersection of Kanis Road
and the West Loop.
Lloyd Munsey, an area property owner, spoke against the
proposal. He stated that he did not object to the site
being developed for offices but was concerned about the
potential uses permitted in C-3.
Raylene Smith, an area property owner, spoke against the
proposal. She stated that commercial zoning would be more
acceptable if it did not extend so far down Edswood Road.
Stewart Scholl, of 611 Edswood, spoke against the rezoning.
He also stated that he would not be opposed to office zoning
but was concerned about the uses permitted in C-3.
John Bailey, of 424 Longway Dr., also stated that he was not
opposed to the site being developed for an office use but he
was opposed to C-3 zoning.
Anne Childs, of 18211 Kanis Road, stated that she was
opposed to the rezoning request.
In response to a request from the Planning staff, David
Scherer of the Public Works Department described what the
Master Street Plan proposed for the intersection of Kanis
Road and Edswood Road (West Loop). He stated that the
intersection design would be comparable to the existing
intersection of West Markham Street and N. University
Avenue. Mr. Scherer also stated that there was a county
project in the works to improve Kanis Road.
3
Arpil 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6439
various commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed
alignment of the West Loop, the City's excavation ordinance
and the sight distance at the intersection of Kanis and
Edswood Roads.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated
that the zoning request conformed to the adopted Land Use
Plan. He stated that previous zoning actions in the area
had been influenced by the Plan.
Other commissioners voiced concern about following the Plan.
Mr. Lile stated that the proposed use was a small office.
Commissioner Adcock asked why 0-3 General Office zoning was
not requested. Mr. Lile stated that the proposed use was
more correctly described as an office warehouse.
During a break in the proceedings, staff met with the
applicant and the neighbors to determine if an agreement
could be reached.
After the hearing resumed, Mr. Lile offered to zone the
southern half of the tract 0-3 and the northern half C-3.
Several neighbors stated that C-3 was unacceptable.
A motion was made to defer the item to the April 2, 1998
Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to meet
with the neighbors. The motion was approved by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval. Several letters of objection had been presented
to the commissioners.
The applicant, J. Gardner Lile, addressed the Commission.
He stated that he had seen the letters of objection and
commented that the letters seemed to focus on street and
utility issues rather than opposing the rezoning. Mr. Lile
pointed out that the rezoning request conformed to the
adopted land use plan which recommended this intersection as
a commercial node. He stated that he agreed with Public
Works Comments and that street improvements would be made
when the site was developed. Mr. Lile stated that plans
were currently being prepared by the Garver and Garver
Engineering firm for an approved project to improve Kanis
Road. Mr. Lile speculated that water and sewer service
would be extended to the site by 1999. Mr. Lile then
presented a map showing other C-3 and MF zoned properties in
4
Arpil 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6439
the area. He concluded by stating that the rezoning request
was filed in good faith, based on the City's adopted Land
Use Plan.
Janet Scholl, of 611 Edswood, spoke in opposition to the
rezoning. She stated that she was opposed to C-3 or 0-3
rezoning without a specific development proposal.
Raylene Smith, of 811 Edswood, spoke in opposition. She
passed out a document showing 1997 traffic counts on Kanis
and Chenal Parkway. Ms. Smith stated that there were sight
distance problems at the intersection of Kanis and Edswood
Roads. She stated that an individual at Garver and Garver
had told her that there were no funds available for Kanis
Road improvements. Ms. Smith stated that she felt the
rezoning request was premature and that she would like to
see Kanis Road improved first.
Ann Childs, of 18,211 Kanis Road, spoke in opposition. She
stated that her opinion was the same as the previous
opponents. Ms. Childs stated that she would like to see a
specific development plan.
Commissioner Nunnley stated that the request to see a
specific plan seemed reasonable to him. Mr. Lile responded
that no specific development was proposed at this time. He
stated that possible office/warehouse development might
occur within the next 2-3 years with commercial development
possibly occurring sooner.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, staff
stated that the Land Use Plan was adopted for this area in
1991. Commissioner Hawn commented that the adopted Plan
showed this intersection as a commercial node.
Commissioner Rahman commented that he was discouraged that
the applicant and the neighbors had been unable to reach a
compromise. He suggested to Mr. Lile that he came back to
the Commission when he had a plan for a specific use.
Mr. Lile stated that the land sale was contingent upon the
property be rezoned to C-3.
In response to a question from Commissioner Berry, David
Scherer of the Public Works Department discussed the
alignment of the West Loop and its intersection with Kanis
Road at this location.
Commissioner Adcock asked why the alignment couldn't be
moved. Mr. Scherer responded that to a degree the alignment
was set by existing streets, intersections and terrain. He
speculated that limited movement of the alignment might be
possible.
5
Arpil 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6439
A motion was made to approve the C-3 rezoning request. The
motion was denied by a vote of 3 ayes, 7 noes and 1 absent.
6
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4373-C
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Darrell and Donnie Canfield
Darrell Canfield
1518-1520 Wright Avenue
Rezone from 0-1 to C-3
(amended to C-1)
Home furnishings rental store
.26 acres
Two story frame residential
structure and vacant lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family and Two Family residential,
zoned R-3 and R-4
South - Vacant lots and Single Family, zoned R-6
East - Produce store, zoned C-3
West - Duplex, zoned R-4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the southwest corner of property.
2. Repair or replace broken sidewalk.
3. Improve corner curb radius to 31.5 feet radius with
construction (existing corner radius is 21.5 feet) or
request a waiver.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
6. Wright Avenue has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
9800 vehicles.
7. Any construction within proposed or existing right-of-
way shall comply with Articles IV and V of section 30 of
the Little Rock Code Permits to be obtained from Public
Works Traffic Engineering.
8. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec. 31-
403.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus Route.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C
LAND USE ELEMENT
The property is located in the Central City District. The
adopted Plan recommends Mixed Use for the site. This
category provides for a mixture of residential, office and
commercial uses to occur. Development of properties
designated Mixed Use in close proximity to residential uses
should be sensitive to and compatible with those residential
uses. Staff does not believe C-3 zoning is appropriate for
this Mixed Use site.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone these two
lots from 0-1 Quiet Office to C-3 General Commercial
district. The corner lot is occupied by an older, two story
frame residential structure. The second, adjacent lot is
covered with gravel and appears to have been used as a
parking lot. The applicant proposes to utilize the site for
an equipment and home furnishings rental business. The
applicant has stated that it is his desire to convert the
existing structure into the business rather than removing
the structure.
The property is located at the northeast corner of Wright
Avenue and Bishop Street. This area of Wright Avenue has a
history of occupancy by a variety of commercial and other
nonresidential uses. C-3 properties in the immediate
vicinity contain such uses as a night club, liquor stores
and a produce store. An asphalt parking lot and the produce
store are located on the C-3 zoned properties to the east.
vacant lots and a single family residence are located on the
R-6 zoned properties across Wright Avenue to the south. The
R-4 zoned property across Bishop Street to the west is
occupied by a duplex. The R-3 zoned properties to the north
are occupied by single family and two family homes.
Although the property does front onto Wright Avenue, any use
of this site could have an influence on the residential
properties to the north. Other than for the narrow strip of
nonresidential uses on Wright Avenue, the biggest part of
this neighborhood is zoned and occupied by a variety of
residential uses. A recent initiative resulted in the
rezoning of many properties directly north of this site from
R-4 Two Family district to R-3 Single Family in an effort to
preserve the single family quality of the neighborhood. The
neighborhood itself is best described as "fragile." Many of
the nearby residences have been boarded and many others are
in a state of disrepair. Staff is concerned that allowing
further C-3 zoning at this entry point into the neighborhood
could further erode the residential viability of the
adjacent properties.
Pa
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C
Staff believes that a more appropriate zoning for the site
would be C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The C-1 district is
designed to accommodate limited retail develop within or
adjacent to neighborhood areas. This district may also be
used in conjunction with existing commercial developments as
an extension of an established commercial district, such as
is the case with the Wright Avenue Commercial district. The
C-1 district should generally be located at arterial or
collector street intersections and within walking distance
of residential areas.
The Central City District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Use
for the site. Staff believes that C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial zoning is an appropriate zoning for this Mixed
Use designated property.
The applicant's proposed use, equipment and home furnishings
rental (inside display only) is a permitted use in C-1. In
addition to the applicant's immediate proposed use, the
other uses in C-1 are generally more acceptable in close
proximity to residential uses than many of the permitted
uses in the C-3 district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 zoning. Staff
recommends approval of C-1 zoning for the site as being more
compatible with uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity
and in conformance with the adopted land use plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998)
Robert Allen and Kay Turner were present representing the
applicant. There were several objectors present. Three
letters of opposition had been presented to the Commission.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had amended
the request to C-1. In response to neighborhood concerns,
the applicant had also offered, as a condition of the
rezoning, not to remove the existing two-story residential
structure. Staff offered a recommendation of approval of
the application, as amended to C-1 with the condition as
offered by the applicant.
Robert Allen addressed the Commission in support of the
item. He stated that the business was primarily small tool
rental and that there would be no outside storage or
display. He presented photographs of other locations which
the applicant has in the state. The photographs showed
older residential structures which had been renovated for
occupancy by the rental business. Mr. Allen stated that
plans were to keep the residential structure as it is, other
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C
than repairing it. He stated that privacy fencing would be
installed along the rear property line. Mr. Allen stated
that his company desired to be a benefit and an asset to the
community. He presented a letter from Abraham Carpenter,
Jr. of 1510 Wright Avenue, voicing support for the proposed
rezoning.
