pc_09 24 1991LITTLE RGCE PLANNING CGNNISSIGN
REZGNING NEARING
NINUTE RECGRD
SEPTEMBER 24,1991
1:OQ P.N.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
The Quorum was present being eight in number,
1I.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Neet.ing
The minutes of the August 13,1991 meeting wexe approved
as mailed.
III.Nembexs Present.:Fred Pexkins„Chairman
John Ncoaniel
Ramsey Ball
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Gleson
Joe Belz
Walter Riddick,III
Diane Chachere
Bxad Walker (arrived after the roll call)
Nembers Absent:Bill Putnam
(Gne Gpen Position)
City Attorney:Bxll Nann
REZONING BEARING
SEPTEMBER 24,1991
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Z-5472 Radney Parham and Binson Road R-2 ta C-3
B.NcKinney Subdivision —Preliminary/Final Plat (S-928)
REZGNING ITEMS:
1.Z-5482 6402 Butler Raad C-3 ta C-4
2.Z-5483 Bowman Raad and Chenal Parkway R-2 ta 0-3
3.Z-5484 2819 and 2823 West 15th I-2 to o-3
4.Z-5485 8801 Doyle SPrings Road R-2 ta C-3
5.Z-5486 4413 Baseline Road R-2 t'.o C-3
GTHER TTERS:
6.Alamo Circle Right-of-Way Abandanment.
7.Fleet Tire Service —Condit.ianal Use Permit (Z-4615-A)
Septembex"24,1991~NO '2-5472
Owner:Nr.and Mrs.W.R.Camp
Applicant,:Nr.and Mrs.W.R.Camp by Beth
Zauner
Location".Rodney pax'ham Road and Hinson
Road (Northwest Corner)
Request:Rezone from R-2 'to C-3
Puxpose:Commercial
Size:F 41 acx'es
Existing Use:Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Vacant,and Single-Family,zoned R-2
South —Nultifamily„zoned R-5
Eas't —Vacantc zoned PCD
West —Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The northwest corner of Rodney Paxham and.Hinson Roads is
currently zoned R-2,and the request is to rezone the
property to C-3 fox'n unspecified commercial user.The
site encompasses 2.4 acxes with street fx'ontages of
approximately 400 feet.of Rodney Parham and 182 feet on
Hinson Road.There axe a total of five stxuctures on the
property,two residences,a detached carport and two
accessory buildings.
In the general vicinity of the Rodney Parham/Hinson
intersection,the zoning is R-2, R-5,NF-24,0-3,C-3„
C-4 and PCD.To the east on Rodney Parham for several miles,
the existing zoninq pattern can be best.described as a
commercial strip.There is also some commercial zoning on
the east side of Green Mountain Drive„south of Rodney
Paxham.Going west,on Hinson Road,the zoning is primarily
xesidential,however„there are some office tracts and a
PCD site on the south si.de of Hinson.West and north of
the site is the Pleasant.Valley development,which is zoned
R-2 and R-4 (the golf course).
1
September 24,1991
ITEN G.:A 2-5472 Con't
Land use is similar to the zoning and includes single
family,multifamily,office,commercial,a cemetex'y and.a
golf course.The propexty under consideration shuts a
vacant tract.on the west and across Valley Club and Buff
Lane,there are single family residiences.The noxtheast.
corner of the intersection is zoned PCD for specificretailuser,but it is undeveloped at,this t.ime.
The Pleasant Valley District Plan identifies the site forofficeuse,as well as the north side of Rodney Parham from
the Hinson intersection to Hidden Valley Dxive.The plan
also shows the south side Hinson Road fxom Napa Valley back
to the east.for office development..At the intersection of
Hinson and Rodney Paxham„only the southeast.coxnex",zonedC-2„is recognized for commercia).use cn the plan.(Because
of changes to the planning districts,the Pleasant Valley
District no longer exists and i.s now part of the River
Nountain,Chenal and Rodney Parham Districts).
A commexcial reclassification of the property is inconflictwiththeadoptedplan,and staff does not support.
the request.The proposed C-3 rezoning is a significant
deviation from the overall direction of the.land use element,
and C-3 would have a negative impact on some of the
surrounding properties,Continued use of the site as single
family is probably unrealistic,however,rezoning to C-3 is
just as questionable and totally inappropriate.
ENGINEERING CGNNENTS
The right-of-way standard for Rodney Pariham and Hinson Roadis45feetfromthecenterline.Dedication of additional
rights-of-way will be required because tlhe existing
rights-of-way are deficient.Rodney Parham,may need more
than the 45 feet of right-of-way depending on the design of
the intersect.ion and a possible turning lane.
