pc_05 29 1984t
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
MAY 29,1984
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:John Schlereth
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
Richard Massie
William Ketcher
Betty Sipes
John Clayton
David Jones
James Summerlin
Members Absent:Ida Boles
City Attorney:Hugh Brown
1
Nay 29,1984
(
Item No.A —Z-4136
Owner:B.E.Hocott's Estate
Applicant:Joe Hocott
Location:Leander Street at Rock Creek
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"NF-24"Multifamily
Purpose:Nultifamily Development
Size:2.3 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant and Industrial,Zoned "R-2"and "I-2"
South —Vacant,Zoned "NF-18"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"and "I-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal is to develop multifamily units on landthatisunsuitablefortheproposeduse.The propertyhassomeverysteepslopesanddoesnotprovideadequatelandareaforahigherdensitydevelopment.
Only the southern portion of the tract couldrealisticallybebuilton.
2.The site is heavily wooded and a majority of it hasslopesinexcessof30percent.The western end dropsstraightofffromLeanderStreettoRockCreek.
3.There are no Waster Street Plan issues associated withthisrequest.Leander Street is deficient inright-of-way.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewingagenciesatthistime.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite.
I
May 29,1984
Item No .A —Continued
7.The request is in conflict with the adopted Boyle Park
and Master parks plans.The Boyle park plan shows thesiteaspartofanopencorridorthroughthearea.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 floodcontrol.
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 foralltheproperties.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-daydeferral.This was the applicant's second request for adeferral.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.
May 29,1984
Item No.A —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(5-29-84)
Ben McMinn an attorney representing Joe Hocott,the owner,
was present.There were no objectors.Staff modified the
recommendation and recommended an "MF-18"reclassification.
Mr.McMinn agreed with the new recommendation and amended
the application to "MF-18."A motion was made to
recommend approval of the amended application.The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.B —Z-4182
Owner:Various Owners
Applicant:Randy Henard
Location:Anna Street at Asher and West 33rd
Request:Rezone from "I-2"Light Industrial
to "I-3"Heavy Industrial
Purpose:Auto Salvage
Size:1.0 acres +
Existing Use: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 requestisinresponsetoazoningenforcementnoticeinformingtheapplicantthattheexisting"I-2"zoning does not
permit an auto salvage yard.The "I-2"zoning in theareaisworkingandhasproducedsomedesirable
industrial uses for Asher Avenue.Long-range plans for
the area envision a light industrial warehousingdistrict.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 newconstructionintheimmediatevicinity.
2.The site is flat and occupied by a structure and a
number of dilapidated automobiles.
May 29,19S4
Item No.8 —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 loseitsdesirabilityasaresidentialneighborhood.An
auto salvage yard or any other "I-3"use is
inappropri,ate 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 eyes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(4-24-S4)
The applicant had submitted a written request for another
30-day deferral.The applicant did not notify the property
owners within 200'.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.
Nay 29,1984
Item No.8 —Continued
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:(May 29,1984)
The applicant,Randy Henard,was present.There were no
objectors present.Nr.Henard spoke in support and
explained to the Commission what was involved with this
operation.The Zoning Enforcement Office determined that
Nr.Henard's use was,in fact,a salvage yard which required
an "1-3"rezoning,and the applicant filed the request as a
result of that action.Nr.Henard stated that the location
meets his needs and would like to remain there and continue
his business.After lengthy discussion,a motion was made
to recommend approval of the application.The motion failedforlackofaffirmativevote.The vote —0 ayes,10 noes
and 1 absent.The request was denied.
Nay 29,1984
Item No.C —Z-2037-A
Owner:arm Baldrrdge
Applicant:Same
Location:7120 South University
Request:Rezone from "C-3"General
Commercial to "C-4"Open Display
Purpose:Used Car Lot
Size: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:
l.The site is currently occupied by a nonconforming usedcarlot.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 zoninginplace.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 thereclassificationisappropriateforthelocation.
2.The property is flat with a used car lot on it.Thereisonestructurethatisbeingusedforanoffice.
3.There are no right-of-way or Master Street Plan issuesassociatedwiththisrequest.
May 29,1984
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.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:(April 24,1984)
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 29,1984)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
The Commission discussed the case briefly.A motion was
made to recommend approval of the request.The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.D —Z-4103
Owner:Various Owners
Applicant:John A.Castin and Henry Treece
Location:West 12th at University Avenue
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
and "C-3"General Commercial to"NF-12"Nultifamily,"0-2"Office
and Institutional Use and "0-3"
General Office
Purpose:Office and Retail
Size:11.96 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant and Church
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND
ZONING-'orth
—Commercial,Quasipublic and Single Family,
Zoned "I-2,""C-3"and "R-5"
South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
East —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
West —Single Family and Quasi-public,Zoned "R-2,""R-4"and "R-5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.No specific plans have been submitted,but a conceptual
layout of the various elements was included with the
application.The proposed project is to include areasforanofficepark,a mixed use office retail site and
a parcel for townhouse development.The concept also
shows a proposed church site to be located south of the"0-3"parcel.The tract is zoned "R-2"so a
conditional use permit would be required for the
church.(As staff understands it,the existing churchtothenorthwouldberelocatedtothenewsiteifthe
rezoning is approved.)The location's potential for
intense nonresidential development is questionable.A
majority of the property in question has no
relationship to a major street which is fundamental tothistypeofproject.The proposed "0-2"tract has
some frontage on West 12th and University.The office
park area would take its access from residentialstreets.The desirability of allowing nonresidential
uses to encroach into an established single family
neighborhood must also be questioned.Some of the
property includes platted single family lots.