Alvin Duncan, of 2324 Schiller Street, spoke in opposition
to the rezoning. He stated that a "rent -to -own" business
would be of no benefit to the neighborhood.
Debra Harris, the Wright Avenue Alert Center Facilitator,
spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She stated that there
was already a business in the area that sold second hand
tools and furniture. Ms. Harris stated that the proposed
use would add to the neighborhood's crime problem.
Sylvia Tyler, of 1922 Battery Street, spoke against the
rezoning. She stated that a "rent -to -own" business would
take advantage of lower income persons. Ms. Tyler stated
that the proposed use would be incompatible with the Central
High Historic Neighborhood. She also stated that she was
opposed to any outside display of equipment. Ms. Tyler read
from a letter from Pam Marshall, the Central Little Rock CDC
special project coordinator. Ms. Marshall's letter voiced
opposition to the rezoning.
In response to a question from Commissioner Muse, Mr. Allen
stated that a security system would be installed on the
structure.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr.
Allen stated that the adjacent, gravel -covered lot would be
developed as a gated, paved and landscaped parking lot.
In response to a question from Commissioner Faust, Mr. Allen
answered that the house had been empty since October or
November 1997.
Commissioner Berry asked Sylvia Tyler if she felt this
property was better suited for low intensity commercial
development or for residential use. Ms. Tyler responded
that she felt it was better for the property to be used for
offices.
Mr. Allen interjected that "rent -to -own" was'less than 2% of
the company's business and that was only at the customer's
request.
In response to a question from Chairman Lichty, Mr. Allen
stated that the site would be landscaped to conform to City
Code. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, briefly described
some of the City's landscape requirements.
N
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C
In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, Mr.
Allen confirmed that the neighborhood was aware that the
application had been amended from C-3 to C-1. Commissioner
Nunnley asked Mr. Allen if he would consider deferring the
item to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Allen responded that
he would defer the item if it would be beneficial.
Sylvia Tyler stated that the neighborhood was working to
improve itself and urged Mr. Allen to meet with neighborhood
residents. She again spoke against "rent -to -own"
businesses.
Mr. Allen agreed to defer the item. A motion was made to
defer the issue to the April 2, 1998 meeting. The motion
was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Kay Turner and Robert Allen were present representing the
application. There were several objectors present. One
letter of opposition from the Central High Neighborhood
Association had been delivered to the Commission. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Dana
Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that he had attended a
meeting with the applicant and neighborhood residents. Mr.
Carney noted that neighborhood residents were still opposed
to the rezoning.
Mr. Allen addressed the Commission. He stated that the
applicant had met with the neighborhood. Mr. Allen stated
that the application had been amended in an effort to be
sensitive to the neighbor's concerns. He stated that the
site would be landscaped and the building painted one of the
five colors recommended as appropriate for the historic
area.
Kay Turner addressed the Commission and stated the applicant
had attended two neighborhood meetings. Ms. Turner stated
that she had letters of support from several customers of
their other locations. (Staff did not receive copies of
those letters). Ms. Turner stated that the applicant had
tried to address all neighborhood concerns.
Pam Marshall, of 1422 S. Summit and a member of the Central
Little Rock CDC, addressed the Commission in opposition to
the item. Ms. Marshall stated that the applicant did meet
with the CDC. She stated that the members of the CDC
discussed the issue and voted to oppose the rezoning.
Cliff Riggs, of 2004 W. 17th Street and President of the
Central High Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition.
He stated that this proposed use would not enhance the
5
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C
neighborhood's efforts to improve itself.
Sylvia Tyler, of 1922 Battery Street, spoke in opposition.
She stated that the applicant had met with the Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Association and the association members had
voted to oppose the rezoning.
Commissioner Berry asked Mr. Riggs if the association was
opposed to the rezoning or to the proposed use. Mr. Riggs
stated that there were some "neighborhood friendly" uses
within the C-1 district which his organization would welcome
but that there were others which he felt were not
appropriate.
Mr. Riggs added that the applicant had owned the property
for several years and that he did not have a good track
record as far as upkeep of the site.
Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Riggs if he had problems with some
of the uses in 0-1, the current zoning of the property. Mr.
Riggs responded that there were probably offensive uses in
the 0-1 district as well.
Commissioner Muse asked Mr. Allen what the chances were that
the applicant would put a different business on the site.
Mr. Allen responded that the chances were very small.
In response to a statement from a neighborhood resident, Mr.
Allen stated that outside equipment would never come to this
site. If equipment such as mowers or tractors are rented,
Mr. Allen stated, they would be delivered directly from
another store to the customer's address.
A motion was made to approve the
filed, including the conditions
The motion was denied by a vote
1 absent.
6
C-1 rezoning request as
offered by the applicant.
of 3 ayes, 7 noes and
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Crystal Valley
District
Location• Crystal Valley Road
Revuest: Single Family to Suburban Office
Source: Daniel Lieblong
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District
from Single Family to Suburban Office. Suburban Office
represents low intensity development of office or office parks in
close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure
compatibility. A Planned Zoned District is required.
RECENT AMENDMENTS•
In the last five years, the following amendments have been
approved in the area.
A major change occurred October 15, 1996 with the following:
1). An area northwest of the Colonel Carl Miller and Baseline
Road intersection changed from single Family, Parks/Open Space
and Public Institutional to Low Density Multifamily.
2) An area of Public Institutional use along the north side of
Baseline Road west of Stagecoach is moved to the west.
3) a area of the Parks/Open Space along and near the Haw Branch
of the Fourche is shown on the map.
On December 19, 1995, the following amendments:
1) An area at the northeast corner of the I-430/Stagecoach
interchange is changed from Single Family to Commercial.
2) The floodway/floodplain of McHenry Creek north of Stagecoach
is changed from Single Family to Park/Open Space.
3) The are between the Park/Open Space for McHenry Creek and the
Commercial at the I-430/Stagecoach Intersection on both sides of
Stagecoach Road is changed from Single Family to Mixed Use.
On May 15, 1990, the Ellis Mountain/Crystal Valley District Plan
was adopted.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Crystal Valley is shown as a minor arterial on the plan.
Currently, it is a two lane road with the west half of the street
widened with the development of the residential subdivision to
the west.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
The property is currently zoned R2 and is approximately 7.5 acres
in size. To the south, there is C4 zoning and R2 on the east,
north and west. A C2 area exists on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Crystal Valley and Stagecoach.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Otter Creek and Crystal Valley. Staff has received
communications from six citizens, two for and two against.
STAFF REPORT•
The area proposed for change abuts Single Family on the north and
west. Houses on Crystal Valley are rural in nature siting on
large lots while houses in the subdivision to the west sit on
typical width residential lots. Directly east lays the wrecking
yard. To the south are the Plainview Baptist Church and
parsonage. Across from the church, on the corner of Stagecoach
Road and Crystal Valley, is Bill Fitts Auto Sales. The
Commercial, to the southeast of the site fronting on Stagecoach,
is primarily automotive in nature. Across Stagecoach to the south
is MCI, Mixed Commercial Industrial.
Suburban Office can be used to act as a buffer between non-
compatible uses, i.e., between Single Family and Commercial or
Mixed Commercial Industrial. This buffer could be used to stop
further encroachment of Commercial along Crystal Valley and
confine Commercial along Stagecoach.
Prompted by this land use amendment request, Staff expanded the
area of review to include an area to the north to the
intersection of Crystal Valley and the proposed extension of the
David O'Dodd/Bowman Road and eastward into the Single Family.
This northern boundary will provide a more logical line.
Cory Bennett, the owner of another lot in the same subdivision,
stated in a phone conversation that the Bill of Assurance for
that subdivision forbids office uses. Staff does not have
written proof of this. The City considers Bill of Assurances
issues private matters between owners.
F,
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change is appropriate with the following
conditions: 1) Structures should have the massing requirements
and setbacks of single family dwellings, 2) A maximum of one
single story structure per lot, 3) Reduced signage to fit in the
residential setting, 4) Paved parking areas to the east of any
proposed structures, 5) Street improvements and dedication of
right of way as required, and 6) Minimize lot clearing and
maximize use of existing mature vegetation and topography.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case with the
surrounding uses and zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the expansion
of the original area to the proposed amendment area and brought
the Bill of Assurance comments to the commissioner's attention.
Six comments from the neighborhood were negative and five
comments were positive. Staff has recommended approval of the
change with the six stipulations as listed in the agenda. The
applicant is here.
Dr. Daniel Lieblong provided handouts for the commissioners of a
tentative site plan and graphic representation of the proposed
building. Dr. Lieblong described the structure proposed. Dr.
Lieblong spoke of the attractions of the site to him. He further
spoke on the six caveats in detail. 1) He had no problem with
massing and setbacks of single family house. 2) He wanted to
move the structure away from single family, not placing it on
northernmost lot. 3) He had no problem with reduced signage. On
the topics of 4) Paved parking to east and 6) minimize lot
clearing and maximize mature vegetation and lot topography, he
stated that there was a conflict because the mature trees lay to
the east of the building and placing the parking there would
remove most of the trees. The parking in the front of the office
would not be seen from the street with proper landscaping.
There were no questions concerning street improvements. No one
else spoke in favor of the petition.
Mark Avery spoke in opposition. He built his first home on
Silverleaf two years ago and is concerned in an increase in non-
residential traffic, crime and decreased property values.
Cory Bennett spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. He owns
lot number three and produced a copy of the Bill of Assurance.
He purchased the lot based on Bill of Assurance and the current
Land Use Plan. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Putman asked how the lots were arranged in the
Crystal Valley Glens Subdivision and Mr. Minyard explained the
configuration and sizes of the lots.