STAFF RECG ENDATIGN
Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request..
PLANNING CGNNISSIGN ACTIGN:(AUGUST 13,1991)
The applicant was represented by Wes Lowder.There were
approximately 25 objectors in attendance.Nr.Lowder
provided some background information and said that he
understood that there was a lot of opposition to the
rezoning.He stated tihe owners,the Camps„Ihave lived
2
September 24,1991
ITEN NG.;A Z-5472 Cant.
an the site fox'number of years and have nevex had a
desire to sell their property until now.He wemt an to
describe the Binson Road/Radney Parham intersection and the
future widening af Hinsan Raad.Nr.Lawdex'ndicated that
tihe propased improvements to Hinson Road would place the
raadway just several feet from the existing residence,and
the Camps did not.want the road in their front door.Be then
described the thinking which led to filing the C-3 request:„
including a meeting with the staff.Be did paint aut that
the staff discouraged a commercial.xezoning at this time.
Nr.Lowder said the Camps were sensitive ta the meighboxhood
amd they wanted to be caaperative.Be them,pxaceeded to
discuss a PUG for the propex'ty and some of the potential
drawbacks with ut.ilizing the PUG px'ocess.Also,he stated
that the Camps wexe not interested in developing the
praperty,but.they just.wanted ta sell it.Nx.Lowdex
concluded by stating there was some room for compromise and
they were open ta G-2 or C-2 to ensure additiomal x'eview by
the Plamning Commissian.
Hal Kemp spake and.stated that.he was representing same af
the meighboxs opposed ta the C-3 xezaning.Nx.Kemp then
pxaceeded to discuss the reguest and stated that it was nat.
in harmany with the residential neighborhood nor was it
compatible with the same neighboxhaad.He tlhen descxibed
Rodney Parham and Binsom Road as the last barriers to prevent.
commercial encraachment into the Pleasant Valley Subdivision.
He went.on ta remind time Commissian of the Board afDirectors'mphasis on protecting and preserving xesidential
neighbaxhoods,Nr.Kemp stated that the Camps were goad
neighbars and the neigihbarhoad appreciated the Campsresistingcammercialdevelopmentofthepropertyup to this
point.He said that most of the neighbors were nat planning
to move and wauld be adversely impacted by commexcial use an
the site,He then disputed the notian that C-3 ar affice use
was the highest ar best use of the land.Nr.Kemp asked the
Commission to imagine a resident.ial development„patio hames,
on the site with a large wall along Radney Parham and Binson
Road.He stated an attached xesident.ial use was consistent
with the neighborhaod„and a Texaoa station was nat.
Nx.Kemp reguested the Commission to be sensitive to the
neighborhood and to x'eject the C-3 rezaning.
Bart NcAninch„a resident.in the immediate vicinity,spoke
and stated tihat timers was a,serious tx'affic problem in the
axes.Nr.NcAninch descxibed other rezoni.ngs that have
cxeated water problems for him,and said he was opposed to
any zoning other tham single family.
William Burgess spoke against the rezonimg and voiced some
of the same cancerns as those raised by Nr.Kemp and
Nx .NcAninch.Nr.Burgess stated that traffic was the
major prablem and a commercial use of the corner would
3
September 24,1991
ITEN NG.:A Z-5472 Cont.
severely compound the situation.Be indicated that.some
kind of townhouse development fox'he site would be a
reasonable opt.ion.
Wes Lowdex'poke again and indicated that a C-3 x'eclassi-
f'ication appeared to be inappropxiate fax the site.Be
discussed the possibility of amending the application and
made some addiitional comments about the ax'ea and,modifying
the request.He then stated that he would like to woxk
with the surrounding residents and asked fox a 36 day
deferral to come up with some equitable solution other
tlhan residential.Nx'.Lewder felt that leaving the property
R-2 was unfair to the Camps.
Hal Kemp respondled to Nr.Lowder's comments.Nr.Kemp
stated that a deferral was appropxiate and the neighbors
were willing to meet with Nx'.Lowder.
There were some additional discussion,and Nx.Lowdex then
foxmally xequested a 30 day deferral.He said he would make
every effort.to meet.with the propex'ty owners to resolve the
xezoning issue
A motion was made to defer the request to September 24,1991.
The mct.ion passed by a vote of 9 eyes,0 nays,1 absent.and
1 abstention (Kathleen Gleson).
