Loading...
pc_10 30 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 30, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: John Schlereth Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Richard Massie William Ketcher Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones James Summerlin Dorothy Arnett Ida Boles City Attorney Tom Carpenter October 30, 1984 Item No. A - Z -4297 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Winrock Development Co. Winrock Development Co. By: Ron Tyne Bowman Road South of Proposed Ridgewood Addition Rezone Unclassified Land to "MF -12" and "MF -18" Multifamily Multifamily Units 26.92 acres + Existing Use: Vacant STTRR(nwnTNC, Lawn TT .qT+. ANTI 7nMTMr -- North - Vacant, Outside City Limits South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant and Residential, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Residential, Outside City Limits PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Issues involved in this request are: 1. The subject site contains significant floodplain and floodway which acts in support of a designed approach as opposed to platted single family lotting. 2. Difficult street construction and alignment along Bowman Road. 3. Construction of a collector street through the site serving as a neighborhood access to the east. 4. The Interstate 430 plan does not indicate multifamily usage at this location nor does the Suburban Development Plan. 5. The requested rezoning is in the judgment of the Planning staff an acceptable approach to development of land with difficulties such as found here. In meetings with the owner, we have indicated the development plan for the overall Ridgewood plat is basically good land use. Final configuration of the various "MF" sites should be tied to specific building siting and access i October 30, 1984 Item No. A - Continued plans. The 27+ acres does not entirely abut residential nor adversely effect homes that are in place. However, certain elements will be viewed as increasing traffic flows east to the Shackleford /Interstate 430 interchange. We feel the elements lying along Ridgewood Drive extended would be better received by all involved if they were divided into several small scale PUD's (short form) whereby commitments to design, density, access and orientation could be made. The larger site proposed for "MF -18" could be structured in a fashion which would permit access only onto Bowman Road which if accomplished would eliminate the need for PUD on the entire 27 acres. In any event, the large site should receive some type of site plan review. Prior to a commitment to rezone any of the larger tracts, the Planning Commission should assess the merits of introducing this much "MF" zoning along Bowman Road when the area is indicated on the I -430 Land Use Plan as being single family. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff suggests a refiling of the narrow tracts along Ridgewood Road as short form PUD projects. 2. Recommend approval of rezoning on the larger tracts along the creek with a commitment to Bowman Road access only by placement of an "OS" strip between the "MF -18" and the Ridgewood Road tracts. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 28, 1984) The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There were approximately 40 to 50 persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Tyne spoke and described the proposed Ridgewood Subdivision and the rezoning request for multifamily with the balance of the property being dedicated to the City for open space. He then went on to state that the original proposal had been modified by reducing the "MF -18" Tract and changing the 'IMF-12" to "MF -6." The requested "MF -18" would be reduced from 16 acres to 10 acres, and the remaining portion of the property would be rezoned to "OS." Mr. Tyne said that the land was not suited for single family development because of the terrain and floodway. He also indicated that there was a need for additional multifamily land in the area and that the "MF -18" area would only access Bowman Road. Mr. Tyne discussed the status of Ridgewood Drive and said that only 69 units would utilize Ridgewood Drive. At this point, Mr. Tyne amended the application to reduce the "MF -18" area to 10 acres, change the "MF -12" to "MF -6" and rezone 5.5 acres to "OS." There was some additional discussion about Ridgewood Drive October 30, 1984 Item No. A - Continued in the Master Street Plan. Mr. Tyne stated that Winrock could possibly support a modification to Ridgewood Drive. He also addressed the sewer question and said that he had a letter from Jerry Gardner of the Wastewater Utility stating that the existing sewer could accommodate the proposed density. Mr. Tyne then distributed copies of the letter to the Planning Commission. Bob Lane of the City's Engineering Staff then discussed the Master Street Plan for the area. Dr. Robert Wright, representing the Homeowners of the Sandpiper Subdivision, then spoke. He said that the residents were very concerned with Ridgewood Drive becoming an open collector, and the impact the multifamily rezoning would have on their property values. Dr. Wright indicated that the proposed rezoning was speculative because a high percentage of existing multifamily land in the area was vacant and that there were already too many multifamily units in place. He then submitted petitions from the Sandpiper residents opposing the request for rezoning. Dr. Wright then continued his presentation by discussing traffic and circulation concerns; drainage and flooding problems; safety problems because of children playing in the streets; the exiting sewer system was only for single family development and that two land use plans for the area showed only single family use. Dr. Wright presented some photos of these various issues. Tom Clemon discussed the traffic problems and showed slides. Tom Stringfellow talked about the impact the multifamily use would have on property values and he stated that they would decline. He also was concerned that the proposed buffer was inadequate. Linda Tinsley discussed the potential impacts on the existing single family development and adding additional traffic to the area streets. Dr. Wright spoke about zoning and the protection of single family neighborhoods. Mr. Tyne then addressed the Commission again and discussed the issue of rezoning the land. There were additional comments about the Master Street Plan and circulation. It was mentioned that to change the Master Street Plan, a public hearing would be necessary. Robert Shults, Attorney for Winrock, then requested that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request for 60 days to the October 30, 1984, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (Staff was directed to address the Master Street Plan and the I -430 Land Use Plan and make a presentation of the October 30th meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 30, 1984) The applicant had submitted a written of the rezoning. A motion was made to from the agenda. The motion passed by 0 noes and 2 