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-17-01
Commissioner Berry asked if we normally sought conditions to the
Land Use plan. Mr. Minyard stated that it was the first time.
Jim Lawson stated that we repeated what was in Suburban Office
and the reason was to clarify the record -- the majority of the
caveats are already in Suburban Office. Commissioner Berry also
asked, "If the applicant is not agreeable to putting his parking
on the east, if we waive the setback requirement for the main
building, would that encourage parking behind the structure? Mr.
Minyard stated that there was sufficient depth to the lot to
place the parking to the east. Dr. Lieblong stated that he did
not have a problem putting the parking in the rear but it was not
consistent with caveat number 6 to maintain the existing mature
vegetation.
Commissioner Lichty asked Dr. Lieblong for a clarification on the
sketch plan as to which lot the building would set. Dr. Lieblong
stated that lot 6 and 7 were flatter, and that lot 4 and 5 were
more hilly and more conducive to having a basement under the
building for storage.
Jim Lawson stated that this was a Land Use issue and that the
applicant has shown a willingness to work with us on this matter.
The commission needs to decide if this is an appropriate use for
this area. We can probably work out the design elements if we
get to the point.
Walter Malone stated that the conditions were a maximum of one
structure per lot. Also, that placing the parking lot behind the
building was to shield the houses across from Crystal Valley.
Commissioner Rohn Muse stated that we received several pieces of
correspondence from citizens in support and opposition to the
plan. There are five in support with just names. Who are these
people? Dr. Lieblong stated that they are neighborhood residents
that live in the immediate area.
Commissioner Adcock asked where he is located now. Dr. Lieblong
stated that he is at Baseline and Chicot. He is currently
renting and would like to build an office.
Commissioner Hawn asked of Cory Bennett if he was in the same
development as the applicant and details of the plat and the Bill
of Assurance.
Commissioner Mizan asked Dr. Lieblong if he was aware of the Bill
of Assurance and Dr. Lieblong stated that he was and that was why
he filed for the Land Use Amendment. The Doctor stated that he
thought that the Land Use Amendment would supersede the Bill of
Assurance. Legal Counsel for the city stated that the Bill of
Assurance issue would need to be handled privately and that he
needed to be concerned about that.
4
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO. : 1 (cont. ) FILE NO. : LU98-17-01
Commissioner Hawn had some question about the advisability of
creating a civil law suit.
Commissioner Mizan questioned the need for Suburban Office when
there is a supply of commercial in the area.
Commissioner Putman stated the case for a new homeowner.
Commissioner Hawn moved that we adopt the Land Use plan as
written. Motion was seconded.
Motion was denied, with 2 ayes and 8 nays and 1 absent.
5
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: LU98-10-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Boyle Park District
Location: 3900 block of John Barrow Road
Reauest: Single Family to Office
Source: Edward Jacobs
PROPOSAL / REOUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from
Single Family to Office. Office represents services provided
directly to consumers (such as legal, financial and medical) as
well as general offices which support more basic economic
activities.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
In the last two years, the following amendments were adopted:
In June 1996, the adoption of the John Barrow Neighborhood Area
Plan changed the following:
1) A change from Mixed Residential to Single Family in a multi -
block area southeast of the 36th Street and John Barrow Road
intersection;
2) A change from Low Density Multi -family to Single Family on
either side of John Barrow Road north of 44th and the addition of
Office along John Barrow from north of 42nd to 43rd street;
In March 1996, the following amendments were adopted:
1) A change from Mixed Use and Single Family to Mixed Office
Commercial on either side of John Barrow and 37th Street;
2) A change from Commercial and Low Density Multifamily to Mixed
office and Commercial on either side of John Barrow from 32nd to
34th Street;
3) A change from Mixed Use and Low Density Multifamily to
Commercial on either side of John Barrow from south of 36th to
north of 37th;
4) A change from Single Family to Public Institutional at the
southeast corner of Ludwig and 34th;
5) A change from Low Density Multifamily to Single Family south
of Ludwig and 34th;
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 2 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-10-01
6) A change from Mixed Use to Single Family at the northeast
corner of Ludwig and 37th and the northwest corner of Longcoy and
37th Streets.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
John Barrow Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan and is
built as a four lane section south of 36th Street and five lane
section north of 36th Street.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
The property is currently zoned R3 and is approximately 1 acre in
size. The site is totally surrounded by R3 residential zoning
with a commercial pocket of C3 at the intersection of John Barrow
Road and 36th Street and an area of primarily 03 Office at the
42nd Street intersection extending south.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
John Barrow, Campus Place, Kensington Place, Westbrook and
Westwood.
STAFF REPORT:
The John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan was adopted in the Spring
of 1996. This plan concentrated Commercial at the intersection
of 36th and John Barrow and Mixed office Commercial to the north
and south of the Commercial to concentrate more intense
development from 32nd Street to the mid 3700 block. The area
designated as Office between 42nd Street and 43rd Street, is a
vacant wooded lot. No noticeable new development was noted.
Totally surrounding the site are single family houses. Large
vacant wooded lots lie across John Barrow Road to the north in
the 3800 block and a large cleared lot lies to the south across
John Barrow Road in the 4000 block. At the intersection of 36th
Street and John Barrow Road, there is a liquor store on the
southeast corner. The other three corners are vacant. At the
intersection of 42nd Street, a daycare center is on the northwest
and to the southeast is Sober Living (formerly Gist House).
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change of the land use plan would be
inappropriate for the following reasons: 1) It is against the
neighborhood plan to extend this Office use further south for
three additional blocks, 2) Office uses can be placed in
Commercial and there is available Commercial in the vicinity, 3)
There is available office sites to the south of the property, and
4) The lots were originally platted shallow and with the
E
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 2 (cont.) FILE NO • LU98-10-01
subsequent right of way dedications and the required setbacks for
office, therefore the lots are unsuitable for office due to these
reasons.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Walter Malone of Staff presented the presented the case with
surrounding uses and zoning and noted the support of the John
Barrow Neighborhood Association. Staff is not supporting the
plan amendment.
Mr. Jacobs, the petitioner, presented at this time. He stated
that the neighborhood was in support of his plan and stated
previous examples of rezoning in the area. He stated that the
possibility of single family being built on the lots is slim. He
owns that land and this is not a speculative venture.
Commissioner Nunnely asked Staff about other vacant office areas.
Commissioner Mizan asked of Staff about the letter from the John
Barrow Neighborhood stating a Conditional Use Permit while the
application stated a change to Office. Is there a conflict?
Does the association understand? Walter Malone stated that there
was no one from staff at the meeting and cannot speculate as to
such.
Commissioner Hawn expressed dismay about the John Barrow
neighborhood adopting a Land Use Plan and then ignoring it.
Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Jacobs to describe his business. After
discussion, Mr. Lawson doubted that Office was what he needed.
Commercial would be more applicable. Mr. Lawson suggested that
it be deferred to the next meeting. The applicant asked to be
deferred. The motion was made and seconded to defer and passes
with 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
fl
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: LU98-16-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek District
Location: Stagecoach Road
Reauest: Multifamily to Office and Public Institutional
Source: Diamond Development
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District from
Multi Family to Office and Public Institutional. Office
represents services provided directly to consumers (such as
legal, financial and medical) as well as general offices that
support more basic economic activities. Public Institutional
represents public and quasi public facilities which provide a
variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries,
fire stations, churches, utility substations and hospitals.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
August 5, 1997, A change was made from Multi -family to Single
family south of Baseline Road and east of Wimbleton Loop.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Stagecoach Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan.
Stagecoach Road is currently a two lane road. The Arkansas
Highway Department is in the process of right-of-way acquisition
for future widening of the roadway.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
The property is currently zoned 02 and R2 and is approximately
17.5 acres in size. Immediately to the south is a C.U.P. for the
Otter Creek Assembly of God Church. To the east is the Fourche
Creek zoned R2. To the north, a commercial node lies at the
intersection of Baseline Road and Stagecoach Road.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Otter Creek and Crystal Valley.
STAFF REPORT•
The central portion of the proposed area on the east side of
Stagecoach is currently Calvary Apostolic United Pentecostal
Church and the southern section of the Multifamily is proposed to
be changed to office. New developments in the area include a
golf driving range across the street and a new single family
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-16-01
subdivision to the west with access on Stagecoach Road
(preliminary plated 5-5-97). Two other single family
developments are in development to the northwest with access off
Baseline Road. The remainder of Stagecoach Road is single family
homes in a rural setting.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff
expanded the area of review to include an area to the north so
that Office would abut the Commercial which lies at the
intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach. with these changes, the
entirety of the Multifamily would be eliminated. It is thought
that the additional area would make the boundaries more logical.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate to acknowledge the
existing use of the church as Public Institutional and change the
remaining parcels to change to Office. Staff believes that the
two churches and office uses are compatible and that the site is
not suited to traditional Multi -family use because of the
narrowness of the tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
This item was placed on the consent agenda. The consent agenda
was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0, nayes and 1 absent.
Fa
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: LU98-14-03
NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs East
LOCATION: 9823 Hilaro Springs
REQUEST: Park/Open Space to Light Industrial
SOURCE: Michael G. Pinner
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs East District from
Park/Open Space to Light Industrial. LI provides for light
warehouse, distribution or storage uses, and/or other industrial
uses that are developed in a well-designed "park like" setting.
RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 1997 a change from Single Family to Multi -family
for the apartments at American Manor.
MASTER STREET PLAN•
Hilaro Springs is shown as a minor arterial on the plan.
CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE:
The property is zoned R-2 and is 6.2± acres.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notice was sent to the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Association. No comments were received by print time.
STAFF REPORT:
Shown on the land use plan as Parks/Open Space the property is
just to the north of the city limits. The site is removed from
other development in the area and is currently in use as a
contractors storage yard and office. The area surrounding this
property is zoned R-2 and shown on the plan as either Parks/Open
Space or Single Family.
This property is located in the floodway. It is also shown on
the Master Parks Plan for Priority Two acquisition.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff recommends the property remain as Park/Open Space
on the land use plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998)
Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case. The property
is in Park/Open space, it is a priority two acquisition for parks
and that the property is in the floodway. We, as staff, do not
recommend changing the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Jerry Fitzpatrick, employee of the applicant, presented their
case for changing the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Mike Pinner, owner and applicant, spoke briefly.
No one else spoke in favor or opposition.
Commissioner Earnest referenced a letter from Steve Loop,
Floodplain Engineer, Public Works, to Pat Herman stating "The
property's location within the floodway of the Little Fourche
Creek will require that the City prohibit any new development or
substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated
(through hydrological and hydraulic analysis performed by
registered engineer) that such improvements will not increase the
height of the 100 -year base flood elevations established on the
FIRM Panel."
Following was a discussion of whether the property lies within
the floodway or floodplain and a discussion of the direction of
the expansion.
Steve Giles, representing the City Attorney's office, stated that
"if the structural improvements you are proposing are in the
floodway, no matter if the planning commission rezones the
property, you cannot develop because it jeopardizes our flood
insurance program. If it is in the floodplain, you may develop
with the guidelines stated in the engineer's letter. We need to
know that before we can take an action."
when asked for a clarification on the floodway or flood plain,
Ms. Herman "deferred to Public Works that are the experts and
that it does lie in the floodway."
Mr. Giles stated that generally to remove floodway encumbrances,
the developer is required to do channel improvements. They have
to get an engineer qualified in hydraulics to certify that those
improvements have been done and that is given to the Corps of
Engineers and they send it to Washington for a map restudy and
redraw. It is complicated, but it has been done. we may not be
able to help you.
PA
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO • 4 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03
Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning and Development Director, asked "if the
Planning Commission would have an opinion on changing the Land
Use Plan to Light Industrial, regardless of the floodway matters
because if these gentlemen go and do all of the engineering work
and spend a lot of money, and come back and we say that we do not
like it and deny it. we need to get a reaction from the
commission."
Larry Lichty, Commissioner, questioned how did they get there?
Bill Putman, Commissioner, questioned how long have they been
there?
Mr. Fitzpatrick answered that they had been there 8 years.
Mr. Pinner stated that there was a construction company there
before us that was a non -conforming use and that we could stay as
long as we are in business.
Mr. Lichty said that "I hate to think that you have a viable
business for eight years and want to expand and are going to be
prohibited. I do not have any problem in giving a signal to what
the commission thinks relative to the expansion of the business."
Mr. Lawson suggested that we change to LI the area outside the
floodway. If after research, all the property lies in the
floodway, the plan would not be changed. You must have the
engineering study.
Mr. Lichty asked if a conditional approval could be granted only
until the business ceases operation.
Mr. Lawson proposed that the Land Use Plan Amendment could be
denied, the applicant should come back for a PID, but we would
have to deal with the floodway issues, that is preferable.
Mr. Putman, asked for a Mr. Lawson to restate and clarify what he
had just said.
Mr. Lawson responded, "If they are serious, they could do an
engineering study, come in with a PID, and deal with it as an
expansion of a non -conforming use and not change the Land Use
Plan."
Mr. Pinner stated that they were willing to take the risk.
Mr. Lichty said to the applicant that he must have more
information. "I am looking for a way for all of us to be happy.
Get the engineering study, come back with a PID, and leave the
Land Use Plan as is.--
Mr.
s."
Mr. Lawson explained the PID process and stated that the
applicant will have to spend engineering money, that is your only
route.
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03
Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned the validity of the FEMA maps and
asked if they blanketed the area with floodway status.
Mr. Lawson stated that that was a possibility.
Mr. Lichty stated that Mr. Mizan Rahman asked if they could
expand in a different direction.
Following was a discussion of the direction of the water flow.
Mr. Lichty asked Mr. Pinner to approach the dais and explain an
exhibit and elevation differences.
Commissioner Herb Hawn asked if "our actions require Parks and
Recreation to purchase property in one year?"
Mr. Lawson said no. He also went on to ask if the applicant
would consider withdrawing.
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if they had to have an engineer and how
long would that take.
Mr. Rahman asked what the timetable of the applicant was. After
hearing the answer, he stated "You will not have time to do the
study. I worked with the gentleman that you bought the property
from many years ago. If it goes to the Corps and to Washington,
look for one year or two. You could acquire the floodplain land
next door, providing it is buildable.
When asked, the applicant stated that he was willing to withdraw
the petition.
Mr. Lichty asked for a motion to withdraw.
Mr. Pinner asked if he could sell this property.
Mr. Lichty stated "As Parks."
Mr. Giles said, "You have a non -conforming use on that property,
I cannot act as your attorney or advise you, but generally
speaking, you can sell the property as is, the next person will
have problems getting flood insurance and there may be
restrictions on the title insurance and you still have a use that
you cannot expand."
Mr. David Scherer of Public Works said that they could get flood
insurance, and we could rezone, but the applicant could not make
significant improvements to a building located in the floodway.
If proved to be in the floodway, they can make minor alterations.
A motion made to withdraw the application was made by Mr. Hawn.
The Motion was seconded. The motion passed with 11 for and
0 against.
4
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was withdrawn at the February 19, 1998 meeting for
further clarification as to whether the property was or was not
in the floodplain or floodway.
The owner believes that he now has proof that the land is in the
floodplain, not the floodway, and asked for a rehearing on the
item. See attached memo from Steve Loop, Public Works, dated
March 10, 1998 which states the contrary.
Planning staff still recommends that the property remain as
Park/Open Space on the Land Use Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Item was presented by Brian Minyard of staff. "Several meeting
have transpired since the last planning commission meeting with
planning staff, Public Works, and the applicants." Commissioners
were asked to direct themselves to the March 23, 1998 memo from
Steve Loop of Public Works. Planning staff still recommends that
the Land Use Plan remain Parks and Open Space. Mr. Minyard
deferred to David Scheer to explain the technical aspects.
David Scheer of Public Works explained the history of the
channelization and of the property. There is a piece of the
property in the floodplain and can build with a floodplain
permit. They cannot alter or expand those buildings in the
floodway. Our staff, with proper permits, does not have a
problem with the expansion in the floodplain.
Commissioner Berry asked to clarify that Public Works had no
problem with them developing in the floodplain. Discussion
ensued about takings issues with floodways, floodplains and the
elevational differences between the two.
Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Lawson if they still had to do the
PID. Mr. Lawson stated as before that we cannot support the
change of the Land Use Plan to Industrial in the middle of Single
Family, but do support the expansion of the business. Staff had
asked him to apply for a PID.
The applicant, Jerry Fitzpatrick, spoke briefly.
Commissioner Putman made a motion to keep the Land Use Plan as is
but we support the PID for their building. Mr. Lawson wanted to
clarify that we were not approving the PID before we see it.
Chairman Lichty stated that it was not an approval, but an
expression of support. The motion was seconded and approved with
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
5
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING AND PLANNING
AGENDA
APRIL 2, 1998, ITEM #4, page 5.
LU98-14-03 Land Use Amendment - Geyer Springs East District -
9823 Hilaro Springs Road
This sheet replaces the sheet found in the printed agenda.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was withdrawn at the February 19, 1998 meeting for further clarification as to
whether the property was or was not in the floodplain or floodway.
The owner believes that he now has proof that the a portion of the land is in the
floodplain, not the floodway, and asked for a rehearing on the item. See attached memo
from Steve Loop, Public Works, dated March 10, 1998 which states the contrary.
Several meetings have transpired between City staffs and the owner. The development
plans have been modified and instead of expanding the building to the east, a separate
structure has been proposed to the north. This is an area that is located in the floodplain.
A memo to confirm this fact is forthcoming from Public Works and will include a sketch
of the area that is not in the floodway.
Planning staff still recommends that the property remain as Park/Open Space on the Land
Use Plan. Staff does believe that we should foster growth of existing businesses and
therefore would encourage the filing of a Planned Industrial Development (PID) of a non-
conforming existing use to fulfill their needs for expansion at a later date.
TO:
Lu
City of Little Rock Engineering Division
Department of 701 West Markham
Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300
3714811 FAX 3714460
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
PAT HERMAN, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
STEVE LOOP, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR 5f
SUBJECT: FLOODPLAIN DETERMINATION - 9823 HILARO SPRINGS ROAD
DATE: JANUARY 23,1998
The above -referenced property appears to lie within Flood Zone AE of FIRM Community -
Panel Number 050181 0022E, with an effective date of November 3, 1993. A Panel copy is
attached for your use. Existing structures on the property are Pre -FIRM, and therefor the
City has no elevation data regarding the reference (lowest) floor elevation or lowest adjacent
grade elevation.
The property's location within the floodway of Little Fourche Creek will require that the City
prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated
(through hydrological and hydraulic analysis performed by a registered engineer) that such
improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood elevations established
on the FIRM Panel.
Please call if you have any questions.
We're Proud of Our Works!