PLANNING CGNNISSIGM ACTIGN:(SEPTEMBER 24,1991)
The applicant,,Wes Iowdex',was present.There were a number
of objectors in attendance.Nr.Lowder spoke and amended
rezoning xequest from C-3 to C-2 and 0-2.He informed the
Commission that he had met with Hal Kemp,attox'ney for
some of the residents,to x'eview the modified proposal.
Mr.Lowder went on to say that.the proposed two lots did not.
meet.the minimum site area requirements„and both districts
require site plan review.He then proceeded to discuss a
concept plan for the site.Mr.Lowder said a 6 foot high
masonry wall would Ibe constructed.on the north and west.sides
and there would be only one access point on both Hinson and
Rodney Parham Roads.Mr.Lowder felt,that it made sense to
have some commercial on the corner,and the site was not.
residential px'operty.He responded to some inquiries about
the dimensions of the site.Nr.Lowder then concluded by
saying that the residents in the area only wanted resident.ial
use on the corner in question.This was based on his
conversation witih Mr.Kemp.
Hal Keep„representing the propex'ty owner to the west,then
addressed the Commission.Nr.Kemp said that the highest and
best use was residential,and not commercial or office.
4
September 24,f991
ITEN NG.:A 2-5472 Cont,
Nx".Kemp stated that the proposed zoninq areas,C-2 and G-2„
did not.meet the minimum site ax'ea x'equirements in the
ox'dinance.Be went on to say that,the proposed wall would
not buffer noise,light,etc.Nr,Kemp then proceeded to
describe a potent.ial residential development.scheme,and said
any nonxesidential proposals should be done as a PCD for a
x'eal user'.
Bart McAninch,a xesident in the area,described existingtrafficproblemsintheneighborhood.Mr.McAninch said a
nonresident.ial use would only compound the situat.ion.He
stated that property shouM only be used for residential
pux'poses.
John Cullum,2300 North Rodney Parham,objected to the G-2
and C-2 rezonings and said there was litt].e difference from
the C-3 request.Nr.Cullum said the property was a
transit.ion area and described some of the traffic problems of
the neighborhood.
David Jones,wi'th Vogel Realty,spoke and said he was working
with the Camps,the owners of the site.Nx.Jones indicated
that the Camps have never opposed any xezoning requests in
the area.Be then presented some histox'y on the site and
said it.was not a residential corner because of being one of
the busiest intexsections in the City.Mx'.Jones went:to say
that the amended request,with C-2 on the corner and 0-2,
shows some x'eality and the visual impacts wouM be minimal.
He then pointed out that the px'oposed xestrict.ions were quite
generous and the rezonings would not increase traffic.
Nx.Jones then asked the Commission to approve the amendment
request.to 0-2 and C-2.
There was a long discussion about various issues,including
utilizing a PCD fox'he property.DavM Jones responded by
saying a PCD was a difficult process to use sometimes and C-2
was a site plan review district.Commissioner Brad Walker
indicated that,the px'oposed office tx'act was good,however,
he had some concerns with the C-2 parcel.Nx.Jones said the
rezoning would have a minimal impact and was unfair to single
out;the Camps.Commissioner Kathleen Gleson stated the
Binson/Rodney Parham intersection was not a commexcial node.
A mot.ion was then made to close the public heaxing.The
mct.ion passed unanimously.A second was made to accept the
amended application to 0-2 and C-2.The motion was approved
by a vote of 9 eyes,0 nays,I absent and I open position,
Bal Kemp spoke again and said his clients were opposed to any
commercial zoning.Nr.Kemp said that the neighborhood
needed to see moxe specifics before they could endorse
something other than resident.ial.
5
September 24,1991
ITEN NO.:A Z-5472 Cont.
Jerry Gardner,City engineering,answered some guestions
about the intersection.Nr.Gardner said that.it.was a
congested intersection because of the problems created by
North Rodney Parham.Nr.Gardner also indicated that the
Hinson Road project was funded and the work should began
soon,
There were some additional comments made by various
individuals.Wes K.owder told the Commission that the
building height,on the property would be constricted to
two-stories.
A motion was made to recommend approval of C-2 and Q-2 as
amended.The vote was 0 ayes,7 nays,2 absent.,1 open
position and I abstention (John NcDaniel).The motion fai.led
and the amended rezoning reguest was denied.
6
Septembex 24,1991
ITEN NO ~.B FILE .:S-928
NAME:NcKinney Subdivision —PreliminarylFinal Plat.