May 29,1984
Item No.D —Continued
2.A majority of the property is vacant and flat.There
are high points on the north and south.There is a
church located in the northeast corner and part of the
University frontage has some commercial development.A
number of the lots are part of the Broadmoor North
Subdivision.
3.Additional right-of-way will be necessary on University
Avenue to provide another lane for proper turning
movements and traffic flow.
4.At this time,no adverse comments have been received
from the reviewing agencies.
5.There are two significant legal issues associated withthisapplication,the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor
North and the University park Urban Renewal plan.TheBillofAssurancerestrictsthelandusetodetached
single family residences as does the Urban Renewal
Plan.Both the Bill of Assurance and the Urban Renewal
Plan must first be amended before the rezoning can
occur.Also,the Bill of Assurance requires that thegrantor's,Winrock Development Company,approval mustfirstbeobtainedbeforeanyamendmentcanbemadeas
long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the
subdivision.The City has a 20-year agreement with HUDtoadheretotheUrbanRenewalPlanwhichisineffectuntil1984.It appears that until these two matters
are resolved the rezoning cannot be considered.
6.As has been stated previously,this property is part of
the University Urban Renewal Plan which was adopted 20
years ago.The site are also part of the Broadmoor
North Subdivision that was approved in the late 1970's.
Winrock Development Company,a landowner,"is
fundamentally opposed to rezoning the property in
Broadmoor North and,therefore,we do not support any
such rezoning on this property."
7.Staff views the request as premature and incomplete atthistime.Some of the major issues have been
described and discussed in detail,but there are other
concerns that must be addressed.They include:
a.A survey for the entire property has not been
submitted.
b,The appropriateness of filing an application fornonresidentialzoningonlandthatisrestricted
to detached single family use.
May 29,1984
Item No.D —Continued
c.The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle
Park Plan which shows single family.
d.The possible encroachment of nonresidential useintoaviablesinglefamilyneighborhood.
e.The request appears to be speculative in nature.
f.What are the specific uses for the variousparcels?
g.Access is inadequate for the proposedclassifications.There is only limited access to
University and West 12th.Also,there is apossibilityofhavingtouseresidentialstreetsforcirculation.
h.The layout of future streets and the possibilityofsomestreetclosures.
i.Is a mix of office and retail,good land use and
planning for the location?How much and what kindofofficeandretailusesaredesirableforthearea?
j.A complete plan must be submitted before any
adequate review can take place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral until all the outstanding issuesareresolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(September 13,1983)
The applicant was not present~but had submitted a letter
requesting a 60-day deferral.A motion to defer the itemforatleast60dayspassedbyavoteof9ayes,0 noes and
2 abent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 28,1984)
The applicant was not present,but had submitted a requestfora90-day deferral.This was the applicant's secondrequestforadeferral.A motion to defer the item for 90
days passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and
1 abstention (Richared Massie).
May 29,1984
Item No.D —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 29,1984)
The applicant,Jack Castin,was present.There were
approximately 10 to 12 persons opposed to the request also
in attendance.Mr.Castin stated that he was a planning
consultant representing Henry Treece and a group ofinvestors.Mr.Castin reviewed the concept plan and
described the proposal which was now "0-2"on all the
parcels not "MF-12"and "0-3"as previously filed.He
stated that the area in question was no longer suitable for
single family development use and that more intense
development such as office was appropriate.Mr.Castin feltthatcirculationfortheprojectstillneededtobefinalizedandrequesteda30-day deferral to address this
issue and to meet the residents of the neighborhood.
Milton Halpert,a property owner,spoke against the request
and felt that the approval of the rezoning would disrupt the
neighborhood and place many hardships on the residents.Bill Boswell,a resident on Bittersweet expressed concern
over additional traffic generated by this type of
development because of the number of children in the
neighborhood.He was opposed to the request.Joann Savagestatedthatshewastotallyopposedtoofficeuseinthearea.Pat Kimbell also spoke against the request and was
concerned with using the land for office development in an
area that has provided affordable housing which is no longeravailableinmanylocations.David Ball and Henry Brown
voiced the same concerns as those of the previous objectors,
and Mr.Ball felt that the request would severely affect
property values and the residents'nvestments.CarolynJonesalsospokeinoppositiontotherequestandreadaletterfromapropertyownerwhocouldnotattendthe
meeting.The Commission discussed the cased at length.A
motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
(
May 29,1984
Item No.1 —Z-2552-B
Owner:Lilie Mae Davis
Applicant:Same
Location:6618 Forbing Road
Request:Rezone from "C-3"to "C-4"
Purpose:Used Car Lot
Size:.643 acre
Existing Use:Used Car Lot (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Commercial,Zoned "C-4"
South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
East —Commercial,Zoned "C-4"
West —Single Family,Zoned "C-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
I 1.This site is currently a vacant lot.At one time the
property had a structure on it and was operating as a
used car lot.The building was destroyed by fire,and
the property lost its noncomformity.The Building
Permit's Office determined that more than 50 percent of
structure was destroyed.The proposal is to rebuild
the structure and operate another used car lot.
Forbing Road is the southern end of a segment of South
University that is made up primarily of auto
dealerships.The property in question is just west of
South University Avenue and has "C-4"zoning on three
sides.
