HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 23 1997I.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 23, 1997
3:30 P.M,
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Commission approved the minutes of the November 21, 1996
and December 5, 1996 Planning Commission meetings by a
unanimous vote.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Craig Berry
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Suzanne McCarthy
Mizan Rahman
Hugh Earnest
Sssi Brandon.
Pam Adcock
Larry Lichty
Doyle Daniel
Ron Woods
None
I.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING AGENDA
JANUARY 23, 1997
3:30 P.M.
DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z-6227 Hunter Day Care Family
Home Special Use Permit
H. 5-629-D Signature Preliminary Plat
C. Z-6220 Jewel and Moser Addition POD
REZONING ITEMS
1. Z-6240 North side of Cantrell Road
east of Sam Peck Road
2. Z -4043-A 4115 South University Ave.
3. Z-6241 #3 Marigold Drive
III. OTHER MATTERS
4. Land Use Definitions (Transition)
R-2 to O-3
MF -24 to C-3
R-2 to C-1
v♦
3NId
oQ 2
yJ NW
Q Q
w
W
N
w
a
r
M
/`v`
� w
O
Y
U
OpNp o
Y
z
W
y
F
O
o
ale
wO o
op
�
�4p
z
LL 1Npbi
o w
_
X
O
j
U
�.�pN
SRO
$d C
W
N p
w
1�
�b1S HJ
w
NOl,IWHH OOS
z
S
vi
Vl u.
coJ
co
WU
U
ry
3A3�J O
s
i
a
z
_
O
O
W i J�Nu
5
H
O
m E
z v
o
z
ww
N bops o v
(`moi'
OR8\
w'
K apo
l
�
OOp ?a
p�
0
O�
p Q
~
w
3
9 w
o
fePR a
w
O
z
u
0 p
O
O/42e�
0� o
5
ypino
/
''
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-6227
Name•
Location:
Howard Day -Care Family Home
Special Use Permit
6612 Juniper Road
Owner/Applicant: Erma Lee Howard
Proposal: A special use permit is
requested to allow the
occupant of 6612 Juniper Road
to operate a day-care family
home. The property is zoned
R-2.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The occupant of the single family residence located at 6612
Juniper Road is requesting approval of a special use permit
to allow her to operate a day-care family home at that
address. A day-care family home is defined by the Ordinance
as "any facility which provides childcare in a family
setting within a caregiver's family residence in accordance
with provisions of licensing procedures established by the
State of Arkansas. This use is intended to fill that level
of child care between unregulated babysitting and day care
center." Day-care family homes require a special use permit
in the R-2 district.
The general purpose of Section 36-54 states: "Special use
permits provide a method of control over certain types of
land uses which, while not requiring the full review process
of the conditional use permits, do require some review
procedure which allows for determination of their
appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are
proposed and for public comment." These uses include bed
and breakfast hotels, family care facilities and day care
family homes.
The site and location criteria established by the Zoning
Ordinance for day care family homes are as follow:
a. This use may be located only in a single-family home,
occupied by the care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures
established by the State of Arkansas.
C. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the
care givers.
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six
(6) children from households other than the care
givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all
districts where day care centers are not allowed by
right.
6612 Juniper Road is located within the Cloverdale single
family residential neighborhood. All surrounding properties
are occupied by single family homes. The subject property
contains a one story, brick and frame residential structure.
The side and rear yard area is enclosed by a 4 foot tall
chain-link fence.
Day Care Family Homes are intended to fill the need for
childcare services between babysitting and the formal
setting of a day-care center. The concept is to allow the
occupant of a single family home to keep from 6-10 children
(including the care -giver's) in a residential setting. The
primary use of the property is to remain single family
residential. Since the property is to remain residential in
nature, items associated with the more formal day care
center type use, such as signage and increased parking are
neither required nor permitted.
There are larger, day-care centers located to the east of
the Cloverdale Neighborhood, on West 83rd Street and on
Frenchman's Lane.