LOCATION:12015 Hinson Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
R.H.MCKINNEY,JR.THE NEHLBURCER FIRN
12015 Hinson Road 201 South IzardLittleRock,AR 72211 P.G.Box 3837litt.le Rock,AR 72203
375-5331
AREA:1.2 Ac.NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
PLANNING DISTRICT."2
CENSUS TRACT:22.05
VARIANCES RE VESTED:
1.)Pipe -Stem Lot2.)All Street.Impxovements
A,PROPOSAL RE UEST:
The pxoposal consists of a two lot replat out of a laxgertxactofland.The plat,as submitted,is proposed.forofficeuse.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS".
The site is cuxrently occupied by an office building on the
Hinson Road frontage and an open undeveloped tract on theback.Hinson Road is currently under the City of Little
Rock Bond Impxovements Program.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS;
plat.conforms to widening plans for Hinson Road and therearenootherengineeringcomments.Public Wox'ks suggestedthat.an in-lieu contribution may be reguired at the time offinalplat„if the road improvement contract has not been
signed.
1
September 24„1991
~BUBOIVXB ON
ITEN NO,:B Continued FILE NQ.:S-928
D.ISS ES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN.
There are no issues associated with this plat. except as
waivers requested.
E.~ANALTB 8:
The Planning Staff's review of the plat.reveals no problems
with the proposal.as presented.Ne support the plat due to
the city project advexsely affecting the access to the site.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends appx'oval of the application as filed with a
recommendation of approval for the waivex's.
SUBDIVISION CONN T EE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 22,1991)
The applicant was not present.,therefoxe the committee discussed
this item bxiefly.It was determined that the applicant should
request the street improvement waiver„even though the City is
planning to start work on widening Hinson Road in the near
future.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTENBER 10,1991)
The applicant.was not.present.A motion was made for deferral
until September 24„1991 as x'equested by the applicant.The
motion was made and passed by a vote of 9 eyes,0 nays,1 absent
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMNISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 24,1991)
The applicant was represented by Nr.Mes Lowder.There wex'e no
objectors in attendance,Aftex a bxief discussion,the
Commission determined it.was appropriate to place this item on
the Consent.Agenda for approval with the recommendation of a
waivex approval.A motion was made to that effect and passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position.
2
September 24,1991
owner:J.T.and Lynda Leman
Applicant:J ~T ~Leman
Location:6402 Butler Road
Request:Rezone from C-3 to C-4
purpose:Retail and Auto Sales
Size:1.07 Acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURRQUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Multi Family,zoned R-5
South —Multi Family,zoned R-5
Bast —Vacant,and Commercial,zoned C-3
Nest —Commercial,zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The northwest.corner of West.65th and Butler Road is
currently zoned C-3,and the request.is to rezone the one
acre to C-4.The applicant has indicated that.the proposed
uses will be xetail and auto sales,which requires a c-4
classification.Curxently„there is a vacant L shaped
building on the pxoperty with a paved parking area.It
appears that the site was once a small strip center.
Therefox'e,there are probably several spaces available for
different.uses.
Zcning in the axea is R-2,R-5,0-3,C-3,C-4 and I-2,with
the site abutting C-3 on the west and R-5 land on the north.
Acxoss both Butlex and West 65th„the existing zoning is
C-3.There axe two C-4 txacts on the north side of West
65th within one block of the property in question.
Approximately five years ago,a small parcel on the south
side of West 65th was rezoned to C-4 for a used car lot.
Land use is very similar to the existing zoning„and the
uses xange from single family residences to U-Haul rental
facility.Along West 65th,there axe a number of commercial
operations and several of them are auto oriented.
Thxoughout the axea there are some undeveloped tracts,
including the northwest corner of West 65th and Lancaster.
1
September 24,1991
ITEN NO.:1 Z-5482 Cont.
It.is apparent from the cuxrent zoning that there is no
established pattern in the immediate vicinity.Because of
the existing situation,reclassifying the site to C-4 is
appxopxiate and should not have a impact on the area.The
65th Street East Plan shows the location fox commexcial use,
so ther'e is no conflict with the adopted plain.
Staff would like to raise one cautionary note about the use
of the paved area and parking.With a combination of x'etail
uses and auto sales„the owner needs to be aware that thesitecannotbeusedexclusivelyforthedisplayofcars.
Off street parking for retail uses must be provided at aratioofonespaceper3OOsguarefeetofgrossfloorarea,
unless the property has come kind of nonconfoxming status
with the parking.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
West 65th is classified as a minor arterial and the
right-of-way standard is 45 feet from the centerline.The
amount of additional right.-of-way dedication,if any,is
unknown because the survey does not xeflect the current
right-of-way.