City of Little Rock [ L4
GL Department of City Hall -Room 108 501-371-4770 / Fax 501-371-6832
Parks and Recreation 500 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1495
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pat Herman
FROM: ark Webre
DATE: January 26, 1998
SUBJECT: Land Use Change for 9823 Hilaro Springs
Parks has reviewed the proposed land use change for 9823 Hilaro Springs property, which
will be considered at the February 19, 1998 agenda. We also surveyed the site for any
significant attributes on and around the property.
A large portion, if not all, of this property is located in a floodway. As we understand the
floodway policy, property located in the floodway shall be dedicated fee simple to the City
of Little Rock. Parks will be pleased to add this property to our open space inventory if
this is the case.
We would like to preserve the property for storm mitigation, wildlife enhancement,
pollution mitigation, trailway development, etc. However, if monetary acquisition is
required, then we do not have the budget and cannot recommend to the Board a fee
simple acquisition, due to the competing infrastructure demands on the City.
If you have any questions or need further assistance with this, I'd be pleased to help.
cc: Bill Bunten
Bryan Day
Wo City of Little Rock Engineering Division
Department of 701 West Markham
�i Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300
_ 371-4811 FAX 371-4460
MEMORANDUM
TO: PAT HERMAN, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
FROM: STEVE LOOP, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR 5
SUBJECT: FLOODPLAIN DETERMINATION - 9823 HILARO SPRINGS ROAD
DATE: MARCH 10, 1998
Please reference my previous memorandum dated January 23, 1998. Subsequently, I met
with Jerry Fitzpatrick at the site and reviewed improvements. We discussed the status of the
current mapping, and I also visited with the Little Rock District, Army Corps of Engineers.
Corps work maps dated December 1986 included a floodplain restudy of the subject property
and are the basis of the City's current FIRM, dated 1993. This FIRM supercedes the earlier
County FIRM, dated 1983. The restudy was performed to assess the impacts from fill and
channel construction by the previous property owner. The channel work and fill were not
sufficient to remove the floodway from the vicinity of the existing structure, which remains
within Flood Zone AE.
Again, the property's location within the floodway of Little Fourche Creek will require that
the City prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first
demonstrated that such improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood
elevations. From Public Works' review of the available information, it appears that
additional physical property improvements would be necessary in order to adequately
demonstrate no increase in flood heights.
We're Proud of Our Works!
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5
NAME: River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In May of 1997, city staff contacted the Neighborhood
Associations of Pankey, Pleasant Forest, Pleasant Valley, Walton
Heights, Westbury and Westchester to join forces to begin the
process of developing a Neighborhood Action Plan. Though not all
associations chose to participate, a steering committee was
formed. The committee included residents not living in an area
with an organized association.
During June and July the committee held informational meetings
designed to help the members better understand city policies,
planning issues, and projects proposed for the area by both City
departments and other agencies. The meetings also provided for
an exchange of ideas between City staff, other agency staff, and
the committee members.
In August the development of goals, objectives, and action
statements began. This process included a review of the current
land use and zoning designations. The committee had a few
suggestions, however none of the property owners were in support
of the suggested changes. The Master Street Plan was also
reviewed and recommendations for amendments were included in the
action plan. With the completion of the plan, a Town Hall
Meeting for community review was held on November 3, 1997.
The Town Hall Meeting allowed area residents to contribute their
ideas and concerns to the plan. The committee chose to add some
additional action statements to address needs expressed at this
meeting. In January the committee met twice with large property
owners and members of the development community active in the
area to hear their views on the plan. The committee agreed to
some revision of the plan but did not incorporate all the
suggestions of the development community.
A copy of the action plan is attached for review by the
Commission. Five items are being brought before the Planning
Commission for approval and advancement to the City Board of
Directors. Each item is addressed separately on the agenda. The
Policy Plan will be reviewed as this item, followed by 2 Master
Street Plan amendments, a new zoning and a new land use category.
Also included with this item is a resolution of support for the
committee's request of the Board of Directors to appoint city
staff to review the City's existing excavation and buffer
ordinances.
The Plan is an Action Plan which the committee developed based on
their personal knowledge, information provided by "experts", and
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 (cont.)
the results of the Town Hall meeting. The committee agreed on 6
general goals which focused on public safety, infrastructure,
traffic and transportation, sustainable natural environment,
parks and recreation, and residential development. The Policy
Plan portion contains the goals, objectives and action statements
formulated by the steering committee. The Environmental Analysis
and the Marketing Analysis portions of the Action Plan describe
the existing conditions of the area, other background information
and trends for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution of support.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Members of the River Mountain Neighborhood Plan Committee were
present. Planning Staff presented the background of the item and
a recommendation of approval for the Action Plan as well as
requested on behalf of the committee supporting the review of
existing land alteration ordinances.
Mina Drause, of the River Mountain Neighborhood Plan Committee,
addressed the Commission. She stated other members of the
committee present were: Bob Augustyn of Secluded Hills
Neighborhood Association, Don Iddings, of Westbury Neighborhood
Association and Michael Wilkins of Pankey.
One area of concentration during the planning process was the
flood and drainage problems in the area. The Pankey and Peidmont
areas as well as Walton Heights were built without curb and
gutter or storm drains. Peidmont and Pankey have experienced
negative impacts from new development causing property damage to
yards, landscape, driveways and in some cases flooding in homes.
The committee felt it was important these areas receive immediate
relief.
Ms. Drause stated that one item discussed at every meeting during
the planning process was the need for protection of green spaces.
This topic is included in the Neighborhood Plan under the
environmental goal. One attribute of Little Rock is its natural
beauty. It is important to maintain some areas as unimproved or
with minimal improvements. Areas within the planning boundary
that should be considered as natural areas are the Grassey Flat
Creek, Pleasant Valley Green Belt and the Walton Heights Valley.
Ms. Drause also addressed the Commission concerning allowance of
waivers. She stated that the Commission and the Board should
consider future ramifications by not allowing sidewalks to be
constructed or by allowing sidewalks to be built next to busy
city streets and roads. She also commented on grading permits
2
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 (cont.)
and the allowance of cuts greater than 15 feet and the clear
cutting of trees. She also commented on the allowance of
exemptions to the Highway 10 Overlay. She stated the need for
landscaping and related ordinances review.
Traffic and transportation received a lot of neighborhood input.
Aligning streets to make four way stops was an important issue.
Pinnacle valley Road and Taylor Loop and the placement of a
traffic signal as well as the alignment of Pleasant Ridge and
South Ridge Drive were two intersections specifically identified
in the Neighborhood Plan.
Commissioner Berry commented on the Natural Environment Goal as
listed on page 22 of the Neighborhood Plan, the objective to
preserve natural landscape and hillsides in the area. What
action would take place if the neighborhoods saw that the goal
was not being accomplished by voluntary donations of land? Were
the neighborhoods involved prepared to engage in other
alternative such as entering the market place to purchase lands
or development rights to accomplish the goal?
Ms. Drause commented this was a great concept unfortunately none
of the neighborhoods that contributed to the Neighborhood Plan
had the financial resources to purchase lands. The River
Mountain Neighborhood Plan Committee did however support the
purchase by the City for land to be dedicated as Undisturbed
Natural Areas.
Chairman Lichty stated there were five cards to speak in favor of
the Plan. He requested these persons to waive their request to
speak and the Commission could take immediate action.
A motion was made to accept the River Mountain Neighborhood
Action Plan by Resolution as presented. The motion was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
The Commission also approved a Resolution for a Board directive
of staff to review the existing land alteration ordinances. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IN SUPPORT OF THE RIVER MOUNTAIN
NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood formed a Planning Committee
to work with Staff towards the development of a Neighborhood
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, homes in the area were included in a Town Hall
Meeting by the Planning Committee to keep them informed and
get their comments; and,
WHEREAS, after hard work by neighborhood volunteers a
set of goals and objectives was developed; and,
WHEREAS, this Policy Plan (Goals, Objectives and Action
Statements) provides a way for both neighborhood based
groups and others working in and around the neighborhood to
advance the desires and meet the needs of the residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of
Little Rock does support the intent and aims expressed in
and by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
Secretary
APPROVED:
Chairman
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IN SUPPORT OF THE RIVER MOUNTAIN
NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN STEERING
COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK'S EXISTING EXCAVATION AND
BUFFER ORDINANCES.
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood formed a Planning Committee
to develop a Neighborhood Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Committee recognizes the importance of
preserving and maintaining the existing landscape; and,
WHEREAS, the Committee maintains that development can
occur and be environmentally friendly; and,
WHEREAS, the Committee requests staff appointment to
the review of the City's existing land alteration
ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of
Little Rock does support the River Mountain Steering
Committee's request for review of the existing land
alteration ordinances.
ADOPTED•
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Secretary Chairman
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.• 6
NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION: Candlewood Drive Collector
REQUEST: Removal from Master Street Plan
SOURCE: River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT•
The Master Street Plan was reviewed as part of the River Mountain
Action Plan process. Currently on the Plan is a proposed
collector street, Candlewood Drive,is shown to run from Cantrell
Road to Pinnacle valley Road with a connection to the end of
Rivercrest Drive. The request is to remove the Candlewood Drive
collector from the Master Street Plan.
Walton Heights is an established neighborhood which has limited
itself to one entrance/exit at Cantrell Road. There are many
reasons why the neighborhood is requesting the change. They feel
that limited access has contributed to keeping their area safe
with little or no crime and would like that security to continue.
The reduced access has also been a contributing factor in
maintaining and enhancing their property values. In addition,
the steep terrain in the area does not lend itself to easy
construction and development of the area.