The applicant has requested permission to place a portable
sign on the property giving the name of the child care
business, hours of operation, telephone number and ages of
children accepted. The sign is proposed to be placed out in
the morning and removed in the evening. Proposed hours of
operation are 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Staff cannot support
allowing the requested sign. The concept of a day-care
family home discourages the use of signage since the
property is to retain its single family residential nature.
Section 36-551 of the Sign Code allows only one
freestanding, ground -mounted sign denoting the name and
address of the occupant of the home in residential zones.
The sign may not exceed one square foot in area or six feet
in height. Temporary signs that do not meet the standards
for freestanding permanent signs are specifically prohibited
by Section 36-543.
2
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow
the occupant of 6612 Juniper Road to operate a day-care
family home subject to compliance with the site and location
criteria established in Section 36-54 of the Code of
Ordinances. Staff does not recommend allowing the applicant
to have the requested sign.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were two objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had circulated the notice of public hearing on December 2,
1996; 3 days prior to the public hearing rather than the
required 15 days. There was then a brief discussion
concerning either deferring the item or waiving the bylaws
and hearing it.
Troy Laha, of #7 Althea Court, addressed the Commission. He
noted that he and one other objector had made the effort to
appear at the meeting. He stated that he did not object to
deferring the item to allow for proper notification.
At this point, the item was moved to a later point in the
agenda to see if the applicant would arrive; she never did.
When the item was brought back up, Ruth Bell of the League
of Women Voters, addressed the Commission. She stated that
the League had always felt strongly that proper notification
was inherently necessary. She recommended deferring the
item.
A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23, 1997
meeting with the requirement that the applicant renotify in
the required manner. The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Adcock).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997)
The applicant was not present. There were several objectors
present and several letters of opposition had been received
by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff informed
the Commission that new notices had not been presented.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission
that at 2:55 p.m. on January 21, 1997, the applicant had
called and stated that she wanted to withdraw the
application. Ms. Howard had indicated that she would keep
less children than the number which required a Special Use
Permit.
3
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S -629-D
NAME: SIGNATURE PRELIMINARY PLAT (S -629-D)
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Chester and Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Frank Whitbeck Pat McGetrick
Signature Life Insurance Co. McGetrick Engineering
of America 11225 Huron Lane
905 La Harpe Street Little Rock, AR 72211
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.23 ACRES NUMBER OF UNITS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-2 and C-4 EXISTING USES: Vacant, office, bank,
and parking lot
PLANNING DISTRICT: #5 Downtown
CENSUS TRACT• 9
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of requirement for additional
right-of-way on Markham Street to allow existing condition.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The division of 1.23 acres into four lots for commercial and
office uses. Lot "CR" is currently vacant and a landscaped
area adjacent to the bank on parcel "BR". These parcels are
zoned I-2. Parcel "DR" has a one story brick office
building and lot "ER" is a paved parking lot. These lots
are zoned C-4.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Only proposed lots "CR" and "ER" are available for future
development. The site is bordered by Markham Street on the
south, Chester Street on the west and the east bound portion
of La Harpe Street on the north.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no responses from the public on this
proposed preliminary plat.
January 23, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -629-D
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Dedicate right-of-way for a 20 foot radial area at the
intersection of Chester and La Harpe. Right-of-way required
for Chester Street and Markham is 40 feet from centerline
for major intersections which includes La Harpe and Markham
and Chester. The minimum right-of-way is to be 35 feet from
centerline per Master Street Plan. Grading permit will be
required on new development, if it disturbs more than one
acre. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Wastewater: OK
AP&L: OK
Arkla: No comment
Southwestern Bell: OK
Water: No objection
Fire Department: OK
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape: N/A
Issues: Applicant needs to properly notice the preliminary
plat as required in the Subdivision Ordinance.
G. ANALYSIS•
The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is not requesting any
variances, waivers, or deferrals.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of the 4 lot preliminary plat as shown on the
revised McGetrick Engineering plat map dated December 20.
Approval is subject to conditions listed in paragraph D of
this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 12, 1996)
Pat McGetrick presented the project. Larry Jones asked Mr.