STAFF RECONNENI3ATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning as filed.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:(SEPTENBER 24,1991)
The applicant was present.Thexe were no objectors and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda.A motion was made to
recommend approval of C-4 as filed.The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes,O nays,1 absent and 1 open position.
2
September 24,1991
IT NG.:2 2-5483
owner:Carolyn Schaufele
Applicant:Louis Schaufele
Location:Bowman Road and Chena3.Parkway
Request.:Rezone from R-2 to G-3
Purpose:Future office development
Size:2.28 Acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURRGUNDING LAND USE AND ZGNING
North —Vacant and Single-family„zoned R-2
South —Vacant,zoned R-2
East —Vacant,zoned R-2
West —Commercial,zoned C-3
STAFF ANALVSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone the northeast,
cornex'f Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road from R-2 to G-3 fox
futux"e office development..The site is vacant and there
are no immediate plans for developing it.The acreage has
approximately 515 feet.of frontage on Chenal Parkway,
including the existing xight.-of-way for Alamo Cixcle.
(A petit.ion to abandon a portion of the Alamo right-of-way
is Item No.6 on this agenda.)Along Bowman Road,the
frontage is less than 100 feet.Several of the lots
adjacent to the xoadways have been reduced in size by the
construction of the Chenal Parkway and the Bowman Road
intersection.
Zoning is R-2„R-4,NF-12,G-2,G-3 and C-3.The property
abuts R-2 land on two sides,the east and north.The zoning
of the south is R-2 and acx'oss Bowman Road,there is a large
C-3 parcel that has been subdivided into 13 lots.The
existing land use is single family,office and commercial,
Some of the land in the vicinity of the Chenal
Parkway/Bowman intersection is undeveloped„including the
NF-12 piece and several of the C-3 lots at the northwest
corner.The existing G-2 site on Autumn and the G-3 parcel
on Bowman Road are ~acant at this time.
1
September 24,1991
ITEN NG.:2 Z-5483 Cont.
The I-43O District Plan recognizes the area between Chenal
Paxkway and Birchwood for office use/development.
Therefore,an O-3 reclassifioation is appropriate for the
2.3 acres under considex'ation.Staff feels thexe are no
outstanding land use issues and supports the reguested
xezoning.
EN INEERING COMMENTS
The Chena.l Parkway reguixes a right-of-way of 6O feet from
the centexline,and the existing right-of-way is deficient.
Dedication of additional 1O feet.of xight.-of-way is reguired
thxough this rezoning action.
STAPP RECO ENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the O-3 rezoning.
PLANNING CONNISSIGN ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 24,1991)
(The Planning Commission discussed Items 2 and 6 together.)
The applicant.,Louis Schaufele,was present,There were
several interested residents in attendance.Nr.Schaufele
spoke bx'iefly and said that he had no immediate plans for
the property.
Preston Brown,an adjacent resident,spoke in support of the
O-3 rezoning.
Sara Stephens,797 Bowman Road,made several comments and
asked some questions.Ns.Stephens did not express any
opposition to the O-3 reguest.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the G-3 rezoning.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,O nays,1 absent,
1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson)and 1 open posit.ion.
2
September 24,1991
ITEN NO.:3 Z-5484
Owner':Vernon and Thelma Banks
and Jackie King
Applicant.:Arthur Gamble
Location:2819 and 2823 West 15th Street
Reguest:Rezone from I-2 to 0-3
purpose:Church
Size:0.32 Acxes
Exist.ing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Vacant Str'uctures zoned I-2
South —Industrial,zoned I-2
East —Vacant,zoned I-2
West —Single-Family,zoned R-3
STAFF ANAIVSIS
2819 and 2823 West 15th Street are zoned I-2,and the
proposal is to constxuct.a new church on the site.A,
reclassification to another distr'ict is necessax'y becauseI-2 does not.permit churches.It was suggested to the
applicant that.0-3 would be the most logical district to
request because of the location and the existing zoningpattern.
The site is two 50 foot residential lots with a depth of
140 feet.Both parcels are vacant at this time.
Zoning in the area is typical of an older/central city
neighborhood and includes R-3,R-4,R-5,0-3,I-2 and I-3.