2.The property is flat with a vast majority of it being
paved.
3.Forbing Road is classified as a collector and the
existing right-of-way is adequate for collector
standards.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues associated with this request.
May 29,1984
Item No.1 —Continued
6.There is no neighborhood position on the site.The
property in question and a tract to the west were
rezoned to "F"Commercial ("C-3")in 1972.Auto
dealerships were permitted uses in the old "F"
Commercial district.The site to the west was rezonedto"C-4"in 1981 as a conversion adjustment.
7.The site has commercial zoning on four sides with "C-4"
zoning on the east,north and west property lines.The
proposed zoning classification and use are appropriateforthelocation,and staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present.Also,the applicant had notnotifiedthepropertyownerswithintherequired200feet.
A motion to defer the item to June 26,1984,passed by a
vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.2 —Z-4066-A
Owner:Winrock Development Company
Applicant:Naury Nitchell
Location:Narkham &Alamo,Southeast Corner
Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "C-1"
Neighborhood Commercial
Purpose:Retail
Size:.5 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
South —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "C-3"
West —Commercial,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The development potential of the site is limited as to
use due to its size and location adjacent to a
significant floodway.The proposal for the site is a
small-scale retail establishment,such as an antiquestore.
2.The property is vacant and relatively flat.A portionofthesiteisinvolvedwiththefloodplaintotheeast,so careful consideration will have to be given toitwhenpreparingthesiteplan.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Naster Street
Plan issues attached to this site.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6.In August,1983,a rezoning request was filed to change
the classification of this site to "C-3"to permit acarwash.The request was denied by a vote of 4 ayes
and 6 noes.The immediate neighborhood was strongly
opposed to the request and expressed concerns about
noise,light and activities after hours which would be
Nay 29,1984
Item No.2 —Continued
generated by the car wash.At that time,staff's
position was to support the "C-1"reclassification for
the property.The southeast and southwest corners of
Alamo and West Markham are the only remaining
properties in this area of West Narkham that are notclassifiedforcommercialuses.The southwest corner
has an existing commercial operation which was
developed prior to annexation and is nonconforming atthistime.
7.Staff is in support of the "C-1"request because of thesite's relationship to existing uses and commercial
zoning.The present commercial use on the southwest
corner is of "C-1"nature and the existing "C-3"zoning
on both sides of Narkham in any direction for somedistance.The majority of the this commercial propertyisvacantexceptfortheChannel16televisionstudio.
The "C-1"district permits services which are more
oriented towards a residential neighborhood but does
not allow certain commercial uses such as a car wash.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Naury Mitchell,was present.There were noobjectorsinattendance.Discussion centered around theproperty's involvement with the floodway and a new studythatistobereleasedinthenearfuture.Nike Batie of
the City's Engineering Division addressed the floodway issue
and requested the Commission to rezone cn]y that section of
property that is out of the floodway.He stated that a
large portion of the property is currently in the floodway,
but that the new study could revise the floodway boundary
and reduce its size.The applicant agreed to amending the
application to exclude the area in the floodway from the
request.A motion was made to recommend the request as
amended.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
Nay 29,1984
Item No.3 —Z-4218
Owner;Kentucky Fried Chicken
Applicant:M.L.Pinion
Location:2301 South Broadway
Request:Rezone from "C-3"General
Commercial to "C-4"Open DisplayDistrict
Purpose:Used Car Lot
Size:18,900 square feet
Existing Use:Used Car Lot (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Church,Capitol Zoning District
South —Duplex,Zoned "C-3"
East —Industrial,Zoned "R-5"
West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
I 1.The site is currently a used car lot,an illegal use.
The property had been the former location of a Kentucky
Fried Chicken franchise which is now located two blocks
to the south at Broadway and Roosevelt.An eating
place without drive-in services is a permitted use"C-3"but not a used car dealership.The property was
vacant for some time after the restaurant relocated,
then the existing use occupied the site within the last
year.This rezoning request is a result of the action
taken by the City's Zoning Enforcement Office informing
the applicant that the used car lot is in violation of
the Zoning Ordinance.It is the staff's understanding
that two notices were sent to the applicant.If the
rezoning is approved,the applicant plans to continuetooperatethecardealership.A used car lot is an
inappropriate use for this section of South Broadway
and a "C-4"reclassification could create long-term
problems for the neighborhood.
2.The property is developed with one building on it and
paved areas.
May 29,1984
Item No.3 —Continued
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlanissuesassociatedwiththisrequest.(As of thiswriting,the applicant has not submitted the signedright-of-way agreement which is required for each
rezoning application.)
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.This section of South Broadway was part of the areacoveredbytheoriginalSouthBroadwayPlan,the first
neighborhood plan completed by the City.That planproposed"F"Commercial zoning for this location whichconvertedto"C-3",the current zoning.The old "F"
Commercial district permitted car dealerships and thatiswhythereisausedcarlotonthenorthwestcornerofWest23rdandBroadway.(West 23rd Street is the
boundary for the Capitol zoning District.)Thepropertyinquestionhasbeenusedforcommercialactivitiesforanumberofyears.In the past,residents of the South Broadway neighborhood havevoicedstrongobjectionstocertaintypesofcommercialusesandfromrecentdiscussionswithvariousresidents,the neighborhood is again opposed to thisrezoninganduse.