McGetrick to identify a sewer line that Wastewater Department
said runs through the site. Mr. McGetrick said he would do some
research and then contact Jim Boyd. Staff also asked the
engineer to provide footprints of existing buildings and zoning.
E
January 23, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-629-D
The Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat to the
January 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting for determination.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 9, 1997)
This item was included in the Consent Deferral agenda. The
preliminary plat was deferred to January 23, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 23, 1997)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda. The preliminary
plat and right-of-way waiver was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
3
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-6220
NAME: JEWEL AND MOSER ADDITION POD
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Sam Peck Road and Highway 10
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
JEWELL AND MOSER Pat McGetrick
111 Center Street 11225 Huron Lane
Little Rock, AR 72201 Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 1.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• O-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: Office
#1 River Mountain District
None
BACKGROUND•
The applicant filed this one lot POD in conjunction with a two
lot preliminary plat (S-1119).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A one lot single use POD to be retitled PD -0 consisting of
approximately 1.4 acres. The building will be utilized for
professional offices and is a single storage building with
loft storage.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no responses from the public on this
proposal.
January 23, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6220
D. ENGINEERINGCOMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Site is located outside the limits of detailed flood
study. It appears that new structure would be located
very near an extended floodway area included in the
next flood study by the Corp and FEMA. Provide plan
which shows projected floodplain and floodway along
with BFE's to match.
2. Permits required prior to construction.
3. Show minimum final floor elevation to match one foot
above projected BFE for the staff.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extensions with easements.
Arkla: No comment
Southwestern Bell: Easement required.
Water: Acreage and connection charges.
AP&L: Easement required.
Fire Department: OK
County Planning: No comment
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape:
Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape
Ordinance requirements. Portions of the eastern and western
landscape buffers drop below 25 feet in width but meet the
Highway 10 Overlay District requirement when averaged out.
A sprinkler system to water plants is required.
It will be necessary to install curb and gutter or another
border to protect plants from vehicular traffic.
Trees with an average spacing of 20 feet are required along
Highway 10 by the Overlay Ordinance.
Issues:
Signage to comply with overlay district guidelines.
E
January 23, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6220
Planning Division:
The site is located in the River Mountain District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Office use. There are no
land use issues.
G. ANALYSIS•
At the request of Planning Staff, the applicant has amended
his request to include only Lot 1. Since the request is now
one lot single use, staff recommends that the application be
changed to a PD -0. The current zoning for the site is R-2;
however, the Land Use Plan recommends Office use.
The developer proposes to provide access from Highway 10 via
a joint access which runs to the east of Lot 1. This access
point was created as an easement from Lot 44, Piedmont
Subdivision Phase II. Staff does not object to this
proposed access.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of a one lot single use PD -0 as illustrated on the
proposal site plan. Approval is subject to conditions
listed in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(OCTOBER 31, 1996)
Pat McGetrick presented the proposed rezoning to the Committee
for review. Staff asked Mr. McGetrick to exclude Lot 2 from the
POD request since there are no specific plans for that parcel.
The Committee referred the POD request to the November 21, 1996
Planning Commission meeting for determination.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(NOVEMBER 21, 1996)
Larry Jones presented the staff report. Mr. Pat McGetrick was
available to answer questions.
Mr. Jim Pfeifer, a resident of the Piedmont Subdivision, spoke in
opposition to the rezoning. He is concerned that the proposed
building will use a shared driveway with a residential lot. He
also objected to the possible development of a site less than two
acres in size.
Mr. Brent Peterson, a Piedmont Lane resident, stated that he was
not notified of the hearing. He is concerned about traffic and
3
January 23, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6220
flooding problems in the area. He stated that he would like a
deferral to learn more about the project.
Commissioner Berry asked if the two acre minimum has been
bypassed through the use of the Planned Development rezoning.
Mr. Lawson said that a number of commercial developments less
than two acres in size have been approved along Highway 10. He
stated that this was the result of the type of commercial
proposals requested.
Commissioners Daniel and Adcock stated that they preferred a
deferral of this item since Mr. Peterson said he was not
notified. Commissioner McCarthy asked a question concerning use
of the residential pipe -stem lot for access of this office
project. Mr. Lawson responded that this rezoning and plat was
not creating the pipe -stem.