All of the industx'ial zoning is currently east of Woodrow
and on both sides of the railroad tracks.To the west of
Woodrow,the zoning is pximaxily R-3 or R-4.The nearest.0-3 zoning is at.the intersection of West.14th and Woodrow„
one block to the nox'th.Land use is a mixt:uxe of
residential,commercial and industrial,with a majority of
the nonresidential uses located east of Woodrow.There are
acme vacant,lots and abandoned structures in the
neighboxhood,
1
September 24,1991
ITEN NO.".3 2-5484 Cont.
As with other core neighborhoods,the land use in the
general vicinity does not necessarily conform to the zoning
on all properties.At the southeast corner of West 17th and
Booker,there is a C-3 parcel with a single family residence
on it,.The same pattern is found at West 16th and Woodxow,
except the lots are zoned I-2.
Staff views the rezoning as a positive step for the
neighborhood and is in total support of the reguest.The
proposal,constxuction of a church,will utilize two weedlots,which are always a nuisance for a given area.Any
attempt to redevelop the property in the Stephens School
neighborhood should be strongly encouraged and endorsed by
the City whenever possible.
The Stephens School land use plan reinforces the existing
zoning east of Woodrow and shows the property as part of a
laxge industrial area.An O-3 reclassification should not
have any impa~t on the plan's goal or direction for the
neighborhood.
(The applicant needs to be aware that chuxches have a
paxking reguirement of one space for every four seats in
the principal assembly area.This parking reguirement isfox'ff street spaces.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
None reported.
ST FF RECQNNENDAT QN
Staff recommends appx'oval of the Q-3 x'ezoning reguest..
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 24,1991)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors
and the reguest was placed on the Consent.Agenda.A motion
was made to recommend approval of the Q-3 rezoning.The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent.
and 1 open position.
2
September 24,1991
4 Z-5
Gwnex':Joe C,Reynolds
Applicant:Joe C.Reynolds
Locat.ion 8801 Doyle Springs Road
Request.:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Pux"pose Mini-Narehouse Units
Size:1.23 Acres
Existing Use:Mini-Warehouse Units
(Nonconforming)
SURRGUNDING LAND USE AND ZGNINC
Noxth —Single-Family,zoned R-2
South —Commercial,zoned R-2
East —Single-Family,zoned R-2
Nest -Church,zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The propexty at S801 Doyle Springs is occupied by
mini-stox'age units,a nonconforming use.The owner would
like to do away with the nonconforming status because he is
thinking of selli.ng the business,and the future owner will
probably construct some additional units.Increasing the
number of structures or expanding tlhe use is prohibited by
the zoning ordinance because of the nonconformity.The
land must fix'st Ibe rezoned to an appropriate district and,
in this case,a Conditions).Use Permit will be needed
should the C-3 be granted for the property in question.
"Mxn1-warehouse"is listed as a condit.ional use in tlhe C-3
district
There are a total of five stxuctuxes on the property and
thxee of the buildings contain storage mits.The property
has 205 feet of frontage on Doyle Springs Road and a depth
of 261 feet.
Because of the area being annexed to the City,most of the
properties are still zoned R-2.Nithin the last several
years,some commercial rezonings have occurred to the west,
and Arkansas Electric Cooperative reclassified their laxge
holding to G-3 and I-2 in 1990.The land use is typical of
the Baseline corridor and includes both residential and
1
September 24„1991
ITEN NO.:4 2-5485 Cont.
nonzesidential uses.8801 Doyle Springs shuts a commercial
use an the south and single family residences an the east
and narth.There are a number af nancanfarming uses faund
in the area,especially on Baseline Road.There are also
some vacant parcels.
The Geyer Springs East Distzict Plan shows the r'ecommended
commercial line along the north and east praperty haundaxies
of the site under cansideration.Therefare,a C-3
xeclassificatian is a viable option for tine locat.ian and
confarms ta the established commercial zoning in the area.
(A mini-warehouse business on Baseline Road„one black to
the west,is in tine process of being rezoned to C-3 hy the
Board of Directors.)For this segment of Baseline and the
ar'eas identified far commex'cial use on the plan,the City
has determined that C 3 is the apprapz"late level af
commercial zoning*
ENGINEERlNG COMMENTS
Doyl.e Springs Road has a right-cf-way standard of 30 feet
from the centerline.The existing rigiht-of-way is
deficient,and dedication of an additianal 18 feet will he
r'eguir'ed
ST FF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning as requested.
P ING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTENBER 24,1991)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the
mattex was placed on the Consent.Agenda.A motion was madetoxecammendapprovaloftheC-3 rezoning reguest.The
motion was approved by a vote af 9 eyes,6 nays,1 absent
and 1 apen position.