7 .A used car lot and the required zoning district,"C-4"
gisnotcompatiblewiththearea,and the staff does notsupporttherequest.The approval of this applicationwillcreatea"C-4"spot zoning and could lead to anundesirablelandusepattern.The South Broadway planidentifiedthelocationforcommercialuses,but itappearsthattheintentwasforusesthataremoreneighborhoodoriented,not used car lots.A "C-4"reclassification is not part of the long-range plansfortheareaandcouldadverselyimpactsomeofthepositivethingsthathavetakenplacewithintheneighborhoodoverthelastfewyears.The storage ofvehiclesisnotthetypeofactivitydesiredfortheSouthBroadwayneighborhood.Also,the visual
appearance of a used car lot is of concern.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
May 29,1984
Item No.3 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Maurice Pinion,was present.There were
approximately 20 objectors also present.The attorney for
the applicant asked that the opposition be allowed to speakfirstandtheywouldrespondtotheircommentslateron.
Grace Keppel,representing her mother who lives across thestreet,spoke in opposition to the request and expressed
many concerns.Mrs.Keppel also presented a letter from her
mother to the Commission opposing the rezoning.Teresa
Lynch of 2217 Spring Street was concerned with maintaining
the viability of the neighborhood and the Capitol ZoningDistrict's mansion area boundary.She stated that the use
was having a visual and audio impact on the area and that
the property had cars in all states of repair being stored
on it.She was opposed to the rezoning because it could
have an adverse impact on a neighborhood that was rebuildingitself.Martha Mashburn,a resident of South Broadway/since 1909 said there was pride in the neighborhood and this
rezoning could reverse it.Cheryl Nichols of the Quapaw
Quarter Association and the pastor of the church across thestreetspokeagainstrezoning.Jim Conner,a resident of
South Broadway,suggested that an effort should be made to
change the existing "C-3"zoning to avoid similarsituations.
John Jarrard presented the viewpoint of the developer and
stated that the rezoning to "C-4"and a used car lot could
jeopardize existing and future investments in the area.
David Chambis and Lois Hughes,property owners in the area,
were also opposed to the rezoning.Mike Smith,attorney for
the applicant,stated that his client would like to work
something out with the neighborhood and requested adeferral.No motion was made to defer the item.Mr.Smith
then addressed the concerns raised by the objectors and feltthatacompromisecouldbereached.The applicant's
privilege license was discussed because it was for a
repossession agency and storage.After a lengthydiscussion,a motion was made to recommend approval of the
request.The motion failed for a lack of affirmative vote.
The vote —0 ayes,9 noes,1 absent and 1 abstention(Jerilyn Nicholson).The request was denied.
May 29,1984
Item No.4 —Z-4219
Owner:Florence Crittenden Board of
Directors
Applicant:Pam Johnson
Location:3600 West 11th Street
Request:Rezone from "R-3"Single Family to"0-1"Quiet Office
Purpose:Florence Crittenden Home
Size:2.2 acres +
Existing Use:Florence Crittenden Home
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"
South —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"and "R-4"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"
West —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Florence Crittenden Home is of nonconforming use in the"R-3"district.The Home began the construction of a new
accessory building prior to obtaining the necessary building
permit.This new structure is located at the southwest
corner of the property.During inspection of the building,it was determined that a building permit was needed and that
the new structure was an expansion of a nonconforming use.
A building permit for the expansion could not be issued
until the facility was made a conforming use which requires
a rezoning change.This office has determined that the"0-1"district is the appropriate classification for the
use.The proposed Stephens School plan recognizes the
existing facility and it identifies the block for
institutional use.The staff's primary concern with this
request is that the approval of this rezoning could create a
one-block spot zone and what the long-term impacts of that
action would be on the area.The neighborhood has been
impacted in the past by rezonings that have been approved
along West 12th and that have created spot zoning.The
present facility appears to have had a minimal effect on the
neighborhood,but rezoning the property could create some
problems in the future if the Crittenden Home was torelocate.It is the staff's understanding that the Board of
Directors has granted some relief in this case by allowing a
May 29,1984
Item No.4 —Continued
building permit to be issued prior to the rezoning action
being completed.Because of this action and inasmuch as the
new building is almost completed,is rezoning of the site
necessary?Staff's position is that rezoning to "0-1"is
inappropriate and unnecssary because the only issue is the
construction of a new accessory building and that has been
accomplished.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not support the rezoning of this block to "0-1."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Beverly Holcomb,was present.There were no
objectors present.Ms.Holcomb stated that the Florence
Crittenden Home had no objections to the staff's position.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the application.
The motion failed for lack of affirmative vote.The vote—
0 ayes,9 noes and 2 absent.The request was denied.
May 29,1984
Item No.5 —Z-4220
Owner:Charles and Norma Jean Turley
Applicant:Gene Turley
Location:2322 and 2324 Walker Street
Request:Rezone from "R-4"Two Family to"R-2"Single Family"
Purpose:Single Family
Size:.5 acre
Existing Use:Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-4"
West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This rezoning action is a follow-up to the Planning
Commission's approval of the preliminary plat for a two-lot
subdivision at West 24th and Walker Streets.The Commission
requested the owner to rezone the property to "R-2"for
single family use.The plat provided the necessaryright-of-way and there are no outstanding issues.The
property is currently occupied by two single-family
structures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present.There were no objectorspresent.After a brief 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.
May 29,1984
Item No.6 —Z-4222
Owner:Union Rescue Mission,Inc.