Ms. Lou Teeter, a neighborhood resident, is concerned about
flooding in the area. She requested a deferral of the item.
A motion to approve the rezoning subject to conditions in the
staff report. Motion failed with 4 ayes, 5 nays and 2 absent.
A motion to expunge the previous vote. Motion passed with
8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. Motion to defer the item until the
January 9, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Motion passed with
8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 9, 1997)
Larry Jones introduced the project to the Commission. He
indicated that Pat McGetrick would summarize his communications
with the neighbors since the November 21, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting. Mr. McGetrick stated that because of the
holiday season he had not been able to schedule a meeting with
the neighbors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997)
Larry Jones stated that Mr. Pat McGetrick had met with the
affected neighbors on January 14, 1997 to discuss access from the
pipe -stem. The neighbors and applicant have agreed on a site
plan revision whereby the pipe -stem access will not extend more
than 200 feet south of Highway 10. A revised site plan was
submitted on January 22, 1997 that reflects this change.
After the brief staff presentation this item was added by the
Chairman to the Consent Approval agenda. The rezoning was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
4
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-6240
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
First Commercial Bank, Trustee
and Cynthia Keaton
Jim Hathaway, Jr.
North side of Cantrell Road,
east of Sam Peck Road
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Future development
6.31± acres
Undeveloped, wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - 100 foot AP&L easement, River Mountain Park and
beyond them, single family residences; all zoned
R-2
South - Small Office Park; zoned PD -0
East - Vacant property; zoned R-2 and Small Office;
zoned PD -0
West - Cemetery; zoned R-2 and Large Church;
zoned MF -12
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading
permits are required prior to construction; site grading and
drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. A
dedication of right-of-way will be required to 55 feet from
centerline for this 5 lane principal arterial. Property
frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to
the current ADA standards, with any planned construction.
Property would be allowed one driveway per Section 31-210 of
the Code of Ordinances. AHTD approval of work in Cantrell
right-of-way is required.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a Central Arkansas Transit Express
Route.
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-6240 (Cont.)
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the River Mountain District. The
District Land Use Plan recommends Transition Zone for this
property. Office uses are appropriate in the Transition
Zone. The site will have to be developed in conformance
with the Highway 10 Overlay. If development does not
conform to the Overlay District guidelines, a planned unit
development will be required.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 6.31±
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office.
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. No specific
development is currently proposed for the site.
The 0-3 request is compatible with uses and zoning in the
immediate area around the site. There is a narrow strip of
vacant, R-2 zoned property to the east and beyond that is an
office on property zoned POD. The properties across
Cantrell Road, to the south, are being developed for small
offices on tracts which are zoned PD -0 and 0-2. A small
cemetery is on the R-2 zoned property adjacent to the west.
A large church is located on the MF -12 zoned property also
to the west. A nonconforming heating and air conditioning
contractor's office and a new church are located on the R-2
zoned property across Cantrell Road, to the southeast. A
100 foot wide, AP&L easement and River Mountain Park are
adjacent to the north. Single Family homes are located on
the ridge line beyond the park, to the north.
The River Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends
Transition Zone for this site. Office uses are appropriate
in the Transition Zone. The site is located in the Highway
10 Overlay District and, when developed, will have to
conform to the overlay district's guidelines. If the site
cannot be developed to meet the overlay standards, a PUD
will be required. The 6.31± acres is well above the minimum
2 acre lot size required by the overlay.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997)
Jim Hathaway was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval.
2
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-6240 (Cont.)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -4043-A
Owner: Piyush Shah
Applicant: McDonald's Corporation
Location: 4115 South University Avenue
Request: Rezone from MF -24 to C-3
Purpose: Future retail development
Size: 3.0± acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped property located
behind vacant multifamily and
hotel development
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Large retail shopping center; zoned C-3
South - Floodway; zoned OS and undeveloped land;
zoned R-2
East - Undeveloped farm land and pasture; zoned OS
and R-2
West - Vacant hotel and multifamily all in extreme
disrepair; zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard
permit, and a special grading permit for flood hazard areas
is required. Minimum floor elevation is to be 259.5 NGVD.
