pc_04 24 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 24, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney Present:
John Schlereth
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Richard Massie
William Ketcher
Betty Sipes
John Clayton
David Jones
James Summerlin
Ida Boles
Dorothy Arnett
Jim Sloan
April 24, 1984
Item No. A - Z -4136
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
B.E. Hocott's Estate
Joe Hocott
Leander Street at Rock Creek
Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "MF -24" Multifamily
Multifamily Development
2.3 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
STIRROTINDTNr. T.Awn TTRF. Awn 7.OMTNC,-
North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2," and "PRD"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
` I PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1: The proposal is to develop multifamily units on land
that is unsuitable for the proposed use. The property
has some very steep slopes and does not provide
adequate land area for a higher density development.
Only the southern portion of the tract could
realistically be built on.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The site is heavily wooded and a majority of it has
slopes in excess of 30 percent. The western end drops
straight off from Leander Street to Rock Creek.
There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with
this request. Leander Street is deficient in
right -of -way.
There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
There are no legal issues.
There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site.
April 24, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
7. The request is in conflict with the adopted Boyle Park
and Master Parks Plans. The Boyle Park Plan shows the
site as part of an open corridor through the area. The
Park Plan has identified Rock Creek as a Priority One
stream for floodway, open space acquisition. The plan
recommends a minimum acquisition width of 350 feet
which would encroach substantially into the property in
question. Staff feels the site should be left as "R -2"
and acquired by the City for open space and flood
control.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 13, 1983)
The applicant, Joe Hocott, was present. Bill Clark also
spoke on this matter. A 30 -day deferral was suggested to
Mr. Hocott to determine the feasibility of incorporating his
property with the land to the south and submitting a PRD for
all the properties. Mr. Hocott agreed to requesting the
30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(January 10, 1984)
The applicant was not present. Ben McMinn, representing
Mr. Joe Hocott, submitted a letter requesting a 30 -day
deferral. This was the applicant's second request for a
deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 14 -84)
The applicant was not present. Staff requested a 60 -day
deferral and stated that the applicant was in agreement with
the request. A motion to defer the item to April 24, 1984,
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(4- 24 -84)
The applicant was not present. A 30 -day deferral was
requested by the staff to allow the owner to resolve some
outstanding issues. A motion to defer the item to
May 29, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
April 24, 1984
Item No. B - Z -4168
Owner: B.R. McGinty
Applicant: Louis Wimbley
Location: 4601 West 12th (West 12th at
Adams, southwest corner)
Request: Rezone from "C -3" General
Commercial to "C -4" Open Display
Purpose: Auto Repair Garage
Size: 14,400 square feet +
Existing Use: Vacant Service Station
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Commercial, Zoned "I -2"
South
- Church, Zoned "C -3"
East
- Multifamily, Zoned "R -4"
West
- Church, Zoned "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to convert an existing service station
to an auto repair garage. The station has been used as
a car wash and detail shop. It has not been used for a
service station for a number of years. The site is
located in a "C -3" strip on the south side of West 12th
that extends approximately four blocks to the east.
The area has a mix of residential and nonresidential
uses. This location is the west end of the "C -3"
zoning. The north side of West 12th has a similar
development pattern with a mix of commercial uses. The
proposed use appears to be appropriate for West 12th
which is classified as a principal arterial, but the
requirement for "C -4" zoning is a concern.
2. The site is flat and occupied by a vacant service
station. A majority of the property is paved except
approximately the west 45 feet. This section is the
location of a creek and separated from the remainder of
the site by a retaining wall.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request. West 12th
Street is four lane, and'all necessary improvements are
in place.
April 24, 1984
Item No. B - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues other than establishing a
"C -4" spot zone.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position relative
to this site. The property has been zoned "C -3" for a
number of years.
7. The staff is not necessarily opposed to the proposed
use, an auto repair garage, but it cannot support the
"C -4" rezoning at this location. There are a number of
uses permitted under the "C -4" classification that
would be undesirable for West 12th Street and the
rezoning would be establishing a spot zone. Precedent
would be set if this zoning is granted that could
create some undesirable land use patterns along West
12th. A "C -3" zoning pattern is more appropriate for
West 12th Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84)
The applicant was not present.
for 30 days was approved by a v
1 absent. (The staff was asked
the applicant and inform him of
a conditional use permit if the
amended.)
A motion to defer the item
ote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
by the Commission to contact
the possibility of utilizing
Zoning Ordinance is
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the item
for 30 days was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(4- 24 -84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to withdraw the
item from the agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
April 24, 1984
Item No. C - Z -4174
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Smith Property Partnership
Tom Rystrom
Napa Valley at Mara Lynn
(west side)
Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "MF -18" Multifamily
Purpose: Multifamily Development
Size: 10.1 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned 11R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The 10 -acre site in question abuts another 10 -acre
tract zoned "MF -18," and the proposal is to combine the
two parcels if the rezoning from "R -2" to "MF -18" is
completed and develop the entire 20 -acre site for
multifamily use. This property has no access to a
dedicated public street, so for development to occur,
the site must be incorporated into a project that has
proper access. The site is located in part of
Little Rock where substantial multifamily development
has taken place or is under construction. There is
also a number of areas zoned for multifamily that have
yet to be developed. The primary issue is how much of
the 10 acres can be utilized for multifamily
development because of the terrain and the western
portion of the property being adjacent to a detached
single family neighborhood and approximately 1200 feet
from Napa Valley Road.