Applicant:Same,
By:Shelby R.Blackmon
Location:3001 Confederate Boulevard
Request:Rezone from "I-2"Light Industrial
to "C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Family Shelter Home
Size:
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Commercial,Zoned "I-2"
South —Railroad Tracks,Zoned "I-2"
East —Railroad Tracks,Zoned "I-2"
West —Institutional,Zoned "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The site is owned by the Union Rescue Mission,Inc.
The proposal is to construct a new structure to be usedforafamilyshelterhome.The facility would beutilizedbyindividualsorfamiliespassingthroughLittleRockthathavenoplacetostayforanight or
two.The property is located in an area that has a mixofuseswiththeUnionRescueMissionoccupyingbuildingstothewest,across Confederate Boulevard andtothenorthofthislocation.The rezoning of thistractshouldhavelittleeffectontheareabecause of
the existing land use pattern.It appears that theshelterisneededinLittleRockandshouldcomplement
the other facilities being operated by the Union Rescue
Mission.(The owner has also requested a variance toplacethebuildingonthelotwhichistriangular
shaped and could not be utilized without encroachingintooneofthesetbacks.)
2.The property is vacant and flat.The only uniquecharacteristicistheshapeofthelot,a triangle.
3.Confederate Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial
on the Master Street Plan.A minor arterialclassificationrequires80-foot of right-of-way soadditionaldedicationwillberequiredbecausethe
May 29,1984
Item No.6 —Continued
existing right-of-way is only 60 feet.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6.The property has been zoned "I-2"for a number of
years.There is no neighborhood position on the site.
7.The staff supports the request and views the proposed
use as being very desirable and meeting a need for the
community.The proposal will put a vacant tract to use
and provide overnight accommodations for people who
have nowhere else to go.With the completion of this
project,the Union Rescue Mission will have a
substantial involvement in the neighborhood and this
could have a positive influence on the area.Vacant
buildings could be used for similar activities or some
upgrading could take place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors
in attendance.The Commission discussed the case briefly.
A motion to recommend approval of the "C-3"rezoning was
made.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.A second motion was made to recommend to the
Board of Directors through a resolution that the filing fee
in this case be waived.That motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
Nay 29,1984
Item No.7 —Z-4223
Owner:William Ernest Sullivan
Applicant:Nancy Ernestine Vines
Location:Pinnacle Valley and Back Road
Northeast Corner
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"C-1"Neighborhood Commercial
Purpose:Food Store
Size:1.0 acre +
Existing Use:Farm
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal is to utilize the site for a food store
with other supplies,such as fishing tackle.The
property is located outside the City,but in an area
where the City has land use control through the State
Rivers Zoning Statute.This permits the City toexerciseitszoningpowerinareaswithintwomiles oftheArkansasRiver,even though the area is beyond the
City limits.The location in question,theintersectionoftwostreetswithonebeing classifiedasaminorarterialappearstobeappropriateforthe
proposed use.There are no similar facilities in the
immediate area so the use is needed and will provide
a service for the residents of the neighborhood.The
land use pattern is single family residences on largelotswithsomemobilehomes.The area can be bestdescribedasbeingruralinnature.There was a small
convenience store north of this site on Pinnacle
Valley Road,but it is no longer in operation.
2.The site is vacant and flat with no unusual physicalcharacteristics.
May 29,1984
Item No.7 —Continued
3.Pinnacle Valley is classified as a minor arterial whichrequires80feetofright-of-way.The existing
right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional
right-of-way will be necessary.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The area in question was zoned "R-2"some years back
through the powers given to the City of Little Rock in
the River Zoning Statute.The applicant has submittedtothePlanningstaffapetitionwithapproximately100
signatures in support of the proposed use and asking
the City to approve the request.These signatures are
reported to be residents of what is known as the
Maumelle Valley.
7.The staff is in support of the request and views the
rezoning as providing a needed service for the area.
The nearest convenience store is approximately twomilesaway,and that does create a hardship for some oftheresidents.Approval of this rezoning wouldestablishaspotzoningbutthatwouldbethezoningpatterncreatedbyanychangeinthisarea.It appearsthatthelotispartofalargertractandifthatis
the case,a one-lot replat will be required.Thereplatwillprovidetheneededright-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Nancy Vines was present.There were noobjectorspresent.The Commission discussed the case atlengthbecausetherewassomeconcernonthepartofseveral
Commissioners as to what this approval will do the area.
The Commission encouraged the staff to try to get a handle
on the area by possibly developing a plan.Some
Commissioners expressed reservations about approving thisrequestbecausetherecommendationwasbeingmadewithoutthebenefitofanyguidelinesforthearea.A motion was
made to recommend approval of the application as filed.Themotionpassedbyavoteof10ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.8 —Z-4227
Owner:John D.Ward,Sr.
Applicant:John D.Ward,Jr.
Location:917 West 2nd Street
Request:Rezone from "C-4"Open DisplayDistrictto"C-3"General
Commercial
Purpose:Retail
Size:10,500 square feet
Existing Use:Retail
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Office and Multifamily,Zoned "C-4"
South —Commercial,Zoned "C-4"
East —Office,Zoned "C-4"
West —Parking Lot,Zoned "C-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This rezoning request is a follow-up to an interpretive
action made by the Board of Adjustment in April of this
year.Grueny's Stamp Company has been in operation for a
number of years and was considered a conforming use under
the former Zoning Ordinance.The new Zoning Ordinance
converted the old "G-1"district to "C-4"and changed the
permitted uses which made the Stamp Company a nonconforming
use.The Building Permits staff made this decision.The
Board of Adjustment was asked to determine if the "C-4"
district was appropriate for the use or anotherreclassificationwasrequiredbecuasetheowner planned to
expand the existing building.The Ordinance does not permit
expansion of a nonconforming use and this expansion was the
primary issue.The Board of Adjustment interpreted the use
as "C-3"and for the expansion to take place areclassificationofthepropertywouldhaveto occur.This
type of rezoning action has already taken place in this
general area,as represented on the accompanying Zoningsketch.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application as filed.