2
September 24,1991
ITEN NO..5 2-5496
Owner:The Buffalo Company
Applicant:The Buffalo Company bJ
Baxbaxa P.BondsLoca'tion'413 Baseline Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Pux'pose:Convenience Store with Gas
Pumps
Size:0.49 Acres
Existing Use:Convenience Store with Gas
Pumps (Nonconforming)
URROUNDING LAND V E AND ZON1NG
North —Single-Family,zoned R-2
South —Single-Family,zoned R-2
East,—Single-Family„zoned R-2
West -Commercial„zoned R-2
NOTE:The applicant.has requested that.the C-3 rezoning be
withdrawn without prejudice.
PLANNING CGNNISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 24,1991)
The item was placed on the Consent.Age~de and.withdrawn with
pxejudice as requested.The vote was 9 ayes,O nays,
1 absent and 1 open position.The Planning Commission also
waived the additional filing fees for a PCD application.
1
September 24,1991
N 6
NAKE:A portion of Alamo Circle
LGCATIGN:Gff of Chanel Parkway between
Shadecrest Dri.ve and Bristol
Drive
GWNER APPLICANT:Louis J.Schaufele
REVEST:To abandon a fifty foot.wide
right-of-way within the
Nontclair Beights Subdivision
Part II to the City of Little
Rock,Pulaski County,Arkansas
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for this Ri ht.-of-Wa
Initial responses from othex'epartments indicate no
public need for this right-of-way.
2.Master Street Plan
Review of the Waster Street Plan indicates no need for
this portion of right-of-way.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad 'geant Streets
There is no reguirement for additional right-of-way on
the adjacent.streets.
4.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-Wa Terrain
The xigh't-of-way is physically closed,but opened on
the official xecoxd books at the City Clerk"s office
and at.the County Courthouse.
5.Develo ment.P tential
The development potential is for the right-of-way to
become paxt of a future office use.
6.Nei hborhood Lane Use and Effect
Suxrounding the right-of-way is vacant land.If
abandoned,there should be no effect.on the adjacent
property owners.
1
September 24,1991
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.
7.Nei hborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been expressed to staff as
of this writing.Notice is not required when the
applicant is the sole owner of the adjacent property.
8.Effect,on Public Services x Utilities
No effect will be placed,on public services or
utili'ties.
9.Reversioner Ri hts
All reversionary rights wil.l extended to the applicant.
10,Public Welfare and Safet Issues
The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of
right-of-way will return to the pxivate sector a land
area that will be productive fox'he real estate tax
beech
STAFF RECOMMENBATION:
Approval of the right-of-way abandonment,as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 24,1991)
The applicant.was in attendance.There were four people
pxesent in opposition.
Mr.Schaufele stated that his request.is to close only a
portion of Alamo Circle which abuts his property,Alamo
Circle,a paper street which will never be opened,runs into
Chenal Parkway and gives access around to the xeax'f his
propexty.
Staff indicated that Alamo Cixcle was platted as a
residential street in 1957.Therefore,it is not.a part of
the Master Street Plan.
Mrs.Sara Stephens addressed the Commission regarding her
concerns on the street closure.In attendance with her also
were Raymond and Mary Smead and pxeston Brown.They all
opposed the street closure for a number of reasons.The
primary reaso~is because of a heavy flow of traffic on
Bowman Road since the widening of the stx'eet,and making it
difficult.to egress and ingxess to Bowman.A possibility of
Alamo Circle being a point.to access the reax of theix
property was discussed.
2
September 24„1991
ITEN NG.:6 Cont.
There were two matters that concerned Nxs.Stephens in the
wxitten staff review,Items 6 and 7.Gne stated the closure
would not impact the adjacent property owners,and the other
stated there had been no neighbor opposition voiced.The
closure„however,will impact the neighbors and a letter was
sent stating their opposition.
Nxs.Stephens was then asked what lots were owned by her.
Her response was Nx",Smead has the fix'st four lots to the
north of Nr.Schaufele's property,and she owns the two lots
adjacent.to Nx'.Schaufele"s propexty.Nr.Brown shuts
Nx'.Schaufele's property on the west.She furthex'tated
that Alamo is a residential street and homeowner's xealizeitwouldbeimpossibleforthemtobuildthestx'eet to
x'esidential standards.However,they would like for this
option to xemain open.