This issue was discussed at meetings which were held with the
River Mountain Committee and persons active in the development of
the area. The property owner is opposed to the removal of the
collector from the Master Street Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff and the Public Works Staff recommend that the
Candlewood collector remain on the Master Street Plan. The
Walton Heights neighborhood needs to have more than one exit for
purposes of emergency service access in case of a blockage of
Southridge Drive. The Staff is recommending that the collector
be classified with reduced design standards due to the terrain.
Rivercrest Drive, a collector on the Master Street Plan was built
with reduced standards. Staff recommends that the Plan be
amended to reflect the existing street.
Staff recommends Candlewood Drive remain a collector with reduced
standards of 31 feet wide street with 60 feet of right-of-way
plus any additional right-of-way required for turn lanes.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (cont.)
Staff recommends that Rivercrest Drive remain a collector with
reduced standards of 26 feet wide street and 50 feet right-of-
way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Walter Malone of the Planning Staff presented the item for
removal from the Master Street Plan. Staff has recommended that
the plan continue to show it as a collector with reduced
standards with a large part due to rough terrain.
Jeanette Straub, 13700 Rivercrest Drive, spoke in favor of items
5, 6 and 7 and spoke in favor of the entire neighborhood plan.
She asked for the commission to adopt the whole River Mountain
Plan. Ms. Straub stated that the connection of Rivercrest to
Candlewood would be detrimental to the neighborhood increasing
crime and speeding. Residents like the single entry into the
neighborhood. Ms. Straub spoke of widening the street and asked
the street not be widened. She asked the commission to do 1)
adopt the River Mountain Action Plan as drafted, 2) amend the
Master Street Plan to remove Rivercrest from the Maser Street
Plan, 3) amend the Master Street Plan to allow Rivercrest and
Southridge to remain at their current width, and 4) if Pleasant
Ridge Road is to be aligned to South Ridge Road, that Southridge
not be moved.
Mr. Mabry spoke in support of the neighborhood plan.
Dr. McFarland spoke in favor of the removal of the connection.
Jim Lawson spoke to clarify that Rivercrest is not proposed to be
widened. The road will remain just the way it is.
Mark Taylor, Southridge Drive, supports the neighborhood plan and
questions putting collector street through neighborhoods.
Juanita Foster was called, but did not speak.
Jim Duggan spoke in support of the neighborhood plan. He stated
that Brad Cazort spoke with the fire department, police and MEMS,
and that none of them had a problem with the single entrance. He
related an experience about a strange person in the neighborhood
and spoke that the single entrance was good. He wanted to
encourage removing the collector status as well as the connection
to Candlewood.
Tom Cole spoke in opposition to the removal. He stated he
represented the Lusk Family and they support staff position. The
Lusk family owns a tract of land at the northwest corner of
Candlewood and Highway 10. They made mention of that fact during
the town hall meetings as part of the neighborhood plan.
R"
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (cont.
Commissioner Berry asked of Public Works concerning emergency
vehicles in the neighborhood.
David Scheer, of Public Works, stated that Pinnacle Valley Road
is shown as a minor arterial on our plan connecting to the string
of parks along the river. "Public Works sees the connection of
Rivercrest and Southridge to the neighborhood on the ridge is not
a means to promote cut through traffic but as a means to provide
the neighborhood access to the parks without going onto Cantrell
Road. Secondly, we have difficulty with exceeding the number of
homes in a dead end community with emergency access. We strongly
recommend the connection and collector status and hold to the
plan."
Jim Lawson states that in a meeting with the fire department
earlier in the week, that they expressed concern over single
entry and the number of homes. The intersection of Candlewood
and Highway 10 is to be a signalized intersection and this splits
the neighborhood traffic to allow them two ways out.
Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson to clarify the amendment. Mr.
Lawson said "If you remove the collector status from Rivercrest,
that does not mean that you cannot connect another street to it."
David Scheer clarified that the removal of the street as a
collector would insure that the street would not be widened.
Commissioner Hawn spoke with Ms. Straub and asked the
neighborhood's objection to Candlewood Drive. She stated that if
it did not connect, that they would have no objection and does
not feel the connection would help the neighborhood.
Commissioner Putman made a statement that a few years back that
Rivercrest people came down and "cried" to put up a stoplight at
Southridge because they couldn't get out. He stated that now
they are complaining about adding an outlet out of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Lawson clarified that the item before the commission is the
connection to Candlewood, not just the collector status.
Commissioner Downy spoke of property rights of both the
neighborhood residents as well as the property rights of the
other property owners. The person that purchased the undeveloped
property purchased it based on the plan, and if that plan is
amended, it is unsure whether we have taken something from them
and may be entitled to compensation.
Commissioner Berry stated that there are other neighborhoods in
this predicament. Since this is an established neighborhood, and
they have worked through a plan, we should respect that.
M
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6 (cont.)
Wingfield Martin stated that the "Trust" is interested in the
development of the land and is not interested in the proposed
street being a collector width.
Commissioner Muse congratulated the neighborhood association for
their turnout.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed by
Commissioner Hawn.
Commissioner Berry asked if the motion could be amended.
Commissioner Mizan stated that there are three issues: 1)
reduction of street standards, 2) the connection, and 3) the
collector status of Rivercrest and Candlewood.
A motion was made to remove Candlewood/Rivercrest from the Master
Street Plan and seconded. The motion failed with 0 ayes, 10 nays
and 1 absent.
A motion was made to reduce the standard on Candlewood/Rivercrest
collector and seconded. The motion passed with 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1
abstention and 1 absent.
A motion was made to remove the connection of Rivercrest to any
generally north south street and seconded. The motion failed
with 4 ayes, 6 nays and 1 absent.
N
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7
NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION: Pleasant Ridge Road
REQUEST: Alignment with Southridge Drive
SOURCE: River Mountain Neighborhood Action Planning
and Development
STAFF REPORT•
As part of the River Mountain Action Plan process the issue of
traffic and safety on Cantrell Road and its intersections with
Southridge Drive and Pleasant Ridge Road was discussed. The
committee determined that alignment of Pleasant Ridge and
Southridge would help to alleviate many of the areas safety
problems. The committee is requesting that the Master Street
Plan be amended to move Pleasant Ridge Road to create a four-way
intersection with Southridge Drive at Cantrell Road.
There is currently a four way traffic signal at Southridge Drive.
This light functions on the south side of Cantrell Road to allow
traffic to exit from an existing commercial business. This area
is the site of a proposed grocery and commercial center which
would increase traffic in the area. There are currently in
excess of 600 apartment units on Pleasant Ridge Drive. Because
of the placement of the traffic signal, vehicles will be
encourage to cut -through the proposed commercial development for
easier access onto Cantrell Road.
The property owner is opposed to the amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff is opposed to the alignment due to an approved PD -C for
the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
Walter Malone presented the Staff's opinion to amend the Master
Street Plan to align Southridge with Pleasant Ridge. There is an
approved PCD on the south side of the road and that would hamper
alignment.
Commissioner Berry asked what are the possibilities to align to
the north. Mr. Lawson stated he did not know how we would go
back to amend the Master Street Plan after approving a PCD for
the site. With the proposed PCD as approved, there is a parking
lot and you can cut through the parking lot and get to the signal
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.)
and that will happen.
Mina Drause spoke for the neighborhood and stated that topography
prohibits moving Southridge further to the west.
A resident stated that the zoning changes have changed the
traffic situation. He stated that there had been a commitment to
leave the traffic light where it is by the developer. He also
stated that the Planning Commission will say one thing and then
the board will do another.
Mr. Lawson suggested that the Staff come up with alternatives on
both sides of the street, and present to the commission and the
neighborhood.
A past president of the neighborhood suggested that Southridge be
realigned to meet Cantrell at the Rodney Parham intersection.
A motion was made and seconded to align Southridge with something
at Cantrell.
The motion was amended to ask Staff to study and come back to the
commission after consulting with property owners and neighborhood
groups. The first motion was withdraw.
The motion was made to align Southridge and Pleasant Ridge Road.
The motion passed with 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent.
2
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.• 8
NAME: Undisturbed Natural Area Zoning District
LOCATION•
REQUEST: Establish a new zoning category
SOURCE: River Mountain Neighborhood Action Planning
and Development
STAFF REPORT•
The loss of natural resources to development throughout the City
of Little Rock is a vital concern for the River Mountain
Neighborhood. Clear cutting of trees, flattening of hills, and
the loss of open space are all events which reduce the livability
of a city. The Neighborhood developed the "UNA" Undisturbed
Natural Areas zoning district (and accompanying land use
category) as a tool to recognize and preserve natural areas on
the City's master plans.
The committee developed the category as a means for the City or
private property owners to preserve land for passive recreational
purposes. While properties would be accessible for activities
such as hiking or bird watching; there would be no development of
trails or structures to alter the natural state of the property.
The establishment of such areas would also enforce and enhance
the visual aesthetics of the City.
While there is an existing Open Space district the committee
feels that its predominate usage, to establish buffer zones
between different types of developments, does not meet their
needs or concerns.
Zoning to the "UNA" district is a voluntary act on the part of
the property owner. The ordinance has been reviewed by the
Departments of Parks and Recreation, Public Works, City Attorney
and the City real estate officer. Copies of the ordinance where
also distributed to the neighborhood associations and the
Department of Planning and Development's contact list.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff feels this district addresses the concerns of
the neighborhood.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 2, 1998)
Members of the River Mountain Neighborhood Plan Committee were
present. Planning Staff presented the background of the item and
a recommendation of approval.