2. The site is heavily wooded with some of the property
having slopes in the range of 15 percent to 30 percent.
The high point is located on the eastern portion of the
site. The southern boundary of the property appears to
be unsuitable for development because of the steep
slopes.
April 24, 1984
Item No. C - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on this site. The residents of St. Charles have
expressed some concern over the proposed density and
the type of development.
7. The staff supports multifamily use on a portion of the
10 acres if a portion of the western one -third of the
tract is left undeveloped and zoned "OS." The density
for the "OS" area could be transferred to the
developable land. A specific land combining the two
tracts has not been submitted. A development concept
should be undertaken for the total acreage to establish
an overall density level and define the open
space /buffer area. Because of these concerns, it is
recommended that no action be taken on the rezoning
until the plan is submitted and reviewed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a 30 -day deferral to allow the applicant to
submit a development plan for purposes of reviewing the
proposed density and the amount of developed land versus
undeveloped land.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were
approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the
request. Mr. Hathaway spoke in support of multifamily
development on the site and offered a new zoning proposal.
The amended request was for a "MF -12" reclassification for
seven acres and "OS" for the western three acres adjacent to
the St. Charles Subdivision. He also stated that the
maximum density on seven acres would be 80 units and the
developer would fence the open space area. Kent Brewster of
the St. Charles Property Owners Association spoke in
opposition to the multifamily development. He expressed
concern over the remaining "R -2" parcel to the north and how
its future would probably be determined by what occurred on
the property in question. He then requested a 30 -day
deferral because the property owners had not had an
opportunity to view Mr. Hathaway's proposal. Jane Barron
and Don Moore spoke against the rezoning of the "R -2" tract
and were very concerned over traffic. Mr. Moore felt that
April 24, 1984
Item No. C - Continued
there were more than enough multifamily units in the area
already. Jim Rhodes also spoke in opposition to the request
and offered some conditions if the property was developed.
He suggested that a "PRD" be used for the seven acres;
restrict the density to eight units per acre; that the
units, 56 total, be for sale; limit the height of the
buildings; and deed the western three acres to the St.
Charles property group. He also requested a 30 -day
deferral. Mr. Hathaway then responded to the preceding
remarks. The Commission discussed the case at length. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the application as
amended to rezone seven acres to "MF -12" and three acres to
"OS." The motion was not seconded. A second motion was
made to defer the item for 30 days. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David
Jones).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(3- 27 -84)
The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to
defer the item for 30 days was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Joe Eh
objectors present. M
developer of the prop
project. He explaine
Property Owners Assoc
which included a 200 -
the buffer area to th
construct a fence in
that he had no proble
if it could be assure
The density on the 20
Mr. Ehrler explained
in question, the proj
over the maximum dens
he had no problems wi
something could be do
units. Kent Brewster
Association addressed
(4- 24 -84)
rler, was present. There were no
r. Ehrler said that he would be the
erty and described the proposed
J that he had met with the St. Charles
iation and reviewed the new proposal
Eoot buffer left as open space, deed
St. Charles neighborhood and
the middle of the buffer. He stated
ns with an "OS" zoning for the buffer
9 that it was left in a natural state.
acres total would be 300 units.
that on the west 10 acres, the property
act was proposing 122 units which was
ity allowed in "MF -12." He stated that
:h "MF -12" on the west 10 acres if
le to accommodate the two additional
of the St. Charles Property Owners
the Commission. He stated that the
Property Owners Association supported the "MF -12" rezoning
and that the new proposal in principal. The Property Owners
Assoication was in agreement that the 200 -foot buffer should
be left undisturbed and that the restrictions be placed on
it in the deed, and split the buffer in half with the fence.
Mr. Brewster felt that the "OS" zoning would be appropriate
for the buffer. Don Moore, an adjacent property owner to
April 24, 1984
Item No. C - Continued
the west, expressed some concerns over the site plan and
traffic in the area. Joe White, an engineer, then spoke to
the density issue and amended the application to "MF -18" on
the east 1001, "OS" on the west 200' and "MF -12" on the
remainder of the property. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the application as amended. The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention
(David Jones).
April 24, 1984
Item No. D - Z- 3638 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
Gary Dean
Financial Centre Parkway at
Shackleford Road NW Corner
Rezone from "C -3" General
Commercial to "0 -2" Office and
Institutional District
Office
4.59 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Office, Zoned "C -3"
East - Interstate, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2," 110 -3"
and "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to construct a single office building
not to exceed 120' in height and one parking deck. The
120' limit is the maximum height in the "0 -2" District.