absent. request for withdrawal withdraw the item a vote of 9 ayes, October 30, 1984 Item No. B - Z- 3213 -A Owner: Inez Carmichael Applicant: Same Location: "B" Street and North Van Buren Southwest Corner Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "O -1" Quiet Office Purpose: Quiet Office Size: 11,847 square feet Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to construct a 3,000 square foot office building on the property in question. The site is currently vacant. The location is two blocks north of Markham in an area that is primarily residential in use. North of the site, there are some nonconforming office and commercial uses with the most intense zoning being "R -4" until "G" Street. Between "G" and Kavanaugh, there is "MF -24," 0-3" and "C -3" zoning in place. The "0 -3" tract is being used for multifamily units. The alley that abuts the property on the south appears to be the line established for nonresidential zoning. Directly to the south of the alley on the east side of Van Buren, there is an "0-3" tract. From that point to Markham, the zoning includes another "0-3" site at "A" and Van Buren with some "C -3" and "C -4" between "A" and Markham. This type of pattern indicates that an effort has been made to concentrate the nonresidential zoning in specific locations along Van Buren, primarily within the first block north of Markham and south of Kavanaugh with the alley between "A" and "B" Streets being the line for office zoning. October 30, 1984 Item No. B - Continued 2. The site is two typical residential lots with no unique physical characteristics. The property is flat and vacant. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In 1978, a rezoning request was made for this tract, but the application was withdrawn. At that time, the request was for office zoning to construct a clinic. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The requested change is not supported by the Heights/ Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to the rezoning. This position is consistent with the previous case in 1978 when staff recommended denial. Within the last year, a request was made to rezone the southeast corner at "C" and Van Buren to "0-1," and that was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. Staff's position is that previous zoning actions in the area have established a line along the alley between "A" and "B" Streets and that should be maintained by not granting this request. An alley can be a more desirable buffer between residential and nonresidential uses instead if the uses having a front yard relationship with the street creating the separation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 25, 1984) The applicant was represented by Olan Asbury who was also representing Thomas Harding, the proposed purchaser of the property. There were no objectors present. Mr. Asbury described the site and the North Van Buren area. He stated that in 1981 the traffic count for Van Buren was 12,000 cars per day and felt that placed some restrictions on property for residential uses. Mr. Asbury then discussed the proposed building which would have two users, the Thomas Harding construction and one other tenant. The structure October 30, 1984 Item No. B - Continued would front onto Van Buren and have adequate parking. He then went on to point that there were 32 property owners within 200 feet and there was no opposition from those residents. A majority of the property owners generally were in support of an office use for the location. Mr. Asbury discussed using a "PUD" and presented that idea as a possible solution. There were comments made by the Commission about a "PUD" and there was a lengthy discussion about North Van Buren and land use along it. The Commission requested the staff to take another look at North Van Buren between Markham and Kavanaugh and be prepared to present some possible ideas at the October 12, 1984, retreat. At that point, Mr. Asbury asked for a 30 -day deferral. The motion was made to defer the request to the October 30, 1984, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 30, 1984) The applicant was not present. A motion was made to withdraw the request from the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. C - Z -4314 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Arkansas Guaranty and Trust Corp. B. Greenwood 10412 Mabelvale West Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -3" General Commercial Office and Commercial Uses 2.31 acres + Mixed Uses SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" & "I -2" East - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for commercial and office uses. The site has a building on it that had a number of different uses in it including residential, but recently, it was heavily damaged by a fire. Because of the fire, the structure lost its nonconforming status and could not be reconstructed without rezoning the property. The development potential of the site must be questioned because of a creek and its floodway on the west and the existing land use in the area which is primarily single family residential. The floodway could place restrictions on the property as to how much could be used for parking and reduce the amount of buildable land area. Another possible impact on the size of the tract is the necessary dedication of the right -of -way from Mabelvale West. 2. The site is occupied by a large metal building vacant because of the fire and a large amount of it is paved over. The west side of the property has some floodway and floodplain involvement. October 30, 1984 Item No. C - Continued 2. Mabelvale West Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right -of -way. The existing right -of -way is deficient so additional dedication will be necessary. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed into the City in 1979. Staff has received some informational calls from residents in the area concerned about the type of uses that are permitted in a "C -3" district. 7. This location is part of the Otter Creek Plan which is still in the process of being developed. Because of this and the other issues raised earlier, staff recommends that the request be deferred until a more definite site plan is submitted and the Otter Creek Plan has been finalized. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the site for single family residential use with much of the surrounding area shown for residential development. To the east and west on the south side of Mabelvale West, large tracts of land are zoned "I -2." Staff feels that this a very significant location on Mabelvale West and could dictate the future land use along it. Because of the property's location and the status of the Otter Creek Plan, staff is not ready to make a positive or negative recommendation at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two -month deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 25, 1984) The applicant, Bill Greenwood, was present. There were no persons objecting to the rezoning present. Mr. Greenwood spoke and described the June 25, 1984, fire which necessitated the request to rezone the property. The fire heavily damaged the building, and it could not be rebuilt without proper zoning. Mr. Greenwood stated that he understood the floodway and right -of -way requirements. He then discussed the previous uses in the structure and that the new uses would be similar excluding the multifamily units on the second floor. He said the new building would ,-. be approximately 32,000 square feet with commercial and October 30, 1984 Item No. C - Continued office uses. Several Commissioners felt that Mr. Greenwood had described more of an office warehouse use and "C -3" was not the appropriate classification. The request and the various issues were discussed at length. A motion was made to defer the request for 30 days (October 30, 1984, meeting) to allow the staff to address the site in the context of the Otter Creek Plan. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (Staff was directed to have a recommendation for the property by the October 30th meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 30, 1984) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff updated the Planning Commission on the Otter Creek Plan and indicated that they were prepared to make a recommendation. The Otter Creek Plan identified the location for office uses and staff recommended "0--3" as the appropriate classification. The recommendation was only for that portion of the property outside the floodway which is to be left "R -2" and dedicated to the City. The applicant agreed to amend the request to "0-3" and exclude the floodway. A motion was made to approve the amended application to "0 -3" excluding the floodway. The Motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. D - Z -4323 Owner: Alan C. Springer Applicant: Same Location: State Highway No. 10 1/2 Block East of Taylor Loop Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -3' General Commercial Purpose: Food Store Size: 2.75 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Church and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property in question to "C -3" to permit a food store. The owner of this tract is currently operating the commercial use, a food store, across Highway 10. The existing building is very close to the highway, and the applicant is concerned that when the proposed widening of Highway 10 does take place that the new right -of -way line will be at the building. This will create an undesirable situation because that area is being used for parking and gas pumps which will have to be relocated once the highway improvement occurs. The property on the south side is too restricted to accommodate any change, and the applicant would like to relocate to the north side on a much larger tract. This tract can provide the needed land area for parking and accessory uses. The applicant feels that this is a more desirable location, and the food store will be providing a needed service for the area. 2. The site is vacant and flat. October 30, 1984 Item No. D - Continued 3. State Highway No. 10 is classified as a principal arterial which requires a minimum of 100 feet of right -of -way. The existing right -of -way is deficient so dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary. (Engineering will address the specifics of this issue.) 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. One possible legal issue is the creation of a significant spot zoning. The request is approved. 6. This section of Highway No. 10 was annexed into the City in 1979. When the applicant filed the application, he submitted a number of signatures in support of this request. Since that time, the applicant has provided staff with additional petitions, and now the total number of signatures exceeds 500. These names cover a large area and are not restricted to the immediate Taylor Loop neighborhood. 7. The requested rezoning is conflict with the Suburban Development Plan and not supported by staff. The plan identifies an area to the east of Pinnacle Valley Road for commercial development, and staff feels that is adequate to meet the community's needs for the immediate future. Originally the Suburban Development Plan showed a location to the west of Taylor Loop Road for commercial uses, but that was shifted to the east by the Board of Directors. The general area is now shown for single family attached and multifamily housing. This is all on the south side of Highway No. 10. The property in question has always been identified for single family use only. The Suburban Development Plan has been followed in this area by the City denying another commercial rezoning request some time back. The staff's current position is consistent with previous actions and discussions with other property owners in the area. Arguments have been made that this type of commercial service will be lacking in the area if this request is not approved, but that does not appear to be the situation. To the west on Highway 10, there is a food store with related services and to the east within the Pankey community, there are similar establishments. Also recently, the City rezoned a tract of land on Pinnacle Valley Road for a food store. Granted, these are not in the immediate vicinity of the property in question, but it does indicate that the area is not without these types October 30, 1984 Item No. D - Continued of services. The Suburban Development Plan has identified an adequate location for commercial development, and that should be supported by denying this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 25, 1984) The applicant was present and represented by Hal Kemp, attorney. There were a number of persons in attendance who had an interest in the request. Mr. Kemp discussed the rezoning at length. He stated that Mr. Springer, the applicant, provided a needed service for a large area and that the existing store (The Country Store) was the only full service food store in the vicinity. Mr. Kemp indicated that Mr. Springer's present store serves approximately 400 persons per day. Mr. Springer was proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot store with adequate parking and other related services. Mr. Kemp went on to point out that the applicant had submitted approximately 500 signatures favoring the request. At this time, 20 to 25 persons in the audience expressed their support for the rezoning by standing. A long discussion continued about needed services in the area and other issues. Grace Miller spoke against the rezoning. She discussed Highway 10 and how previous rezoning requests had been denied. She was very concerned that the approval of Mr. Springer's application could lead to a strip zoning pattern along Highway 10. Lloyd Vaught, owner of the existing Country Store property, then spoke. He presented a history of the store and discussed the Taylor Loop area. Mr. Vaught had earlier submitted letters to the Planning Commission members opposing the request but withdrew his opposition to the rezoning at the public hearing. Land use in the area was discussed and comments were made that the present site was a logical location