Nay 29,1984
Item No.8 —Continued
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 request as filed.The motion passed by avoteof10ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.9 —Z-4230
Owner:Troy Humphrey
Applicant:Wayne Daniel
Location:221 Main Street (Mabelvale)
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"C-4"Open Display District
Purpose:Auto Repair
Size:14,200 square feet
Existing Use:Auto Repair (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family and Institutional,Zoned "R-2"
South —Institutional,Zoned "R-2"
East —Commercial,Zoned "R-2
West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The property is occupied by an auto repair garage and
the proposal is to expand the existing building and
double its size.The repair garage is a nonconforming
use and expansion cannot take place without proper
zoning.The site is located in an area that has a very
mixed land use that includes an auto garage across MainStreetandaretailstoredirectlytotheeast.Both
of these uses are zoned "R-2"and nonconforming.MostoftheMabelvaleareaisstillzoned"R-2"so there is
a high percentage of nonconforming uses.The facility
has been in operation for a number of years and hascreatedfewproblemsfortheneighborhood.
2.The site is two standard residential lots with one
metal building on it.The majority of the property is
unoccupied or used for storage of vehicles.
3.The Master Street Plan identifies East 3rd Street as a
minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right-of-way.
The current right-of-way is 60 feet,so additional
dedication will be required.
May 29,1984
Item No .9 —Continued
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.The approval of this request would create a "C-4"spot
zoning.This issue should be taken into consideration
when discussing the request.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite.The parking was annexed in 1979 as part of
thelarge 1-30 annexation.
7.The request is not suported by the Suburban
Development plan or staff.The plan shows the area
south of the railroad tracks to remain single family
with a nonresidential activity to take place north of
the railroad tracks.The Suburban Development Plan was
amended to show a neighborhood commercial area along
Mabelvale Pike which is north of the railroad tracks.
Recent zoning changes that have occurred in the area
have been north of the tracks.Staff position is thatatthistimeitisinappropriatetocrossthetracks
with commercial zoning and establish a spot zone.The
owner will be able to continue to operate the garagebutnotexpanditiftherequestisdenied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSOIN ACTION:
The applicant was not present,and he also had not notifiedthepropertyownerswithintherequired200feet.A motiontodefertheitemtoJune26,1984,passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.10 —Z-4232
Owner:Gaylon Carter
Applicant:Same
Location:9813 Chicot Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"0-1"Ouiet Office
Purpose:Office
Size:7,770 square feet
Existing Use:Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
South —Office,Zoned "0-1"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.No specific plans have been submitted other than the
proposed use of the property is to be an office.Thepropertyiscurrentlyoccupiedbyasinglefamilystructureandtheimmmediateplansaretoutilizeitforarentalunit.The owner of this site also ownsthe"0-1"tract directly to the south and that propertyisbeingusedforaclinic.The office potential ofthepropertyissomewhatlimitedbecauseofitssize
and being able to accommodate the necessary parking.The owner may have plans to incorporate this piece withatracttothesouthandprovideadditionalparkingor
some related activity.
2.The site is a typical residential lot with a singlefamilystructureonit.
3.Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on theMasterStreetPlanwhichrequiresaright-of-way of 80feet.The existing right-of-way is deficient,sodedicationofadditionalright-of-way will benecessary.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewingagenciesatthistime.
May 29,1984
Item No.10 —Continued
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The site was annexed in 1981 as part of the south
central island.There is no documented neighborhood
position on this particular property,but with the
previous "0-1"rezoning,there was some neighborhood
concern.
7.The property is not identified for office use on the
Suburban Development Plan and the staff is opposed to
the rezoning request.Staff position on the previous"0-1"rezoning was also one of nonsupport because the
location was viewed as being inappropriate for office
zoning and development.Even with the approval of the"0-1"to the south,the plan was never amended to
recognize the change.Staff is concerned if additional
rezonings are granted that it will be hard to establish
a zoning line at a given point and this could lead to
an undesirable land use pattern on the west and east
sides of Chicot Road.The existing office zoning
should be confined to the present boundaries and not be
allowed to expand north or south.There is some "0-1"
property in the block that is still being used for
single family so it appears that the demand for
additional office zoning is questionable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present but had requested a 30-day
deferral.A motion to defer the item for 30 days (June 26,
1984)passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.11 —Z-4233
Owner:N.C.Withrow,Jr.
Applicant:Ronnie Wells
Location:Base Line Road East of
Distribution Drive
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"I-2"Light Industrial
Purpose:Expansion of'Sign Company
Size:14,000 square feet
Existing Use:vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Industrial,Zoned "I-2"
South —Multifamily,Zoned "R-2"
East —Commercial,Zoned "I-2"
West —Industrial,Zoned "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1 .The proposal is to utilize this narrow tract for theexpansionoftheexistingsigncompanytothewest.