There will be additional surface parking. The site is
located in an area that is rapidly developing as a
major office center for west Little Rock. There is
substantial office development directly to the south
and to the north and northeast. This area is commonly
referred to as the I -430 office corridor, and the
proposed project is compatible with that land use
pattern. The property has good access for high volumes
of traffic and needed commercial services are also
provided in the area. (The "0 -2" District requires a
site plan review by the Planning Commission. The site
plan has been filed for the Commission's April 12
meeting.)
2. The site is vacant with wooded areas. The property has
some slope to it with the east side, the Shackleford
frontage, being at 380' and increases in elevation to
410' at the southwest corner. The grade is fairly
gradual and should not present any problems.
April 24, 1984
Item No. D - Continued
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The site was rezoned from "0 -3" to "C -3" as conversion
adjustment. That action was accomplished in
February 1981. At that time, the proposed use was a
hotel. The neighborhood's position relative to
mid -rise office buildings in the area is well
documented. (The proposed height is permitted in the
"0-2" District.) Staff has not received any comments
from the neighborhood regarding this rezoning request
at this writing.
7. The staff supports the request and views the rezoning
as being appropriate for the location, the intersection
of an arterial and an interstate. The Shackleford
.-.
frontage from Kanis to Markham is zoned for
nonresidential uses, except an "R -2" piece directly
north of this tract. The proposed use is compatible
with the area and the existing land use patterns which
includes a major office corridor to the south and a
commercial strip to the north. Because of what is
occurring along Shackleford, it appears that the
long -term viability of the residential lots on
Birchwood within 200' of Shackleford is questionable.
The continue residential use at this location will
probably have to be reevaluated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84)
The applicant was not present but had requested a 30 -day
deferral. Staff supported the request because the applicant
also did not notify all the property owners within the
required 2001. A motion to defer the item passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
April 24, 1984
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(4- 24 -84)
The applicant, Gary Dean, was present. There were also two
persons present that addressed the Commission about some
concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Dean spoke in support of
the request and stated that he had met with the neighborhood
and had revised the proposed site plan based on those
discussions. The building design had changed and the height
of the building would not exceed 80'. This was a reduction
of approximately 40' from the original proposal. He said
that the new plan was a good compromise and should satisfy
all parties involved. Dorothy Straton of the Birchwood
neighborhood stated that they were not opposed to office
use, but wanted quality development. She then described
some of the neighborhood's concerns which included traffic
on Shackleford Road, drainage, sewer capacity and the width
of the proposed buffer. She requested that the City look
into the traffic situation and provide some help. They were
also concerned about the zoning changes occurring in the
area and the staff's statement regarding the viability of
long -term residential use on the western end of Birchwood.
During this discussion, it was pointed out that the required
site plan review for the "0 -2" district would address all of
the design issues. Ms. Straton said that the neighborhood
was pleased with the 80 -foot height. John Straton
questioned the method of measuring the height of the
building. The Zoning Ordinance definition of building
height uses the central access of the building for this
purpose. Mr. Dean then discussed some of the concerns
raised by the representatives of the neighborhood. After a
lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval
of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 24, 1984
Item No. E - Z -4182
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
Randy Henard
Anna Street at Asher and West 33rd
Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial
to "I -3" Heavy Industrial
Auto Salvage
1.0 acres +
Auto Salvage (Nonconforming Use)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
East - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to utilize the property for an auto
salvage operation. The site is currently occupied by a
nonconforming auto salvage yard. This rezoning request
is in response to a zoning enforcement notice informing
the applicant that the existing "I -2" zoning does not
permit an auto salvage yard. The "I -2" zoning in the
area is working and has produced some desirable
industrial uses for Asher Avenue. Long -range plans for
the area envision a light industrial warehousing
district. There currently is a mix of zoning and land
uses, but an "I -3" use is not compatible with the area.
Certain sections of Asher Avenue have been upgraded and
an auto salvage yard fronting on Asher would not be
aiding that trend. There also has been some new
construction in the immediate vicinity.
2. The site is flat and occupied by a structure and a
number of dilapidated automobiles.
April 24, 1984
Item No. E - Continued
3. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required
because the existing right -of -way is deficient.
Asher Avenue is classified as a principle arterial on
the Master Street Plan and is a state highway.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The general area has been zoned "I -2" for a number of
years. There is no neighborhood position relative to
the site.
7. The staff position is that the "I -2" zoning is working
and should continue to be the most intensive zoning
classification in the area. Uses permitted under "I -3"
are uncompatible with the area and could create adverse
impacts for the neighborhood. The existing residential
uses have been affected by the industrial and
commercial zoning, and the area will continue to lose
its desirability as a residential neighborhood. An
auto salvage yard or any other "I -3" use is
inappropriate for property with frontage on
Asher Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84)
The applicant had submitted a letter requesting a 30 -day
deferral to allow him to notify the property owners within
the required time. A motion to defer the item for 30 days
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 24 -84)
The applicant had submitted a written request for another
30 -day deferral. The applicant did not notify the property
owners within 2001. This was the applicant's second request
for a deferral. A motion to defer the item to May 29, 1984,
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
` -April 24, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z- 2037 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Jim Baldridge
Same
7120 South University
Rezone from "C -3" General
Commercial to "C -4" Open Display
Used Car Lot
1.1 acre +
Existing Use: Used Car Lot (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -4"
East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The site is currently occupied by a nonconforming used
car lot. The proposed use is the same and the owner
wants to be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Because of the existing "C -3" zoning, expansion cannot
occur because of the used car lot being nonconforming.