Property frontage on University Avenue needs to have
sidewalks installed to conform with current ADA standards
with construction. Confirm minimum right-of-way on
University is 55 feet from centerline. AHTD approval of
work in University right-of-way is required.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus Route.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-630 District. The District
Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for this property. The
C-3 rezoning request conforms to the Plan.
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -4043-A (Cont.)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 3.0±
acre tract from "MF -24" Multifamily to "C-3" General
Commercial. The tract is currently undeveloped and is part
of a larger tract of a multifamily development including the
C-3 zoned property to the west.
The buildings located between this tract and University
Avenue are vacant and in extreme disrepair. Once this 3.0±
acre tract is rezoned, the entire C-3 zoned property will be
cleared of all buildings. The entire site will then be
replatted and redeveloped with new commercial uses. In
1983, this 3.0± acre tract was rezoned from C-3 to MF -24 for
development of an additional, 10 unit apartment building.
The proposed development never occurred.
The C-3 request is compatible with uses and zoning in the
area. A large shopping center is located on the property
adjacent to the north. A second shopping center and several
smaller commercial uses are on the C-3 zoned property across
University Avenue to the west. A large area of OS zoned
floodway and undeveloped, R-2 zoned pasture is adjacent to
the south and east.
The rezoning request conforms to the Land Use Plan. The
removal of the vacant, dilapidated multifamily buildings and
redevelopment of the site can only be a benefit to the
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning. That
portion of the property which is located in the floodway will
be zoned OS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 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.
2
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6241
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Dr. Bill Humphries
Joe White, Jr.
#3 Marigold Drive
Rezone from R-2 to C-1
Unspecified future development
.37± acres
Vacant lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family residence; zoned R-2
South - Single Family residence; zoned R-2
East - Farmer's Association feed and farm supply store;
zoned C-4
West - Single Family residence; zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline for Colonel
Glenn Road, dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline
for Marigold Drive, and dedicate a 20 minimum radial area at
intersection. With planned construction, each street will
be required to be brought up to Master Street Planned
standards with a sidewalk.
The driveway on the Colonel Glenn Road frontage will be
permitted by Ordinance and should be 100 feet from the
right-of-way of Marigold Drive.
There should be one driveway on Marigold and it should be
located 25 feet from the south property line. Marigold is a
one-way drive to the south.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus Route.
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6241 (Cont.)
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the 65th Street West District. The
District Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial
for this property. The C-1 request conforms to the Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .37±
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to "C-1" Neighborhood
Commercial. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped.
No immediate development is proposed for the site.
The property consists of one lot of Beasley's Subdivision, a
small development built along Marigold Drive. Most of the
other lots in the subdivision are occupied by single family
homes.
The C-4 zoned property, adjacent to the east, is occupied by
the Farmer's Association Feed and Farm Supply business.
Many other commercial uses are located along Colonel Glenn
Road and Asher Avenue to the east. The R-2 zoned properties
to the south, north and west are occupied by Single Family
homes.
The 65th Street West District Land Use Plan recommends
Neighborhood Commercial for this property and the properties
to the south and east. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
rezoning request conforms to the Plan. The C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial district is designed to accommodate limited
retail developments within or adjacent to neighborhood areas
for the purpose of supplying daily household needs of the
residents for food, drugs and personal services. The
relatively small size of the property, reduced even further
by the required right-of-way dedication for Colonel Glenn
Road (principal arterial) and Marigold Drive (commercial,
collector), will limit the scope of any development on the
site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-1 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.
2
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6241 (Cont.)
Joe White, Jr. addressed the Commission in support of the
application. He stated that the C-1 rezoning request
conformed to the Land Use Plan. He also stated that there
were no immediate plans for development of the site.
Carolyn Heitman, of 8024 West 40th Street, addressed the
Commission. She stated that the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association Board had met and voted to oppose the rezoning.
She asked that the item be deferred to allow for more
information to be provided to the neighbors.