Mina Drause of the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan
Committee also address the Commission concerning the need for the
addition of an Undisturbed Natural Area to the zoning
classification. Ms. Drause stated the rezoning would be strictly
voluntary.
Commissioner Earnest stated he was in support of the concept but
felt additional research should be conducted before the
implementation of the change to the zoning ordinance. He
expressed the Parks Departments concerns of lack of continuity
that could develop in the donation of lands, the broadness of the
term undisturbed natural areas and the lack of a mechanism to
encourage donations through tax relief.
Commissioner Berry also stated that the concept was in general a
good idea but a funding mechanism, should persons chose not to
donate, should be considered.
Chairman Lichty stated the concept was an issue for sustainable
growth. He also stated it was important to serve the best
interest of the property owners as well as the City of Little
Rock.
Commissioner Downing stated it was an important concept and
should not be lost. He felt the need for the placement of a
mechanism for accountability and the reporting back to the
Commission in the future concerning the issue.
Commissioner Earnest stated Items 8 and 9 were related and a
motion for review of the Undisturbed Natural Area Land Use
category and the Undisturbed Natural Area Zoning category were
directly related. Items 8 and 9 were combined and a vote was
taken.
A motion was made by Resolution to review natural area
delineation. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
2
Item 8
ORDINANCE NO.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LITTLE ROCK CODE SECTION
36, ZONING DIVISION SPECIAL DISTRICTS;
UNDISTURBED NATURAL AREA DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Undisturbed Natural Area will foster urban design that preserves natural open
spaces and minimizes disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources
while creating a balance with the ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, the Undisturbed Natural Area is designed to permit and define the reasonable use of
properties which contain environmentally sensitive features and natural resources while
recognizing the importance of environmental resources and protecting such resources from
destruction; and
WHEREAS, the Undisturbed Natural Area is intended to protect the public from injury and
property damage due to flooding, erosion and other natural hazards as well as a loss of natural
heritage and reduction of the quality of life; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY
OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That Chapter 36, Division 6 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances be amended to
provide for the creation and insertion of a new section 36-341.1 titled `UNA' Undisturbed
Natural Area District and to read as follows.
(a) Purpose and intent. The `UNA' Undisturbed Natural Area District is intended to
foster urban design that preserves undisturbed natural areas, environmentally sensitive
features and natural resources. It is the purpose of the UNA district to recognize that
undisturbed natural areas are a vital component to maintaining a healthy and vibrant
urban community. It is intended that those properties under ownership of the City of
Little Rock will allow public access. It is not the intend to prohibit private holding of
`UNA' properties.
(b) Development criteria. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, the
following development criteria shall apply to the UNA Undisturbed Natural Area
District:
1. UNA Undisturbed Natural Area District shall hold property in its natural
state without development in perpetuity.
2. Property may be held in public or private ownership.
Property may be deeded to the City of Little Rock for purpose of creating
an undisturbed natural area. The City of Little Rock shall have the right
to refuse the donation of property. Prior to the acceptance of any
property by the City of Little Rock, an Environmental Review Record
shall be completed and submitted for review by the appropriate City
Item 8
department.
4. Recording Requirements. An approved Site Plan or Plat that contains a
protected Undisturbed Natural Area, or a designated conservation
easement, shall be recorded in the Pulaski County Assessor's office. The
recording is intended to provide notice to subsequent property owners
that environmental limitations apply to the subject property.
5. Dumping of trash, waste or offensive materials or the creation of a
junkyard of any kind shall be expressly prohibited.
The location of off -premises outdoor advertising shall be prohibited.
(c) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the UNA Undisturbed Natural
Area District:
1. All existing natural elements to include woodlands, wetlands, floodplains,
steep slopes and hydric soils.
(d) Ancillary uses. Where it can be shown that a use will not be detrimental to the
existing natural elements of Undisturbed Natural Area areas, or pose a public safety
hazard, the following uses are permissible as ancillary uses.
Stream Crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts, and/or stream
bank stabilization are in compliance with all local, federal and state
regulations. Channelization is discouraged.
2. Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains,
gas, telephone and power lines, and storm water detention and retention
facilities are permitted if they are designed and constructed to minimize
their impact upon the undisturbed natural areas. The design and
construction of utilities should also include measures to protect against
erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts
of excavation and filling. All such development must comply with
applicable local, state and federal regulations. Upon completion of the
installation of the public facility or line, those persons responsible for the
disturbance shall restore the undisturbed natural areas.
(e) Exemptions: The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this
Section:
Emergency/public safety. Grading, clearing, removal or other activities
required for emergency situations involving immediate danger to life,
health and safety, or which create an immediate threat to persons or
property or create substantial fire hazards.
2. Clearing to maintain the carrying capacity of floodways, in accordance
with applicable local, state and federal regulations.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 36, Division 6, Section 36-337 Districts, of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances be amended to provide for insertion of a fifth special purpose district and to read as
follows.
1. UNA undisturbed natural area district.
Item 8
SECTION 3. That Chapter 36, Division 6, Section 36-176 Districts, of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances be amended to include as follows.
1. UNA undisturbed natural area district.
SECTION 4. REPEALER: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY: If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjusted to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 9
NAME: Undisturbed Natural Area Land Use Category
LOCATION•
REQUEST: Establish a new category
SOURCE: River Mountain Neighborhood Action Planning
and Development
STAFF REPORT•
The Undisturbed Natural Area land use category is an
accompaniment to the "UNA" zoning district. The request to add
this category to the Plan is so that properties zoned "UNA" may
be shown on the Plan separately from other developed parks,
buffer strips or floodplain. It is important that the "UNA"
category be designated on both current (zoning) and future (land
use) master plans.
As with the zoning districts there is an existing Open Space land
use category. However, the committee feels that its predominate
usage for buffering or active recreation areas does not meet
their needs or concerns.
The ordinance has been reviewed by the Departments of Parks and
Recreation, Public Works, City Attorney and the City real estate
officer. Copies of the ordinance where also distributed to the
neighborhood associations and the Department of Planning and
Development's contact list.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff feels that this meets the desires of the
neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 2, 1998)
Commissioner Earnest stated items 8 and 9 were related and a
motion for review of the Undisturbed Natural Area Land Use
category and the Undisturbed Zoning category were directly
related. These items were combined and a vote was taken.
A motion was made by Resolution to review natural area
delineation. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
Item 9
ORDINANCE NO.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LITTLE ROCK LAND USE PLAN
(16,222) AND NARRATIVE ADDING THE CATEGORY UNA
UNDISTURBED NATURAL AREA; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the Undisturbed Natural Area will foster urban design that preserves natural open
spaces and minimizes disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources
while creating a balance with the ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, the Undisturbed Natural Area is designed to permit and define the reasonable use of
properties which contain environmentally sensitive features and natural resources while
recognizing the importance of environmentally resources and protecting such resources from
destruction; and
WHEREAS, the Undisturbed Natural Area is intended to protect the public from injury and
property damage due to flooding, erosion and other natural hazards as well as a loss of natural
heritage and reduction of the quality of life; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. UNA Undisturbed Natural Area - This category provides for land to held in
private or public ownership that shall remain undisturbed and undeveloped for perpetuity.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4325-C
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Diamond Development, Inc.
Patrick McGetrick
East side of the 9400 Block of
Stagecoach Road
Rezone from MF -18 and 0-2
to O-1
Future office development
6.62 acres
Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Church; zoned MF -18 with conditional use permit
South - Church; zoned R-2 with conditional use permit
East - Undeveloped, wooded floodway; zoned R-2
West - Single Family and Undeveloped; zoned R-2 and
MF -12
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. Stagecoach Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4. A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area are required prior to construction.
5. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood
hazard permit, and special grading permit for flood
areas are required. Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology (ADPCE) and NPDES permit are also
required.
6. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 293, is required
to be shown on plat and grading plans.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
9. ADPC&E clearance of soils prior to dedication.
10. City Ordinance requires that floodway be dedicated or
provide an easement to the City.
11. Street improvement plans shall include signage and
striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4325-C
Engineering prior to construction.
12. Stagecoach Road has a 1997 average daily traffic count
of 8200.
13. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements
within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way.
14. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
15. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD, District VI.
16. Utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall
be per Article V or Sec. 30.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus
Route.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Otter Creek Land Use District.
The adopted plan recommends MF Multifamily for this site and
the properties to the north, including the church site.
Staff has recommended a plan amendment which would change
the land use designation for this site to Office.
Approximately half of the site is already zoned 0-2,
although the Plan reflects MF. The plan amendment would
also change the designation for the church site to the north
from MF to PI Public/Institutional. The plan amendment is
item no. 3 on this agenda, LU 98-16-01.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped 6.62 acre tract from MF -18 Multifamily and 0-2
Office and Institutional to 0-1 Quiet Office District. No
specific development is proposed at this time. 0-1 allows
for office uses that will be compatible with adjacent
residential districts. Typical development in the 0-1 zone
occurs on smaller lots.
The property is located on the east side of the 9400 Block
of Stagecoach Road. The 6.62 acre site is sandwiched
between two church sites and is bordered by a large area of
undevelopable floodway to the east. A new single family
residential subdivision is being developed across Stagecoach
Road to the west. Two tracts of MF -12 zoned property are
also located across Stagecoach Road. One of these tracts is
vacant and the other contains older single family homes.
2
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4325-C
The southern half of the subject property is currently zoned
0-2. The northern half is zoned MF -18. Staff believes it
is appropriate to allow for the reclassification of the
property to 0-1. 0-1 is an appropriate zoning for
properties located within close proximity to single family.