The owner has indicated that some expansion may be
necessary in the future to accommodate growth in the
business, and would like to have the appropriate zoning
in place. There are a number of auto dealerships zoned
"C -3" or "C -4" along this portion of South University,
so the continued use of this property as a car lot is
compatible with the area. The "C -4" district is
designed for arterials with heavy traffic flows such as
University Avenue and auto related uses, so the
reclassification is appropriate for the location.
2. The property is flat with a used car lot on it. There
is one structure that is being used for an office.
3. There are no right -of -way or Master Street Plan issues
associated with this request.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property has been zoned "C -3" for a number of
years. "C -3" was a conversion from the old "F"
commercial district which permitted car lots.
7. The request is compatible with the area and is
supported by the staff. The use and zoning will
continue the development pattern that has been
established over the years, and that is ideal for an
arterial like University Avenue. The Suburban
Development Plans shows a strip development district
for this location and auto dealerships are usually
associated with that type of land use category.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral to allow him to
notify property owners within the required 200'. A motion
to defer the item to May 29, 1984, passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z- 2746 -A
Owner: United Cerebral Palsy
Applicant: Bill McClard
Location: West 12th and Cleveland Streets
SE Corner
Request: Rezone from "R -5" Multifamily to
"0 -3" General Office
Purpose: Office
Size: 1.78 acres +
Existing Use: Institutional /Quasipublic
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -5"
South - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R -2" & "R -4"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -5"
West - Quasipublic, Zoned "R -5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property in question-is located at the southeast
corner of West 12th and Cleveland Streets and is
currently occupied by the United Cerebral Palsy Center.
The proposal is to rezone the site to allow a medical
office building. No other specifics such as whether
the building will be retained or a new one constructed
have been provided at this time. The site is part of
the University Urban Renewal Project which does not
expire until June of this year. The City of
Little Rock is currently operating under a 20 year
agreement with HUD to maintain and enforce the land use
plan for the project. The initial plan restricted the
properties to certain types of land uses and office was
not one of those uses at this location. Because of the
Urban Renewal Project expiring in two months, the
plan's land use restrictions are not a major concern at
this time. A medical office is somewhat similar to
what is on the property now and it appears to be
compatible with the surrounding area. The primary
issues is the immediate area and an overall change in
the land use that is being proposed by this request and
another rezoning request (Z -4103) for 11 acres to the
east and southeast of this site. It appears that a
coordinated effort is needed and the proposals should
not be addressed separately.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
2. The site is relatively flat and occupied by a single
structure. There are additional areas for parking and
playgrounds.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. The one legal issue involved with this application is
the University Urban Renewal Plan which does not expire
until June 1984. The plan does include land use
restrictions for properties within the project and
identifies the site in question for medium density
residential use. The City has a 20 year agreement with
HUD to adhere to the Urban Renewal Plan. In May 1980,
the City Board of Directors passed Resolution #6,339
"clarifying that applicability of its Zoning Ordinance
to lands within the University Park Urban Renewal
Project." That resolution states in part "that the
Board of Directors reconfirm the Urban Renewal Plan for
University Park Urban Renewal Project as it applies to
land use and restrictions of the land within the
project area, and specifically determines that this
Urban Renewal Plan will remain in full force and effect
and unchanged by Ordinance #13,777 until the expiration
date of the Urban Renewal Plan on June 5, 1984."
Ordinance #13,777 is the Zoning Ordinance.
6. This property is part of the University Urban Renewal
Project /Plan which was adopted in 1964. The plan has
been revised since adoption, but no land use changes
were made at this location. The site has always been
identified for medium density residential use. The
property was rezoned from "A" Single Family to "D"
Apartment in 1973 at the request of the Little Rock
Housing Authority. Under the old Zoning Ordinance, a
charitable organization was permitted in the "D" zoning
district.
7. Staff views office use as being reasonable for the
location and should not create any problems for the
area. The proposed use is in conflict with both the
Urban Renewal Plan and the Boyle Park District Plan.
The Urban Renewal Plan is not an issue because of its
June expiration date. The Boyle Park Plan identifies
the location for "public and institutional" uses as the
April 24, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
site is currently being used. Because of an apparent
new interest for redeveloping this area with the two
rezoning requests before the Planning Commission, it
appears that the Boyle Park Plan will have to be
reevaluated. The plan shows most of the immediate area
for single family use with some commercial and
institutional uses. If these rezonings are granted, an
amendment to the Plan will be required. Office uses
appear to be compatible with the area if properly
integrated with each other and the surrounding
neighborhoods. The staff can support office use in the
area, but because of various concerns such as overall
circulation, suggest that the two rezoning issues
should not be addressed separately and that the item
should be deferred. Staff has continuously supported
deferrals for Z -4103.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral until May 29, 1984, when Z -4103 is
also on the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Bill Putnam, was present. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Putnam spoke in support of the
request and asked that the Commission not defer the item.