The site has "I-2"zoning on three sides with Base LineRoadbeingonthesouth.This is one of the fewremaining"R-2"tracts left in an area that has beenidentifiedforindustrialandwarehouseuses.
2.The site is a vacant,narrow parcel.There are nouniquephysicalcharacteristics.
3.The Master Street Plan identifies Base Line Road as aprincipalarterial.The existing right-of-way is only50feet,so dedication of additional right-of-way willberequired.
4.There have been no adverse comments from the reviewingagenciesatthistime.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The property was annexed in 1979 and came into the Cityas"R-2."
Nay 29,1984
Item No.11 —Continued
7.The Suburban Development Plan does identify this areaforindustrialuseandthemajorityofthepropertyis
already zoned "I-2".There are no outstanding issues
associated with this request and the staff supports the
rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present.There were no objectorspresent.The Commission discussed the case briefly.A
motion was made to recommend approval of the request asfiled.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
May 29,1984
Item No.12 —Z-4234
Owner:McDonald's Corporation
Applicant:Don F.Hamilton
Location:Jackson at "A"Street,Southwest
Corner
Request:Rezone from "R-3"Single Family to"C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Restaurant Parking Lot
Size:14,200 square feet
Existing Use:Restaurant Parking Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"
South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"and "R-5"
West —Office,Zoned "R-3"and "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.This site is the location of the McDonald's on
West Markham Street,more particularly that portion of
the property that is being used for a parking lot.The
parking lot was permitted through action by the BoardofAdjustment.The building itself is zoned "C-3"and
not an issue.The proposal is to rezone the parkinglotwhichabutsboth"A"and Jackson Streets and design
a new access point onto "A"Street.At this time,nospecificplanshavebeensubmitted,so this office is
unable to determine whether this driveway will be usedforanentranceoranexit.Either type use of the
proposed access is inappropriate for "A"Street and
would create some adverse impacts on the neighborhood."A"Street is a substandard street and could not handleadditionalincreaseintrafficflow.The entire street
network in this area is suspect as to whether it can
properly function with heavier traffic loads andadditionalturningmovements.Jackson Street between"A"and Markham is also questionable for increases intraffic.
May 29,1984
Item No.12 —Continued
2.The property is developed as a parking lot with an
accessory building at the northwest corner.
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.The overriding legal issue is whether this request is
an attempt to circumvent the review procedure of the
Board of Adjustment.Also,there was litigation after
the Board's approval and it is the staff's
understanding that the court held some control over
this matter in upholding the Board of Adjustment.ThisofficehasrequestedtheCityAttorneytoprepareto
respond to these issues at the Public Hearing.
6.The neighborhood's position to further commercial
zoning in the area is well documented,and staff has
received a number of calls from residents opposed tothisrequest.The Board of Adjustment granted the
variance in 1975 to allow McDonald's to use the
property for parking.In granting the variance,the
Board also attached a permanent prohibition to curb
cuts on "A"and Jackson Streets.Also,a 6-foot board
fence was required along both property lines.This
action by the Board placed restrictions on access for
the property.The City's action was upheld by Circuit
Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court.
7.It appears that the primary purpose of this request is
to gain additional access which has been restricted in
the past by Board of Adjustment and court action.Thestaffdoesnotsupporttherezoning,and the City
Attorney has also recommended that the application be
denied because of the prior Board of Adjustment case.
(See the accompanying memorandum from the City
Attorney.)Approving this request would place another
undesirable influence on the area and add to the
existing problems already faced by the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
May 29,1984
Item No.12 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Don Hamilton,was present.There were
approximately 10 persons in opposition to the rezoning also
present.Mr.Hamilton spoke in support of the request and
presented a history of the property in question.He stated
that a replat also had been filed to address the question ofaccess.Mr.Hamilton felt that the platting process could
address some of the issues that have surfaced in the past
with the filing of a Bill of Assurance with the replat.TheBillofAssurancewouldensurecertainconditionssuchasrestrictingthedrivewaytoanexitandleftturnonly
movement and that the gate would only be open between 7 a.m.
and 2:30 p.m.Mr.Hamilton stated that circumstances have
changed to create new hardships.These hardships and a
serious traffic problem on West Markham are the reasons for
attempting to gain a new exit point.He also indicated that
McDonald's had agreed to upgrading a portion of "A"Street.
Mike Batie of the City's Engineering staff acknowledged thetraffichazardonWestMarkhamandthatthenewaccessonto"A"Street could be an engineering solution to that problem.
Ernie Peters,a traffic consultant,addressed the traffic
and access issues.Mr.Peters stated that when he was
employed by the City he supported access on "A"Street.He
then discussed the traffic movement for the area and traffic
counts.He estimated that 1,300 cars a day were coming into
McDonald's and of that figure,approximately 50 percent was
drive-thru traffic.Mr.Peters felt that possibly as many
as 600 cars would utilize "A"Street if there was a new
drive and that would reduce the traffic turning onto
West Markham by about one-half.The Commission discussed
these figures and the traffic issue at length.Mr.Peters
also said that circumstances had changed and that an exit
only drive on "A"would help remedy some of the problems.
George Wimberly,spokesperson for the neighborhood,
presented a petition with 37 signatures opposed to the
rezoning to the Commission.Mr.Wimberly spoke against the
proposal and also presented a history of the issue.He
stated that McDonald's had created their own problem andthatthestreetsystemdoesnotfunction.He felt that new
attempts by McDonald's to gain access was a way of trying to
get around all the previous Board of Adjustment and courtactions.Don Hamilton then spoke again and commented on
Mr.Wimberly's statements.After additional discussion,
Mr.Hamilton requested to withdraw the item.A motion to
withdraw the rezoning passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,
1 absent and 2 abstentions (John Schlereth and John
Clayton).
