Loading...
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,