He stated that a deferral would create hardships for all
parties involved. Mr. Putnam explained that the City
Manager's Office had agreed to place the item on the Board
of Directors agenda for May 1 if the Commission recommended
approval. Also because of the Urban Renewal Plan issue, the
ordinance would not be effective until June 6, 1984. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the request as
filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
April 24, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z- 3272 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Richards Inc.
Ron Boyeskie
6620 South University
Rezone from "C -3" General
Commercial to 11C -4" Open Display
District
Auto Dealership
1.39 acres +
Used Car Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -4"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -4"
East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to expand Richard's Honda, an auto and
motorcycle dealership, which is located on the site
directly to the north of this property. The existing
"C -3" zoning does not permit an auto dealership. The
site is located between two auto dealerships, so the
proposed use is compatible with the area. Currently,
the property is being used for a small used car lot.
This section of University Avenue from West 65th Street
to Forbing Road has developed as an auto dealership
strip and "C -4" is a predominant zoning classification.
The only non -auto related dealership use on the west
side of University between these two streets is located
at the southwest corner of University and West 65th.
The "C -4" district is designed for arterials such as
University Avenue, and the request is appropriate for
the location.
2. The site is flat with three buildings and some used
cars on it. The property does not feature any unique
physical characteristics on it.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property was zoned "C -3" (F) in 1979 and has been
a nonconforming car lot since 1980. The location was
an auto sales lot at the time of the first rezoning.
7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies this portion
of University Avenue for strip commercial development.
An auto dealership is very compatible with this type of
land use pattern, and in this situation, the request
would be just expanding an existing use. The property
in question is not well maintained, so it appears that
the proposed expansion will upgrade the property and
improve the visual appearance and the University Avenue
frontage. Before a building permit can be issued,
further review and approval by the City will be
required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend
approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z -4209
Owner: Jim Dixon
Applicant: Kenneth Vernon
Location: 1510 South Schiller
Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family
to "MF -18" Multifamily
Purpose: Boarding House
Size: 7,800 square feet +
Existing Use: Boarding House (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -4"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -4"
East
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -4"
West
- Single
Family
and Duplex, Zoned "R -4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to utilize the property in question for
a boarding house which is the current use. A boarding
house is not permitted in an "R -4" district so the
Zoning Enforcement Office issued a violation notice on
February 27, 1984. This rezoning request is a
follow -up to that notice. The property is situated in
a neighborhood of primarily "R -4" zoning with some
"R -5," "C -3," "0-3" and "I -2" locations. Even with the
m -iced zoning pattern, the predominant land use is still
single family. Some houses in the immediate area are
in the process of being upgraded and other structures
have been completely renovated. This activity
indicates that the neighborhood is being stabilized,
and it appears that the area will continue to be a
single family neighborhood. A boarding house is not
compatible with this type of a neighborhood and does
introduce a more transient population to the area.
Because of the direction the neighborhood is going and
in the process of becoming more stable, a boarding
house and necessary zoning is viewed as being
inappropriate for the location. The request is also
spot zoning.
,April 24, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story
residence on it and a small accessory building on the
rear lot line.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. The issue of spot zoning should be addressed when
discussing this request. The rezoning of this lot
would create a spot zone at this location.
6. There is no documented history on the site. In the
past, the neighborhood has expressed some opposition to
similar rezoning requests. It is the staff's
understanding that a petition is being circulated in
the neighborhood opposing the request.
7. The staff does not support this request and feels that
allowing a boarding house at this location could have a
negative impact on the area. The neighborhood is in
the process of upgrading itself and going through a
period of stabilization. The land use such as is
proposed with this request could impose some
undesirable influences on the area and possibly, could
reverse the trend that is now occurring. Staff is also
concerned that if the rezoning is approved, there would
be very little control over the number of people
residing at the location. The Zoning Ordinance permits
the use, but does not regulate the number of persons.
One controlling factor may be the parking requirement
which requires one space per sleeping accommodation.
It appears that the lot may be able to accommodate only
a portion of the required parking.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and represented by Tim Geary, an
attorney. There were six to seven objectors also present.
In addition, two petitions with a total of 41 signatures
opposing the request had been submitted to the staff prior
to the public hearing. Mr. Geary requested a deferral
because he had not had adequate time to prepare for the
hearing. A motion to defer the item was made and seconded.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
Muskie Harris of the Central High Neighborhood Association
asked that the deferral be denied. The motion was defeated.
Mr. Geary stated that the property had been used as a
boarding house for 11 years and questioned if this did not
in fact create a nonconforming use. He pointed out that 13
persons were residing in the house and 8 of those were
family members, and that the neighborhood had a mixed land
use pattern. The nonconforming use issue was discussed, and
it was determined that the property would be nonconforming
if the use was in existence prior to 1937. Kenny Scott of
Zoning Enforcement stated that his office had issued a
notice and was unaware of the property being a nonconforming
use. Muskie Harris then spoke against the request. He
described the neighborhood as in the process of upgrading
itself and becoming a stable single family neighborhood. He
stated that the property in question had caused problems for
years and would be an undesirable use in the neighborhood.