Shelby Foster, of #13 Marigold Drive, also asked that the
item be deferred to allow more neighborhood involvement.
Mr. White stated that he was agreeable to a deferral and
that he would meet with the neighbors.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she was concerned about the
"unspecified" future use of the site. She suggested that
Mr. White go over the list of permitted C-1 uses with the
neighbors.
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Planning and
Development, noted that the site had been shown as
neighborhood commercial on the Land Use Plans since at least
1983.
A motion was made to defer the
Commission meeting. The motion
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
item to the March 6, 1997
was approved by a vote of
January 23, 1997
ITEM NO.• 4
NAME•
REQUEST:
SOURCE•
STAFF REPORT•
Land Use Definitions
To review the Transition
Definition
Board of Directors
At a recent meeting, the Board of Directors expressed some
concerns with the proposed definition for Transition and
referred the item back to the Planning Commission for
additional review. Also, several interested individuals
have now raised some questions about the Transition
definition, especially the elimination of warehousing as an
acceptable use. The definition package, which included the
new Transition definition, was approved by the Planning
Commission on May 23, 1996. Following details all the
changes endorsed by the Planning Commission:
Residential:
• change Low Density Multifamily (LMF) to Low Density
Residential (LDR) and add single family detached
housing as an allowed housing type.
• delete the Mixed Residential (lit) classification
which duplicates Low Density Residential.
Mixed:
• change wording from recommended to required in that
a planned development will be required for any mixed
use development that occurs in these categories
(MCI, MOC, MOI, MOW, MX).
Other:
• delete the categories of AG/I and SF/M.
• addition of first sentence to Agriculture
definition.
• change Transition Zone (TZ) to Transition (T) to
eliminate any confusion with zoning categories.
• In Transition (T) definition, concerning overlay
districts, amend text to read all properties not
just those along Highway 10. Eliminate the set
floor area ratio for office use, eliminated
warehousing as an acceptable use, and eliminate
requiring access only from a side street.
January 23, 1997
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) OTHER MATTERS
Because of the questions, staff reviewed the previous
Transition definitions and is now recommending two
Transition definitions: Transition One and Transition Two.
Transition One - The transition zone provides for an
orderly transition between single family residential
uses an other more intense uses. A Planned Unit
Development is required within the Transition area.
Other uses that may be considered are: Multi -family
Residential, with a maximum density of 10 Units per
acre; Office uses, with a maximum floor area ratio
of 0.2; and office showroom warehousing, with a
maximum building coverage of 30% of the site.
Transition Two - The transition designation provides
for an orderly transition between single family
residential uses and other more intense uses. A
Planned Zoning District is required. Properties
which are required to conform to Design Overlay
District standards, in effect shall not require a
Planned Zoning District. Other uses that may be
considered are Multifamily Residential, with a
maximum density of 10 units per acre and Office
uses.
The primary difference is the addition of office
showroom/warehousing as an acceptable use in Transition One.
The Transition Two definition is the same as what the
Planning Commission endorsed and was included in the 1986
Highway 10 Plan (Ordinance No. 15,083) as Transition Zone
Area Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996)
Tony Bozynski, Planning Manager, said this item was referred
back to the Planning Commission by the Board of Directors
and provided a detailed history of the Transition
definition, starting with the one developed as part of the
1988 Highway 10 Plan. (A written copy of the definition
overview was provided to each member of the Planning
Commission.) Mr. Bozynski said staff was recommending two
definitions for Transition, Transition One and Transition
Two.
2
January 23, 1997
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) OTHER MATTERS
Manny Mitchell, representing a property owner on Highway 10,
made some comments about the definitions and expressed some
concerns about what has occurred along Highway 10.
Tom Cole, representing property owners on Highway 10 and
Kanis Road, gave some background on the definition and what
has taken place on Highway 10. Mr. Cole said was concerned
with inconsistency and property owners not being notified of
the proposed definition changes. He said that he viewed
taking a use out of the definition as a major problem. Mr.
Cole made some additional comments about the notice issue.
Commissioner Bill Putnam spoke and said a more definitive
definition for Transition was needed.