Nay 29,1984
Item No.13 —Z-4235
Owner:Henry B.and Juanita Griffith
Applicant:Henry B.Griffith
Location:5706 Big Oak Lane
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"NF-12"Nultifamily
Purpose:Duplex or Nultifamily
Size:.43 acre
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Industrial,Zoned "I-2"
South —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
West —Industrial,Zoned "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal is to develop the site for multifamily
units.No specific plans have been submitted,so the
type or number of units is unknown at this time.The
owner has mentioned either constructing two duplexes or
a single structure with four or five units.The
property can be developed for a maximum of five units.
The tract lends itself to some higher density
development than single family and the potential impact
should be minimal.Because of the existing "I-2"
zoning to the west and north,the site is no longer
viable for single family development and the property
could act as a buffer for the single family use to theeast.
2.The tract is heavily wooded and has some slope to it.
Neither of these characteristics should preclude thesitefrombeingdeveloped.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Naster 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.
May 29,1984
Item No.13 —Continued
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite.
7.It appears that the area has been impacted by previous
zoning actions and this request should have littleeffectontheneighborhood.To the east there is an"R-4"tract and on the south side of Big Oak Lane,
west of this site,there is some "C-1"zoning,along
with the "I-2"that abuts this property on two sides.
Because the lots are fairly large,the area is not
overbuilt,and there is adequate building separation.
Also,the addition of four or five units should not
overload the street system.Staff supports the request
and views it as being more desirable than some type ofnonresidentialzoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Henry Griffith,was present.There were alsosixtoeightpersonsobjectingtotherezoningpresent.petition with 18 signatures opposing the request had been
submitted prior to the hearing.Mr.Griffith stated that
the property was no longer usable for single family
development because of industrial zoning on two sides and
that four or five units would be reasonable and not create
any additional problems for the neighborhood.He also felt
that his property with an "MF-12"classification could act
as a buffer between the industrial and single family uses.
Fred Francher representing the property owners spoke against
the rezoning and requested that it be denied.The
neighborhood was concerned with additional traffic and what
a multifamily project would do to their property values.
Mr.Francher also presented some photos of the area.Aresidentadjacenttothepropertyinquestionexpressed the
same concerns as the previous speaker and asked that the
rezoning be denied.After a lengthy disccussion by the
Commission,a motion was made to approve the request.The
motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote.The vote—
0 ayes,9 noes and 2 absent.The application was denied.
May 29,1984
Item No.14 —Z-4240
Owner:Jim Shue
Applicant:Paul W.Davenport
Location:Cedar Hill Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"R-5"Multifamily
Purpose:Multifamily
Size:1.0 acre +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Park,Zoned "R-2"
South —Single Family,Zoned "R-3"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1 .The proposal is to rezone the property to "R-5"to
permit four multifamily units.Because no specific
plans have been submitted,so the type or style of unitisunknown.The applicant has suggested that units aretobecondominiums.The site is located in an areathathasmixedlanduseandzoningpatternswiththe
primary land use being single family.There are somemultifamilyprojectswith"R—5"zoning in the
neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of thissite.This tract is part of a subdivision that has
been developed only for detached single familyresidencesandthatuseshouldbecontinued.The site
has a stronger relationship to the single family use
than to the multifamily developments and "R-5"zoningshouldnotbepermittedatthislocationonCedarHill
Road.Because of the property's physicalcharacteristics,it appears that it lends itself moretowardasinglefamilyunitthanamultifamilyproject.
2.The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from
Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot.It is possiblethatamultifamilydevelopmentwouldrequiresubstantialsitemodification.This would detract fromtheappearanceofthesite.The physical layout of thetractshoulddictatethetypeofdevelopmentsuitablefortheproperty.
May 29,1984
Item No.14 —Z-4240 —Continued
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements associated with this request.(The
applicant has not provided this office with the
necessary right-of-way agreement.)
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,but thestaffhasreceivedsomecallsfromnearbyresidents
opposing the the request.They are concerned about thetrafficonCedarHillRoadandthetypeofdevelopment
proposed.The residents want the property to remain
single family.It has been mentioned that there are
possible deed restrictions on the subdivision
restricting the property to single family use.The
entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal
project that expired a few years back.
7.The request is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest
Plan which identifies the property for single family
use.The staff's position is that the property should
remain single family and not be rezoned.Also:if theBillofAssurancedoes,in fact,restrict the property
to single family use and then that takes precedence
until an amendment is made to it.The approval of this
request would extend "R-5"zoning to the north and
create an undesirable zoning pattern.The zoning is
not compatible with the residential development that
the property abuts to the south and the east.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN:
The applicant had requested a 30-day deferral.A motion todefertheitemtoJune26,1984,passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
i
Ig
+~
~eh%OOOO
2h X
M g
eNX x
E'+4 ~Q 0 ~~~0
~1 ~0 ~~0 ~
c4 4
os x
v)
4 0 ~0 ~~~0 ~~~
R L4 Ql0 0 ~u c O
M UJ 5 X Q U Ql ~Vl
a
I'ay
29,1984
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 4:16 p.m.
Date
Secretary
Ch man