Ethel Ambrose also spoke in opposition to the request. She
described the residence as having 14 to 15 persons with only
3 of those being family members. She felt that the site
could not provide the needed parking, and she indicated that
her residence and the property at 1510 Schiller shared a
common driveway. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was
made to recommend approval of the request. The motion
failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes,
10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z -4210
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
Fred Hunt
E1 Dorado Drive West of
Valley Club Circle
Rezone from "R -4" Two Family
to "R -2" Singlefamily
Single Family
2.52 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission
in February of this year. This rezoning request is a
follow -up action to that plat approval. The request is for
"R -4" to "R -2," and the proposed use is single family.
There are no outstanding issues, and the staff supports the
rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to
recommend approval of the request. The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
-April 24, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z -4213
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: Joe White for R.P.M., Inc.
Location: Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road
NW Corner
Request: Rezone from Unclassified to
"0-3" and "C -3" (property is
outside the City limits)
Purpose: Office and Retail
Size: 25.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Single Family and Commercial,
Unclassified
East - Vacant, Zoned "C -2"
West - Vacant, Unclassified
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone the property for office and
commercial uses, but no specific plans have been
submitted at this time. The entire site is currently
outside the City with the current city limits abutting
the property on the east and on the north. It's the
staff's understanding that an annexation petition will
be filed in the near future. The property is located
at the intersection of two arterials, Bowman and
Colonel Glenn Roads, and approximately one - quarter mile
west of I -430. Directly to the east of this site there
is a substantial "C -2" parcel, and south of Colonel
Glenn adjacent to the interstate, the property is also
zoned "C -2." On the east side of I -430, north of
Colonel Glenn, the area is zoned for multifamily,
office and commercial uses. Large tracts of
nonresidential zoning are in place and this request
would not establish a new precedent for the area. The
proposed rezoning is compatible with what has occurred
through approved rezonings of the other sites and
maintains the zoning pattern for nonresidential uses on
Colonel Glenn Road on either side of the interstate.
The request proposes 14.5 acres of office use and 10.0
acres of commercial uses.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. At the
southeast corner of the property is the low point and
increases in elevation from east to west with the
northwest portion being the high ground. The west side
has some slopes that may present some problems for
office development. Topography maps indicate that on
the western boundary there are slopes of 30 percent or
more.
3. Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a principal arterial and
Bowman Road is identified as a minor arterial on the
Master Street Plan. The existing right -of -ways of both
streets are deficient, so dedication of additional
right -of -way will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history on the site. The
property is within the City's referendum area.
7. The staff is in support of the proposed uses at this
location, but recommends that the commercial property
be rezoned to "C -2," not "C -3" as requested. The "C -2"
district would be in keeping with the commercial zoning
pattern established by previous approvals and also
"C -2" would provide site plan review. An additional 10
acres of commercial zoning should not create an
excessive amount of commercial property in the area
because of a recent acquisition of the "C -2" property
to the south of Colonel Glenn Road. It is possible
that site on the south side may be used for something
other than commercial uses. Staff does suggest that
the "0 -3" property be the extent of nonresidential
zoning on the north side of Colonel Glenn. The
recently adopted I -430 Plan identifies the property for
office uses so a plan amendment will be necessary if
the commercial rezoning is approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "0 -3" request and "C -2" as
a more appropriate district for the commercial tract.
,April 24, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Joe White, was present. Bill Hastings of
R.P.M. was also in attendance. There were no objectors
present. Mr. White stated that they were in agreement with
the staff's recommendation and amended the application to
"C -2." Bob Lane of the City's Engineering staff discussed
Colonel Glenn Road and a proposed new alignment for a
portion of it just west of Lawson Road. The new alignment
would encroach into the proposed "0 -3" tract, and Mr. Lane
requested that the Commission exclude the needed land for
the alignment from the request. He asked that the City be
given the opportunity to formalize an agreement with the
property owner for the land prior to rezoning. Mr. White
stated that he did not object to that and would work with
the City to reach a satisfactory solution. A new legal
description will be provided once the alignment has been
finalized. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
amended application to "C -2" and "O -3" except that portion
needed for right -of -way. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector).