Other documents were then offered and it was stated that
having two Transition definitions was not wise.
Tom Cole spoke again and recommended that multifamily be
added to the definition of Low Density Residential. Staff
indicated that they did not have a problem with Mr. Cole's
recommendation.
Bill Rector addressed the Commission and presented some
history on Highway 10 and the Design Overlay District. Mr.
Rector indicated that nothing was happening on Highway 10
and the overlay has impacted development on Highway 10. He
went on to say Highway 10 was at a disadvantage because of
the Design Overlay District and the Land Use Plan.
There was a lengthy discussion about a number of the issues
and it was suggested that some consideration should be given
to looking at the Highway 10 Plan.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, offered some comments
about notification, the Design Overlay District and Highway
10.
A motion was made to delay action on the proposed Transition
definitions and have the Plans Committee review the
definition for the purpose of trying to redefine Transition.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997)
Tony Bozynski, Planning and Development staff, presented the
item and reviewed the written information provided to the
Commission. Mr. Bozynski said that the Plans Committee met
on January 14, 1997 and there was a lengthy discussion about
the Transition definition. A number of thoughts were
K
January 23, 1997
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) OTHER MATTERS
offered, but the Committee did not reach consensus on a
definition to forward to the Planning Commission.
Several individuals addressed the Commission including David
Jones and Tom Cole. They provided the Commission with
history and background on the planning efforts for the
Highway 10 corridor and the old Ellis Mountain Planning
District. Mr. Jones addressed a number of issues and said
more notification of the property owners was needed.
There was a long discussion and various commissioners
offered comments about the definition and the process.
Commissioners Berry and Hawn said the Plans Committee
started with the May 1996 definition and felt it was the
right direction to go in. Commissioner Earnest said that
the committee discussed possible changes to the May 1996
definition and Commissioner Berry said input from the entire
Commission was needed. Other comments were made by
Commissioners Adcock and Putnam.
At this point, a show of hands was asked for as whether or
not to send the definition back to the Plans Committee. The
commissioners present, a total of nine, indicated that the
item needed to be referred back to the Plans Committee.
The discussion then turned to the six points that were
discussed by the Plans Committee at the January 14, 1997
meeting. Comments were made and Commissioner Berry said he
had problems with being too specific and the definition
needed to be flexible.
David Jones provided some additional background and history
on Highway 10.
Ruth Bell spoke and discussed the planning efforts for
Highway 10 and the definition for Transition.
Tom Cole offered some comments about plan changes that have
occurred along Highway 10.
Jim Lawson, Planning and Development, spoke and said the
Board of Directors wanted the "loophole" closed by changing
the definition and it was a mistake to combine the two 1986
definitions. Mr. Lawson told the Commission that Highway 10
is the real issue.
There was a lengthy discussion about the definition and
warehousing. It was suggested that the issue of warehousing
needed to be a future discussion item.
Tom Cole spoke and questioned whether precluding warehousing
from the transition definition would eliminate mixed uses.
4
January 23, 1997
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) OTHER MATTERS
There was additional discussion about the process and the
definition.
Commissioner Hawn suggested that the Plans Committee resolve
the definition and the Commission support the Committee's
definition.
A motion was offered to reaffirm the Commission's previous
action and forward to the Board of Directors the May 1996
definition. The motion did not receive a second.
There were additional comments made about a number of
issues.
Another motion was then made to forward to the Board of
Directors the May 23, 1996 definition without a footnote.
The vote was 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The motion
failed.
A final motion was made to refer the definition to the Plans
Committee for further discussion at the January 27, 1997
meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay and
3 absent.
5
UPDATE
At the December 19, 1996 hearing, the commission discussed the transition definition and
heard comments from the public. Staff provided a detailed history and recommended two
definitions for Transition. A number of commissioners felt that having two definitions would
cause confusion and create additional problems. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was
approved to delay action on the definition and refer it to the Plans Committee.
The Plans Committee met on January 14, 1997 and discussed the Transition definition.