for commercial uses. Charles Hinson, resident of the area, spoke in support of the rezoning and said there was a need for a larger store. Jim Lawson of the Planning Office addressed the Suburban Development Plan. He said the staff could study the Taylor Loop area again and possibly make some recommendations to the Commission by their next meeting. There was some discussion about sewer capacity in the northwest part of the City. Evelyn Thomas and another resident spoke in support of the rezoning. Ben Rand described the need for a modern food store and supported the request. Mr. Vaught briefly discussed Highway 10 and certain issues. After some additional comments, the motion was made to defer the request to the October 30, 1984, October 30, 1984 Item No. D - Continued meeting to allow staff to take another look at Highway 10 and land use. Mr. Springer agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN: (October 30, 1984) The applicant, Allen Springer, was present and represented by Hal Kemp. There were a number of persons in attendance regarding this item. Mr. Kemp spoke about the proposal and voiced their support for one of the options developed by the staff for land use at the intersection of Taylor Loop and Highway 10. The option favored by Mr. Kemp and Mr. Springer shows all four corners for commercial uses. Mr. Kemp reminded the Planning Commission of the petitions in support of the request and of the supporters who have attended the public hearings. Lloyd Vaught, owner of the Country Store location, briefly discussed the property to the west of the Country Store. The Planning Commission discussed at length the Suburban Development Plan and possible amendment to the plan utilizing one of the options presented by the staff. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" request as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. A second vote was taken on a motion to amend the Suburban Development Plan using Option 4 which identifies all four corners at Highway 10 and Taylor Loop for commercial uses. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION - The Planning Commission voted to support the request for the following reasons: (1) the location is the intersection of two arterial streets, (2) there are a number of existing commercial uses in the immediate vicinity, (3) originally the Suburban Development Plan identified the area for commercial uses, and the Commission felt that was a mistake to remove it from this location and locate the commercial land use to the east. October 30, 1984 Item No. E NAME: LOCATION: Boat House, Inc., Long Form "PCD" (Z -4331) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Jack Oliver II Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 8.62 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I -3" PROPOSED USES: Marina /Boat Sales and Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 16 A. Site History The property is presently zoned "I -2." B. Development Rationale /Objectives The proposed project schedules a marina with 82 covered yacht sized slips on the Arkansas River on the south bank of the river. The proposal also schedules a boat /yacht sales, service and storage facility on the south end of the land parcel. The northern end of the land parcel will provide a restaurant and /or building development to work in concrete with the proposed marina. Boat owners will be provided a full range of services for their covered slips which will either be readied or sold to individual investors and /or boat /yacht owners. Additional parking and access is provided by the adjacent property to the east. It is anticipated at a future date, a launching and dry docking operation will also be accomplished. M October 30, 1984 Item No. E - Continued C. Proposal 1. To construct on 4.62 acres a development composed of yacht slips, boat sales, services and storage (Tract A). 2. To eliminate Tract B (4 acre) from "PCD" consideration, thereby making this a short form "PCD," since it is under a 40 -year lease from the Arkansas Schools for the Deaf and Blind, and because it is only to be used for parking and accessing 30 of the 82 marina slips. It is provided only for information. 3. Reservation of the right to file a future request for a building to house a restuarant and /or offices or residential condominiums with related parking. 4. Quantitative Data (Tract A) (A) Building Uses Floor Area Parkin Boat Sales 4,000 sq. ft. 13 Boat Service 5,000 sq. ft. 7 Boat Storage 7,000 sq. ft. 9 Totals: 16,000 sq. ft. 29 (B) Marina Slips Area of Slips Parking 82 57,728 sq. ft. 87 (C) Total Land Area Tract A - 4.62 acres ( "PCD ") Tract B - 4 acres (Lease Area) Total Building Area....... 16,000 sq. ft. Land Building Ratio....... 12.6:1 D. Engineering Comments This development is subject to floodway and floodplain ordinances. The Corps of Engineers must approve the marina and other structures in the Arkansas River. October 30, 1984 Item No. E - Continued E. Analysis Staff approves of the design /use of the site and finds no fault with the applicant's request /approach for development. During a previous rezoning hearing, the applicant agreed to remove the building. He has not, so staff will not pursue the issue if he commits to this improvement. Also, the on- premise roof sign is currently prohibited by ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff was concerned about the use of parking on Tract "D" to serve Tract "A." The applicant decided to eliminate his request for a short -form "PUD" and include all of the property in the approval. He was instructed to provide a letter from the owner of Tract "A" authorizing its use and to work with Water Works relative to their request for a 15' easement, 7.5' either side of an existing fire hydrant lead, an existing 16" main which crosses the property and under the existing boat sales building. Mr. Bob Richardson, the applicant's engineer, stated that the floodway had been certified by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant's engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, submitted a revised plan showing a 20 -foot utility and access easement on the west side of the site, and a letter from the owners of Tract A giving permission to rezone. Mr. Gus Blass, the owner of property to the west, objected to the way the easement was shown and felt that because an existing fence was located on the applicant's property line, persons visiting the marina would come across his property. He also felt that Mr. Richardson had not made a conscientious effort to contact him. Mr. Richardson stated it was not their intent to use Mr. Blass' parking lot for access, since the easement was part of an agreement between owners of both properties in previous years. After a lengthy discussion, a motion for a three week deferral was made and passed, so that both property owners could work out their differences. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. I October 30, 1984 Item No. E - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 30 -84) The applicant, Mr. Jack Oliver, and the Engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, were in attendance. Staff stated the position as being unchanged, except for the request of an easement for a 16 inch water main for Water Works, to be reflected on the final plat. Mr. Richardson requested to amend the plat by providing a six -foot opaque fence on the western boundary of the project to appease Mr. Blass, the abutting property owner. Mr. Blass stated that he would build his own fence, but since the fence would interfere with his right to use the access easement, then the developer of the project should compensate him for the loss by bringing the easement to grade, maintaining and repairing it and paving the land on the southeast corner of the property. When tract A is developed, he requested to have more than three working days to review the plans. There was discussion as to the extent that the PCD process allowed discussion of conditions that should or could be considered as private contractual agreements. Mr. Richardson presented a written agreement signed by Mr. Oliver that includes those items requested by Mr. Blass. A motion for approval was finally made, subject to: (1) the provision of an easement on the final plat if there is a right to one or the provision of a substitute easement on the south for Water Works; and (2) the concerns expressed by Mr. Blass. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z- 1912 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John C. Childs Jr. Same North Street, West of MOPAC Tracks Rezone from Apartment to Industrial Warehousing "R -6" High -Rise " I- 2" Light 10,000 square feet Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "0 -3" South - Vacant, Zoned "I -3" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for warehousing. The owner of the tract in question also owns the three lots to the east which are currently being used for a warehouse. There are two buildings on the existing "I -2" site, and the owner plans to construct one additional structure on the two lots if the rezoning is accomplished. All of the land in this area south of the alley is zoned either "I -2" or "I -3" with the exception of the "R -6" parcel. Because of this zoning pattern, the requested rezoning is compatible with the immediate area and should not create any additional problems. There are some single family residences to the west, but those structures have been impacted by previous zoning actions in the neighborhood. The use to the north is multifamily zoned "0 -3 ", but this rezoning should have little effect on it because the site is lower than the multifamily property. 2. The site is vacant with some trees on it. The property is higher than the street and slopes up from south to north. 0 October 30, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued 3. Engineering has indicated that dedication of additional right -of -way will be required and street improvements for "I -2" traffic. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was rezoned to "E" ( "R -611) apartment district in 1965. Prior to that action the site was zoned "I" light industrial. There is no documented neighborhood position on the tract. 7. Because of the existing zoning pattern and the property's location, the request is supported by the staff. There are no outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the case briefly, and then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z- 2223 -B Owner: Arthur Gamble Applicant: Same Location: 1620 West 14th Street Request: Rezone from "0-3" General Office to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial Purpose: Barber and Beauty Shop Size: 5,000 square feet Existing Use: Barber & Beauty Shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "0-3" South - Duplex, Zoned "R -4" East - Single Family, Zoned "0-3" West - Vacant Public Building, Zoned "R -4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The current use on the property is a barber and beauty shop. The proposal is to continue that type of operation, but to expand the existing building. A barber and beauty shop is permitted as a conditional use in "0-3," but to increase the size of the structure the owner has applied for a variance for reduced parking, and the Zoning Ordinance states that "no conditional use shall be subsequently applied for a variance to the Board of Adjustment." Because of this situation, the staff determined that rezoning the site to "C -1" would be the appropriate method of accommodating the use and allowing the expansion. The lot in question is located in a block that has been heavily impacted by previous actions. The north one -half of the block is used for a parking lot, and the southeast corner is zoned "C -3." The remainder of the block is zoned "0-3." There are only three single family structures left in the block. The West 14th Street frontage from east to west is made up of commercial uses, a residential treatment facility, a single family residence and the barber /beauty shop. October 30, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it, being used for commercial purposes. (The variance request is to permit the building to be doubled in size.) 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was rezoned to "E -1" ( "0 -3 ") in 1968 as part of the High Street Urban Renewal Project. It was one of a number of sites that were rezoned under one request. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. Staff has received some informational calls from property owners in the area. 7. Staff is of the opinion that the necessary zoning district "C -11' is compatible with the neighborhood and supports the request. With having frontage on West 14th Street in a block that has "C -3" in place, it appears that "C -1" reclassification will have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Much of the area east of Marshall and north of 14th is zoned either 910 -3" or "C -3" so some precedent has been established. The land use pattern is mixed with residential and nonresidential uses with some major institutional facilities. A barber and beauty shop is an appropriate use for this type of neighborhood location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z- 3544 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Carroll and Beverly Strickland Carroll Strickland 8519 Chicot Road Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to "C -4" Open Display Used Car Sales Lot 0.42 acres Existing Use: Used Car Sales Lot STIRROTINDING T,AND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R -2" East - Railroad Tracts, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property in question is being utilized for a nonconforming used car lot, and the proposal is to continue that use. The site is located along a segment of Chicot Road between Base Line and I -30 that has a number of land uses associated with it. The zoning is similar with "R -2," "0 -3" and "C -3" found south of the railroad tracks and "R -2," "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2" in place north of the railroad tracks. (The "C -3" parcel is the property in question.) It appears that the zoning pattern developing between the railroad tracks and I -30 is an "I -2" area with "C -4" at the frontage road. The railroad tracks do create an adequate boundary between the light industrial pocket to the north and the mix use area to the south. Because of the existing development found along Chicot, it appears that a used car lot is an acceptable use. Further to the north on Chicot, there is a used heavy equipment dealership. 