NOTE: This item will not be forwarded to the Board of
Directors until the annexation petition is on their
agenda.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z -4215
Owner: Louise and Katherine Isgrig
Applicant: Maury Mitchell
Location: Fourche Dam Pike East of
Fourche Creek
Request:
Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "I -2" Light Industrial
Purpose:
Truck Repair
Size:
19.2 acres +
Existing Use:
Single Family (Formerly Isgrig's
Plant Nursery)
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING:
North -
Commercial, Unclassified
South -
Vacant,
Unclassified and "R -2"
East -
Single
Family, Zoned "R -2"
West -
Vacant,
Unclassified
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to utilize the property for a truck
repair facility. The site is in question was formerly
occupied by Isgrig's Plant Nursery, a large greenhouse
operation, which can be considered a heavy commercial
or a light industrial use. The greenhouses are not in
use at this time, but there are some single family
residences on the front portion of the property. The
nursery was in operation for a number of years, so a
large nonresidential use at this location was present
in the area for sometime. A plant nursery's impact on
an area like this would probably have been minimal, but
a truck repair facility does raise some concern in
terms of its effect on the residential area to the
east. Because of the size of the parcel, 19.2 acres,
it would appear that the proposed use could be situated
on the property in a way as to reduce any impacts the
proposed operation could have on the area. With proper
buffers on the east side and locating the use on the
west side of the property, this could be accomplished.
Noise and pollution from the truck facility could have
a harmful effect on the livability of a residential
neighborhood.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
2. The site is a large relatively flat parcel of land.
There are currently nine structures on the property
with five of those being large greenhouses. The
western boundary is Fourche Creek, so some of the
property is located in the Creek's floodplain. This
should not impact the use of the site.
3. The Master Street Plan is in the process of being
amended to show a north /south collector running through
this property. Dedication of the necessary
right -of -way will be provided by the plat. The action
on the amendment should be accomplished by the time of
this hearing. There are no issues associated with
Fourche Dam Pike which is classified as a collector on
the street plan.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. One issue that needs to be mentioned is that a portion
of the property, the southwest corner, is outside the
city limits (the request /legal description is for the
entire ownership). The City has land use jurisdiction
in this area through its "river zoning powers," which
permits Little Rock to exercise zoning control over
lands within so many miles of the Arkansas River. By
the time of this public hearing, the Board of Directors
will have zoned those areas outside the City to "R -2"
through the East River Island Plan. The Board of
Directors is to act on that ordinance at its April 17
meeting. If this request is approved, the Rezoning
Ordinance will be presented to the Board of Directors
in May, and there should be no complications with
recommending approval of the application as filed.
6. The property was part of a large annexation that took
place in 1979, and came into the City as "R -2." The
greenhouse operation was a nonconforming use since that
time.
7. The property is part of the East River Island Plan.
The Plan has not been formally adopted by ordinance,
but that action should be completed by the time of this
hearing. The site in question is identified on the
Plan for light industrial and research /business uses.
The "I -2" district is the appropriate zoning for this
type of land use pattern, and the staff does support
the rezoning to permit these uses. One concern that
the staff does have is that certain industrial uses
April 24, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
could have an adverse impact on the residential area to
the east so that should be taken into consideration
when locating a facility or buildings on the property.
The Plan does recommend a buffer strip adjacent to the
residential neighborhood, so that could be one method
of minimizing any potential problems. The buffer is
recommended to be at least 50 feet. One other plan
element that needs to be mentioned is Fourche Creek and
the Master Parks Plan. Fourche Creek is identified in
the Plan as a "priority 2 stream" for floodway open
space acquisition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and represented by Chris Barrier.
There were five objectors also present. Mr. Barrier spoke
in support of the request and discussed the issue of an
industrial use adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He
indicated that the proposed use, a truck refrigeration
repair facility, would actually be less intense than the
former nursery operation. He also stated that the new owner
would only use about five acres out of the 19 total.
Ben Thompson, the new owner, described the proposed use as
being clean and that it would not create any problems for
the neighborhood. At this time, a letter objecting to the
request was presented to the Commission. Donna McCracken, a
property owner on Fourche Dam Pike, objected to the request.
She said the neighborhood was concerned with the noise and
pollution associated with the proposed use, drainage and the
amount of truck traffic that would be generated by the use.
Another property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning
and reinforced Ms. McCracken's concerns. She also
questioned that the adequacy of the recommended buffer and
how the rezoning would effect property values and taxes in
the area. Both property owners felt that the proposed use
would generate a heavier amount of truck traffic than the
previous operation did. Mr. Barrier stated that the
proposed facility was not a 24 hour operation and would have
10 to 15 trucks coming in daily. Ms. Louise Isgrig spoke
and said that heavy truck traffic had been in the area for
sometime. The Commission discussed the issue at length. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" request
with a 50 -foot "OS" buffer on the east side as recommended
in the East River Island Plan and that an annexation
petition be filed for that portion of the property that is
currently outside the City. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth).
April 24, 1984
Item No. 8 - Amendment to the Suburban Development Plan
This amendment to the Suburban Development Plan is located
at the intersection of Colonel Glenn and Bowman Road. The
plan currently shows that specific area as "SO" Suburban
Office.
The landowners of the tract in question are requesting a
"C -3" zoning on that tract of land with "0-3" to the west.
The staff has reviewed the rezoning proposal and feel that
it is consistent with the intent of the plan and, therefore
recommend that the Suburban Development Plan be amended from
"SO" to "CS" for the land immediately west of Bowman Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson explained the amendment to the Suburban
Development Plan. He explained that this change from "SO"
to "CS" is necessary to conform with other rezoning action
on the property. There was no discussion on the item. The
Planning Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 abstention to recommend to the Board the approval of the
amendment.