Some of the points made during the discussion included:
• avoid two Transition definitions
• remove any references to uses
• need a point of reference
• be very specific
• uses need to be time sensitive
• some reference to noise and traffic should be considered
It was also suggested that the last sentence in the definition could be reworded to add "for
example."
The Plans Committee did not reach consensus on the definition and agreed to continue the
discussion at the January 27, 1997 meeting.
TRANSITION DEFINITION:
AN OVERVIEW
1986: The Highway 10 Plan, District No. l of the
Extraterritorial Plan (Ord. No. 15,083)
Land Uses: Office and residential only
Intensity: Maximum floor area ratio of 0.2 for office
10 units per acre maximum for multifamily
1986: Upper Rock Creek District Plan (Ord. No. 15,147)
Intensity of Use:
Office - Maximum floor area ratio of 0.2
Warehousing - Building coverage not to exceed 30% of site
Multifamily - 10 dwelling units per acre maximum
1992: An ordinance amending Little Rock District and Neighborhood Plans
to standardize categories and adopt one ordinance to govern the future land use pattern of
Little Rock; and for other matters. (Ord. No. 16,222)
Transition Zone (TZ): The transition zone provides for an orderly
transition between single family residential uses and other more intense uses.
Within the transition zone, a Planned Unit Development is required. Other uses
that may be considered are: Multifamily residential, with a maximum density of 10
units per acre; office uses, with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.2; and
warehousing with a maximum building coverage of 30% of the site. All access to
transition zone uses shall be from a side street.
1994: An ordinance amending the city use plan, modifying the definition of transition zone; and
for other purposes. (Ord. No. 16,567)
The definition was modified to add a Planned Unit Development is required within
the Transition Zone, except that properties on Highway 10 which meet the Design
Overlay District requirements in effect shall not require a Planned Unit
Development.
Transition Zone (TZ): The transition zone provides for an orderly transition
between single family residential uses and other more intense uses. A Planned Unit
Development is required within the Transition Zone, except that properties on
Highway 10 which meet the Design Overlay District requirements in effect shall
not require a Planned Unit Development. Other uses that may be considered are:
Multi -family Residential, with a maximum density of 10 units per acre; Office uses,
with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.2; and warehousing, with a maximum
building coverage of 30% of the site. All access to transition zone uses shall be
from a side street.
1996: The staff recommended and the Planning Commission approved (May 23, 1996) the
following changes to the definition of Transition Zone.
• Changed Transition Zone (TZ) to Transition (T)
• Eliminated set floor area ratio for office use, warehousing as an acceptable use
and requiring access only from a side street.
Concerning design overlay districts, the text was amended to read all
properties not just those along Highway 10.
The definition that was forwarded to the Board of Directors read as follows:
Transition - The transition designation provides for an orderly transition between
single family residential uses and other more intense uses. A Planned Zoning
District is required. Properties which are required to conform to Design Overlay
District standards, in effect shall not require a Planned Zoning District. Other uses
that may be considered are Multi -family Residential, with a maximum density of
10 units per acre and Office uses.
1996: After the definition package was placed on the Board's agenda, some questions were
raised about the Transition definition. In response, staff reviewed all the previous
Transition definitions and is now recommending two definitions: Transition One and
Transition Two.
Transition One - The transition zone provides for an orderly transition between
single family residential uses and other more intense uses. A Planned Unit
Development is required within the Transition area. Other uses that may be
considered are: Multi -family Residential, with a maximum density of 10 Units per
acre; Office uses, with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.2; and office showroom
warehousing, with a maximum building coverage of 30% of the site.
Transition Two - The transition designation provides for an orderly transition
between single family residential uses and other more intense uses. A Planned
Zoning District is required. Properties which are required to conform to Design
Overlay District standards, in effect shall not require a Planned Zoning District.
Other uses that may be considered are Multi -family Residential, with a maximum
density of 10 units per acre and Office uses. '
0
U
W
cc
W
0
z
0
0
0
z
2
Z
a
..
Z
W
in
LU
Z
0
■
v
..
Z
W
in
LU
Z
0
■
..
Z
W
in
LU
Z
January 23, 1997
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Date
Chai Aman