2. The site is flat with two structures on it. There are no unique physical characteristics found on the property. I , October 30, 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 rezoned to "C -3" in 1980. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff is not opposed to the current use on the property, but does question the desirability of rezoning the tract to "C -4." As has been stated previously, "I -2" is the predominant zoning classification north of the tract, and it appears that the immediate area is evolving into a light industrial / "I -2" pocket. Because of this, staff supports an "I -2" reclassification rather than "C -4." An automobile sales lot is also permitted in "I -2." This approach will help create a more unified zoning pattern in the area. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the location as part of a large floodplain. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends "I -2" and not "C -4" as filed for. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Carol Strickland, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Strickland addressed the staff's recommendation and pointed out that the request was for only 0.42 acres. He then agreed to amend the application to "I -2." The Commission then voted to recommend approval of the amended application. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z- 4308 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Atley Davis Greg Crawford 7723 Asher Avenue Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial to 110-2" Office and Institutional Capital City Junior College 2.0 acres Existing Use: Capital City Junior College SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "C -3" and "I -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "0-2" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: This request is a result of a previous rezoning action on the property directly to the south of the tract in question. Earlier this year, both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors approved an "0-2" reclassification on the southern tract to accommodate parking and future expansion for Capital City Junior College, which is located on the "I -2" site. At the time of the previous approval, it was requested that the college rezone the remainder of their holdings to "0-2" and presented a unified plan for the facility. Staff felt that "0-2" was a more desirable classification for this type of facility and would also provide the site plan review. The site plan for all the property has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. 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, the Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to recommend approval of the request. October 30, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z -4328 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Francis F. Kara Estate Nick Politis Rose Street, North of Kanis Road Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -3" General Commercial Cabinet Storage Shop 1.68 acres Vacant Single Family Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant. Zoned "C -3" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to use the property for a cabinet shop with inside storage only. The site is located in the vicinity of the John Barrow and Kanis Road intersection which has a mix zoning and land use pattern. Predominant zoning classification is "C -3" with some "R -2," "MF -12," "0 -3" and "C -4" in place. The tract in question abuts "C -3" on the west and south sides with "R -2" on the north and "MF -12" to the east. Because the property is somewhat removed from a functional street, a use that would not generate a lot of traffic, such as cabinet shop, appears to be a reasonable option for the site. 2. The site is flat and wooded with a single family structure on one of the tracts. (At the time of the land use checked, the street was blocked by a tree and staff was unable to drive directly to the property.) 3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan requirements. 4. Engineering has indicated the Rose Street needs to be constructed from Kanis. No other adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. October 30, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The Boyle Park Plan identifies the property for multifamily development. This was based on the existing "MF -12" to the east and the area being somewhat removed for what would be considered more viable commercial locations. Because of the use that is being proposed and the site abutting "C -3" zoning on two sites, staff supports the request. It does not appear that residential use in the area is a feasible alternative at this time. The strip of land separating the two parcels is a 50 -foot right -of -way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Commission discussed the case briefly and then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z -4336 Owner: Arkansas Children's Hospital Applicant: Timothy Davis Fox Location: Arkansas Children's Hospital Area Request: Rezone from "0 -3," "R -4," "R -5" and "C -3" to 110 -2" Purpose: Parking Deck and Hospital Buildings Size: 5 Parcels Totaling 4.6 Acres + Existing Use: Parking and Hospital SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Land uses include interstate right -of -way, office, commercial, parking, residential and institutional, zoned "R -4," "R -6," "0 -2" and "C -3." PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Arkansas Children's Hospital is requesting a rezoning change to "0 -2" for a majority of their property that is not already zoned "0 -2." The hospital desires to have their holdings under one compatible zoning district, "0 -2," so the institution can begin to implement their "Campus Development Strategy." This is their long -range plan which identifies how various parcels will be developed. Locations under consideration for the rezoning are to be used primarily for multi -level buildings and parking decks. Their immediate plans, Phase I, are to utilize parcel A for employee parking deck and a portion of parcel B for 30,000 to 45,000 square foot building. The majority of the new construction will take place on parcel B which also includes the block directly to the west zoned "0 -2." The ultimate development scheme being proposed for the two blocks, parcel B, directly south of the existing hospital facility includes three new buildings and two parking decks. There are no specific plans for parcels C, D and E. Those areas will remain as they are with some parking and office uses. 2. All of the parcels are either occupied by parking areas or accessory buildings for the hospital. October 30, 1984 Item No. 6 - 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The various parcels have been rezoned over the years to accommodate the needs of the Children's Hospital. Staff has received some informational calls from nearby property owners regarding the rezoning request. 