Nr.Brown then spoke to the Commission,stating the
right-of-way has been abandoned on the aexial maps because
of the street.being a residential use.However,it seemed
the right,-of-way has been abandoned because of commexcial
uses that surxound the right-of-way.He indicated that he
would go on record as being fox the x'ezoning of 'the property
and his only concern is the use of the pxoperty behind his
property.It seemed to him the property could be developed
as something other than residential.
Jerry Gax'dner then addressed the Commission.He stated this
portion of Chenal Paxkway,from Shackleford Road to the
Narkham Street intersect.ion,is actually a city ordinance.
There is a map of this road in the ordinance which shows
where streets are to be allowed.The implication is there
are no other street.connections and the map ignores Alamo
Circle.Nr.Qardner stated he interprets the City'
intent.ion fox Alamo Cix'cle not to be connected with Chenal
Parkway.Thi.s right.-of-way intersects Chenal Parkway just
east.of the deceleration lane for the westbound traffic on
Chenal to turn right on Bowman.This issue should be
considered that,the Board never intended for Alamo Cix'cle tc
be developed.Thexe will be a driveway on the property,as
far away from Bowman Road as possible,and certainly beyond
the decelexation lane.
Staff said that all five utility companies agreed to have no
objection to abandoning the street right-of-way.Staff's
reason to retain the rights of the utility companies in the
ordinance is because of understanding the City has had there
review of abandonment of the right-of-way for street
pux'poses.Unless the utility companies specifically state
in writing,then they have no intexest in the easement fox
the filed statement which is included in the ordinance.
3
September 24,1991
ITEN NQ.:6 Cont ~
Nr.Raymond Smead then addressed the Commission.Be stated
there is a 10 foot easement on the rear of the lots in
this area,and he owns Lots 1,2,3 and 4 to the north.
Nr.Smead said he has the potential.to build three houses
on Alamo,and suggested t:o open Alamo Circle in order for
the houses to have frontage.It was noted that if Alamo
Circle became a dead end,he would not have sufficient room
to turn around.
A considerable amount of discussion continued among staff,
the app3.leant and the Commission.At this time,a motion
was made to approve the right-of-way abandonment by a vote
cf 8 eyes,0 noes,2 absent.andi 1 open position.
4
September 24,1991
NQ.'AME:
Fleet Tire Service -Conditional
Use Permit (2-4615-A)
LOCATION:The North Side of Baseline Road
just.West of Cloverdale IDrive
OWNER APPLICANT."Rebecca Mumphr'eys
PROPOSAL:To locate a retail/commercial
business in a 5,400 square feet
building,
GRD1NANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1 *Site Location
This site is located adjacent to a major arterial in
southwest Little Rock.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
Thi,s site fronts on Baseline Road.Commercial uses are
located to the east and south,with an office use to the
west.A residential use,multi-family units,is situated to
the noxth.This proposal is compatible with the surrounding
area,provided that adequate care is taken to screen the
residential development,located to the north.
3.On-Site Drives and Pax'kin
The proposal contains a provisions fox a 40 foot access
drive to Baseline Road and 16 paved parking spaces.
4.Screenin and Suffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5.Cit En ineerin Comments
1.A 40 foot paved area is needed for parking in the rear.
The paxking layout shown on the site plan will not
work.
2.No handicapped parking is provided.
3.The 40 foot drive needs to be reduced to 24 feet.
1
September 24,1991
ITEN No.:7 Cont.
4.Replace asphalt sidewalk with a concrete wal.k,a
minimum width of 5 feet.
6.Staff Anal sis
Staff feels that,this proposal is consistent.with the
surrounding uses and neighborhood.The applicant,will
need to submit a xevised site plan that.indicates the
landscaping and addresses all of the issues which
Engineex'ing has pointed out.The cux'x'ent.site plan does
not adeguately represent what is on the px'opex'ty.Al.so,
the owner will need to make sure that the adjacent.residential area is propexly screened.
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit conditioned upon the
revision of the site plan hei'ubmitted before a privilegelicenseisissued
PLANNING CQNNISSI N ACT1ON:(SEPTENBER 24„1991)
The applicant:vas in attendance.There were no objectorspresent.As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved
per the engineex'ing comments.The vote was 9 eyes,O noes,1 absent,and 1 open position.
2
~~
LJ /
S
K tCV
LU 'z
K
$04 g 0048
l-Vi 'zCIo
r-h kx
+a
CQ ~eh%
ce
Q l-
C}
x
X +'z
Q p
G
X
Q Fa
Q.W5QR8
September 24,1991
There being na further business before the Cemmissien,the
Ree'txng wes Rdleurned Bt 3 15 p El,