April 24, 1984
Item No. 9 - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
This package of Zoning Ordinance amendments was deferred
from the March 27, 1984, meeting. Since that meeting, the
staff has worked on clarifying several definitions contained
in the ordinance.
The revised proposals contain two types of uses for service
stations. One use is a service station for the dispense of
oil and gasoline only. The second classification is a
service station with motor vehicle repair. since a large
percentage of service stations do repair, the second
classification should be helpful in making them conforming.
A few other minor changes have been made to the package.
One change that has been suggested is to include barber and
beauty shops as a conditional use in the office districts.
Another change has been to eliminate plumbing, electrical,
air conditioning and heating shops in "C -3."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson explained the amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. He stated that the amendments had been
discussed several times previously and asked if the
Commission had any questions. There were no questions from
the Commission regarding the amendments. The Commission
voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to recommend to the City
Board of Directors the approval of the Zoning Ordinance
amendments.
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
SUMMARY SHEET
I. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
1. Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Installation
2. Auto Repair Garage
3. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps
4. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair
II. ADDITIONAL USES
1. Barber & Beauty Shop - Conditional in 110 -111, 110 -211, 110 -3"
2. Food Store with Gas Pumps - Conditional in "C -1 ",
Permitted Use in "C -3 ", "C -4"
3. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair - Conditional in
"C-211, "C-311
4. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair - Permitted Use
in "C -4"
5. Service Station as Permitted Use in "C -3"
6. Auto Repair Garage, Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Motor Vehicle Part
Installation - Conditional in "C -3"
III. ELIMINATE USE
1. Plumbing, Electrical, Airconditioning and Heating Shops in "C -3"
(Permitted Use)
IV. ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RESTRICTIONS
1. Accessory Uses
2. Accessory Structures
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
SECTION 2 -101B. DEFINITION OF USES
Add:
p. 19 18.a. Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Motor Vehicle Part Installation
A facility primarily for the sales of auto parts with the accessory
function of installation of parts. Part installation is limited
to such functions as tire mounting, and other periodic parts main-
tenance. Engine rebuilding or major repair work is prohibited.
p. 19 20. Auto Repair Garage
A facility for major motor vehicle repair, excluding body rebuilding.
p. 22 45.a. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps
A small food store whose primary function is the sale of convenience
food items such as bread, milk, etc. Gas pumps and petroleum sales
are provided on the site. No automobile parts or service is allowed.
p. 29 121.a. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair
A facility for the dispensing of oil and gas for motor vehicles as
well as periodic engine maintenance and repair. Motor vehicles must be
kept intact on the premises. No body or engine rebuilding is allowed.
SECTION 7.102.1 "O -1" QUIET OFFICE DISTRICT
Add:
p. 78 2. Conditional Uses
b. Barber and Beauty Shops
Renumber remaining entries c. -p.
SECTION 7.102.2 "0 -2" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT
Add:
p. 82 3. Conditional Uses
a. Barber and Beauty Shops
Renumber remaining entries b. -k.
SECTION 7.102.3 "0 -3" GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT
Add:
p. 84 3. Conditional Uses
b. Barber and Beauty Shop
Renumber remaining entries c. -i.
�- - SECTION 7 -103 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
C. District Restrictions
Add:
p. 87 6. No sale or storage of sale items for special events in
temporary structures are allowed for a period in excess
of 30 days. No more than two (2) such sales or events
can occur at the same location during a calendar year.
7. Residential uses which are clearly incidental to the
primary use are allowed. No accessory use or uses may
utilize in excess of twenty (20) percent of the floor
area provided for permitted uses.
8. Accessory permanent structures which meet all setback
requirements, are allowed for the storage of sale items.
Retail sales may not take place in an accessory structure.
SECTION 7 -103.1 "C -1" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Add:
p. 89 g.l. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps
SECTION 7 -103.2 "C -2" SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT
Add:
p. 93 2. Conditional Use
k. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair
SECTION 7 -103.3 "C -3" GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Add:
p. 95 1. Permitted Uses
w.l. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps
p. 95 Eliminate:
iii. Plumbing, Electrical, Airconditioning and Heating Shops
p. 95 Add:
p.p.p. 1. Service Station
p. 96 Add:
-� 2. Conditional Uses
b.l. Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Motor Vehicle Installation
b.2. Auto Repair Garage
L. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair
1-1 -SECTION 7 -103.4 "C -4" OPEN DISPLAY
Add:
p. 99 1. Permitted Use
1.1. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps
cc.l. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
DATE 4MjL 24-`qg�
/� V O T E R E C O R D
,
ITEM NUMBERS
7.ONTNG
V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
Oman'
J. Schlereth
R. Massie
J. Nicholson
ROME!
mummommummom
EMENEEN.
W. Ketcher
NOR
PENN
ON
Ai D. Arnett 'EAS
0AMMME10AMEENE.-
EMENEENE
MEN
MEN
V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
l _ R
April 24, 1984
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.