7. Staff views the request as a step in the right direction and supports the rezoning because it attempts to place the hospital's acquisitions under one zoning classification. Approval of the requested change will allow the hospital to begin to create a unified campus which the City has been encouraging for a number of years. The proposed development strategy suggests a workable plan and makes a long -term commitment to the area. This is seen as a plus because medical facilities are slowly moving out of the central Little Rock corps. The 110-2" district provides for site plan review. 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, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z -4337 Owner: Jimmy Miller Applicant: Same Location: 2902 Roosevelt Road Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Office Size: 16,200 square feet Existing Use: Office (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" South - Public Facility, Zoned "R -3" East - Cemetery, Zoned "R -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The requested rezoning is the result of enforcement action by the City's Zoning Office. The owner of the property located a bail bonds office on the site prior to receiving proper zoning. A notice was issued instructing the owner to initiate a rezoning request or discontinue the business. The property in question is one of few parcels on the north side of Roosevelt west of Woodrow that is still zoned for residential use. West of Booker all the land fronting Roosevelt Road is zoned either "C -3" or "I -2." The block between Woodrow and Booker is the only one with "R -3" and "R -4" lots facing Roosevelt Road. Based on the prevailing zoning pattern on the north side of Roosevelt, the requested zoning is compatible with the area. 2. This site is two residential lots with three structures on it. Only one of the buildings is being used for the bail bonds office. 3. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required for both Roosevelt and Woodrow because the existing right -of -ways are deficient. Roosevelt is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. October 30, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued 4. Engineering has determined that the street improvements will be necessary for Woodrow because it is a very substandard street. No other adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The recently adopted Stephens School Plan identifies the location for commercial uses, and the "C -3" request is supported by the staff. This section of Roosevelt with its mixed land use and zoning pattern should not be effected in any way by the approval of this rezoning. The existing residential uses to the north have been impacted by being in area bounded by Asher on the north and Roosevelt on the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jimmy Miller, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Miller agreed to dedicate any needed right -of -way to the City at the public hearing. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z -4341 Owner: Financial Centre Development Co. Applicant: Same Location: 11300 Hermitage Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "0 -3" General Office Purpose: Office Size: 0.49 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Church, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use for the property is an office building. The site is located west of the Financial Centre area which is rapidly becoming a major office location with significant buildings completed or under construction. To the east of this tract, a 7 to 8 story office building is proposed. Directly to the west, there is a church, and at the intersection of Autumn and Hermitage Roads there is a large "C -3" involvement. The property abuts a residential subdivision to the north, and there are some single family residences to the south. Because of the property's relationship to the office development to the east and the future of Hermitage Road, a parkway, it is reasonable to assume that residential use is not viable and an office reclassification as a logical alternative. 2. The site is vacant with some trees on it. The property also gradually slopes up from south to north. 3. This section of Hermitage Road is shown on the Master Street Plan to be part of the Rock Creek Parkway which extends from I -430 to the west planning area boundary. A parkway requires a substantial right -of -way so dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary. Engineering will determine the amount of October 30, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued right -of -way that is needed. This may place some restrictions on the development proposed for the property. The owner has noted on the street right -of -way agreement form that "Financial Centre Development Company will agree to work with the City to establish the right -of -way and /or easements required for the continuation of the Financial Centre Parkway." 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. The neighborhood's position relative to office construction is well documented by the filing of a suit by the residents against the Board of Adjustment for approving a height variance to permit a 10 story office building to the east. The issue has been resolved and all parties involved agreed to a reduction in height of the structure and other provisions (Z- 4342 /Item No. 9 is part of the consent judgment). 7. The property in question is not identified for office use on the I -430 Plan, but because of its location and the status of the tract to the east, staff is supporting the rezoning. Continued residential use or development along Hermitage Road is questionable because of the proposed parkway and being located between a major office area and a substantial "C -3" involvement to the west. The I -430 Plan shows the area on the south side of Hermitage Road for major office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the case briefly and then voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z -4342 Owner: Pyramid Park General Partnership Applicant: Financial Centre Development Co. Location: 11200 Hermitage Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "0 -3" Purpose: Office Size: 0.48 acres Existing Use: Single Family Residence SURROUNDING LAND TIRP AND 7ONiNG- North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "0 -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The property at 11200 Hermitage Road is being considered for rezoning to "0 -3," but it also has a unique circumstance associated with it. This tract and its future land use is part of the consent judgment that resolved the Birchwood Neighborhood Association vs. Board of Adjustment suit. This is the suit that was initiated by the Birchwood Neighborhood Association after the Board of Adjustment