Churches abut both the north and south perimeter of the
site. Two new, large multifamily complexes are under
construction in this area, one on Baseline Road and one
further south on Stagecoach. It is unlikely that there is a
need for this small area of MF -18 zoned land for further
multifamily development.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan currently recommends
multifamily for this tract and for the church site to the
north. Staff has recommended approval of a plan amendment
which would show this site as office and the church site as
public/institutional. The plan amendment also involves
property further to the north of the church. See item no.
3, LU 98-16-01.
The Otter Creek and Crystal valley Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to reclassify this
property to 0-1 Quiet Office District. Any property which
is in the floodway will be classified OS Open Space.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6467
Owner: George Davidson
Applicant: George Davidson
Location: 5301 Mabelvale Pike
Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Purpose: Allow for expansion of a
nonconforming auto repair
garage.
Size: .29± acres
Existing Use: Nonconforming auto repair
garage
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Daycare Center, zoned 0-1; School, zoned R-2;
Apartments, zoned R-5
South - Strip Commercial Center and variety of Commercial
uses, zoned C-3
East - Single Family Residential, zoned R-2
West - Offices, zoned 0-3; Beauty Shop, zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. With construction provide a contribution for 15% of
total development costs in -lieu of constructing one-half
street improvements for Mabelvale Pike.
2. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus
Route.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the 65th Street Land Use District.
The adopted plan recommends Commercial for the site.
Although the plan recommends Commercial, staff does not
believe C-4 Open Display Commercial is appropriate for this
site. The property abuts single family residential and the
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6467
other commercial in the area is smaller scale, retail type
development.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .29±
acre tract from R-2 Single Family Residential to C-4 Open
Display. The site contains a nonconforming, two -bay auto
repair garage. The owner of the property has recently,
illegally expanded the building by adding two more bays to
the south side of the building. He has been cited by the
codes enforcement staff for this action. The applicant has
filed for rezoning to C-4 which allows auto repair garages
as a permitted use.
The property is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Mabelvale Pike and West 53rd Street. Uses
in the area are varied, ranging from residential to retail
commercial. A day care center, an elementary school and an
apartment complex are located across West 53rd/Mabelvale
Pike to the north on properties zoned 0-1, R-2 and R-5
respectively. The C-3 zoned properties to the south contain
a variety of retail type commercial uses. A beauty shop and
an office are located across Mabelvale Pike to the west on
properties zoned C-3 and 0-3. A large area of R-2 zoned
single family residential properties extends to the east of
this site.
Although the property is located within an area designated
by the Land Use Plan as commercial, staff has concerns about
the proposed C-4 zoning. C-4 allows for many uses other
than the auto repair garage currently operated by the
applicant. The C-4 district allows for open display uses
which are probably not suitable for this particular site.
Many of these uses are not generally compatible with
pedestrian oriented commercial districts and shopping
centers since they tend to obstruct and interfere with
pedestrians movements. More appropriate locations for such
uses are along heavily traveled major traffic arterials such
as S. University Avenue or I-30. Within the immediate area,
the nonresidential uses are limited to offices and small
scale indoor retail uses. Single family residential is
directly adjacent to the east. Staff cannot support
allowing C-4 zoning directly adjacent to an established
single family use, especially without appropriate buffering
or open space. C-3 would be a more appropriate zoning for
this site.
The Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association was notified of
the rezoning request.
2
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6467
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2, 1998)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that
the applicant had amended the request to C-3 with a
conditional use permit. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff,
stated that staff was willing to recommend approval of C-3
but that a recommendation could not be made on the
conditional use permit request since it had not actually
been filed. Mr. Carney suggested that a conditional use
permit application should be filed and the item should go
through the proper process, including Subdivision Committee
review.
Bob Leslie, the applicant's attorney, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he agreed with staff's
assessment of the issue. Mr. Leslie presented a petition
signed by numerous neighborhood residents who support Mr.
Davidson's rezoning request.
Joa Stafford Humphrey, of the Geyer Springs Neighborhood
Association, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
She stated that Mr. Davidson had expanded the building
without proper City permits or approval. Ms. Humphrey
stated that neighborhood residents were very upset at Mr.
Davidson. She presented photographs of the site.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated
that although staff was supportive of C-3 zoning that did
not necessarily mean that staff would support a conditional
use permit for the auto repair business.
A motion was made to approve the C-3 zoning request. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noes and 1
absent.
3
e
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: 289
ANNEXATION ANALYSIS - Northwest Territory Subdivision
I. General Information
Owner: Pfeifer Development Company/
Christopher O. Parker, Agent
Location: North of the intersection of Chenal Parkway
and State Highway #10
Legal Description/Size: Part of the NW 1/4 and the
NE 1/4, Section 15 and part of the NE 1/4,
Section 16, T -2-N, R -14-W, containing 87
acres of land and a population of zero.
Purpose of Annexation
Request: To receive city services, especially sewer.
Site Configuration: An irregular shaped property
being approximately 2,200 feet north to south
and 3,000 feet east to west.
Physical Characteristics
of the Site: Gently rolling tree -covered hills that
slope upward from the southeast to the
northwest.
Existing Land Use: Vacant (mini -warehouse currently
under construction on 8.6 acres)
Abutting Land Use
Relationships: North -Vacant
South - Office/Residential/Vacant
East - Vacant/Entergy Substation
West - Commercial (Private Daycamp)
II. Analysis
Prospective Land Use Pattern and
Compatibility with Municipal Plan: This property lies
within the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (both
zoning and subdivision) and is zoned C-3 (11.56 acres),
C-2 (16.40 acres), 0-3 (10.65 acres), 0-2 (3.07 acres),
MF -18 (31.41 acres) and R-2 (13.91 acres). The entire
property was brought to the Planning Commission for
preliminary platting in 1981. Said property is located
in the Pinnacle Planning District and is compatible
with the Land Use Plan.
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: 289
Community Services/Facilities Effect On:
Parks: None.
Fire: The construction of a new northwest fire
station is scheduled to be built in 1999. Even
with this new fire station in place, the
annexation of the northwest subdivision will have
a negative effect on our I.S.O. rating.
Police: None.
Public Works: (1) The intersection of Chenal
and Highway 10 is a major point of access.
Development plans are already in place, which will
further increase traffic load on this
intersection. Traffic signalization will be
needed in the very near future due to increased
commercial activity and more residential roof
tops. (2) Only those issues applied as
conditions to the approval of the preliminary
plat.
Utilities Effect On:
Water: Water service is not available at this
time to the portion of this property that is over
410 feet above mean sea level. To serve this
property water main extensions installed at the
developer's expense will be required. Exceptional
charges apply to service portions of this
property.
Sewer: There is no sewer available to this
property at this time. Due to a land ridge, the
western half of the annexation will require a pump
station to provide sewerage. It will require
prior approval of the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer
Committee.
2
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 289
III. Staff Summary and Summary Recommendation
This property is located within the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction (for both zoning and
subdivision). It has been properly reviewed by
the Planning Commission for both zoning and
subdivision and is currently compatible with the
City's land use plan. The annexation of said
property will create a 4.99± acre "island" that is
currently zoned single family (contains two single
family structures). The staff does not foresee
any significant service problem resulting from the
creation of the small "island" which can be
annexed in the future by the city at its own
initiation. water and sewer service are available
to this site with the limitations as previously
noted. On January 20, 1998, the Board of
Directors approved resolutions extending both
water and sewer to said site with the condition
the applicant annex his property prior to
receiving sewer service. Finally, the Little Rock
Fire Department has raised a concern about this
potential annexation and the City's I.S.O. rating
(insurance rating). The staff will be meeting
with the Fire Department to more fully explore
this issue. The staff recommends approval of the
annexation as filed subject to the resolution of
the Fire Department's concerns.
IV. Planning Commission Action:
Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated the staff's
recommendation was approval and suggested that the
Commission might want to recommend approval of the
annexation to the Board subject to the issue fire
service being satisfactorily addressed.
Commissioner Berry asked about sewer service to
the property and the issue of a pump station.
Chris Parker, agent for the annexation, stated
that the multifamily part of the property
(northern 30 acres) would require a pump to
provide service. He also stated that the sewer
committee was aware of this and an arrangement had
been made to provide service in the future when
the property developed. Commissioner Berry also
asked about the potential "island" located south
of the site. Jim Lawson stated that there was a
house located on the property, but he didn't know
who owned it.
3
April 2, 1998
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 289
Chairman Lichty stated that he was concerned about
zoning property that was outside the city limits.
After a brief discussion, it was decided that the
issue of annexation and extraterritorial zoning
would be discussed in the future as a part of the
"sustainable growth" policy.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about the size of the
water main and its associated costs. Jim Lawson
stated that the water mains/service had already
been worked out with the developer and the Water
Works. He also said that he didn't know the
diameter of the main required, but if the Water
Works required a greater size main than the
developer needed to service his property; a
cooperative arrangement would be worked out.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion that the
annexation be approved with a note to the Board
that it could have a negative impact on the City's
ISO rating unless specific action is taken by them
to correct it. Commissioner Adcock seconded the
motion. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
4
VC
Vv
O
LLJ
LU cz
z
0
U)
CO
0
z
z
z
vo
OIN
W
F-
" 1\ I \ I ".I \141>1 -�, I \ I
w�L
0 '%
of
<
U
z
j�mm �
O 0 0
nwm t= —j
< JO w
0 0 4 w 5 > :57 w
cl) m
> w
z
W-- z w
w < 0Q
w 0 z
Cf)
ca.w- 0 M ii:. < m
P
O0
PEI
0%
April 2, 1998
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Date /(J/