granted a height variance to the Fausett Development Company to permit them to construct a 10 story office building on the "0 -3" and "C -3" site (Z- 3410 -A) directly to the east of the property at 11200 Hermitage Road. The consent judgment reduced the proposed building to eight floors of habitable floor space and set out other criteria for the development of the "O- 3 " / "C -3" tract. The judgment also states that "Plaintiffs (Birchwood Neighborhood Association) agreed to support Fausett's rezoning application to "O -3" zoning classification on Block 16, Section B, Cunningham's Replat of Lots 22 and 27, West Highland Subdivision in Pulaski County, Arkansas" (11200 Hermitage Road). In addition to the rezoning of the tract, the consent judgment places some restrictions on the property such as limiting the height to 45', establishing a 25 -foot buffer strip on the north and that Fausett will not seek any height or setback variances for the tract. The consent judgment was approved on August 2, 1984. October 30, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued Because of the nature of the situation, staff supports the requested rezoning to "0 -3." The resolution of the Board of Adjustment suit and the property's relationship to the existing and proposed office development "0 -3" is a viable classification for the property. One final issue is Hermitage Road and the proposed parkway. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required to accomplish the recommended design standard for a parkway. This additional right -of -way requirement could place some development constraints on the property. Engineering will provide specifics for the right -of -way. Also, the applicant again has made mention of the Financial Centre Development Company's willingness to work with the City to establish the needed right -of -way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). October 30, 1984 Item No. 10 - Z -4343 Owner: Johnson Ranch Partnership Applicant: Thomas L. Hodges /Greenbelt Properties Location: Highway 10 West of North Katillus Road Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "MF -12 and 18," "0-2" and "C -2" Purpose: Multifamily Office and Shopping Center Size: 147.9 acres + ( "MF -12" - 19.1 acres, "MF -18" - 7.8 acres, "0-2" - 57.7 acres, and "C -2" - 63.2 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassfied East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Unclassified STAFF POSITION: Staff is recommending that this item be deferred for at least two months to allow the Board of Directors to address various policy questions associated with the requested rezonings. The principal issue is that the property is outside the city limits and beyond the "official annexation boundary lines" as adopted by the Board of Directors Resolution No. 6351 and amended by Resolution No. 6761. Resolution No. 6351 establishes "an official annexation boundary line encompassing those areas to be brought into the City until the year 1990." The property in question does abut the city limits on the east side which is also the annexation line. Until the Board of Directors determines the City policy on annexing outside the annexation boundary, staff is not prepared to address the rezoning or related land use issues. It is staff's understanding that the applicant will request some type of deferral also. October 30, 1984 Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant had submitted a letter requesting deferral to the November 13, 1984, meeting. Staff felt that this was not enough time to satisfactorily address the annexation issue and recommended a deferral to at least the December 18, 1984, meeting. Seth Barnhard representing the applicant addressed the staff's concern and understood the situation but asked that the item be deferred to the November 13th meeting. A motion was made to defer it to the November 13th meeting. A motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 11 - Z -4344 Owner: Whisperwood Townhouses, Inc. Applicant: Warren Theis Location: 8419 Base Line Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "R -5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily Size: 4.18 acres Existing Use: Multifamily (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial and Industrial, Zoned "I -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" and "O -1" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property in question is a multifamily project and the request is to rezone the various tracts so the development becomes a conforming use. Currently with the "R -2" classification, the apartment units are a nonconforming use. The development is located along a section of Base Line Road west of the railroad tracks that has a number of uses associated with it. Even though there are very few single family units found along Base Line, a majority of the land on the south side is zoned "R -2." There is a large vacant "C -3" track where Base Line Road intersects I -30. Recent rezoning in the area has occurred on the north side of Base Line Road, and those have been primarily "I -2" reclassifications. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a number of apartment buildings. In addition, there are parking and landscaped areas. 3. Base Line Road is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. October 30, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued 4. The City's Engineering Office has expressed some concern with certain problems associated with this project, and they are remove and /or redesign parking on Base Line and remove parking on Brixham. No other adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The site was annexed into the City in 1979 as part of the large southwest annexation. There is no documented neighborhood position. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the location for multifamily use and because the site is already occupied by an apartment project, staff supports the requested rezoning to "R -5." The only remaining unresolved issues are those expressed by the Engineering staff. It is recommended that the owner or owners of the project work with the City to reach some type of agreement or solution to those problems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission held a brief discussion on the matter and then voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 12 - Z -4345 Owner: Kindercare Inc. Applicant: Joe D. White Location: 8212 Frenchman's Lane Request: Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Day -Care Center Size: 0.64 acres Existing Use: Day -Care Center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" South - Church, Zoned "R -2" East - Office and Commercial, Zoned "I -2" West - Multifamily, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The present use of the property is a day -care center, and that is the proposed use also. The day -care center is planning to expand by adding an additional building in the rear and being a nonconforming use this cannot be done until the lot is properly zoned. The property is located south of I -30 and one block of Geyer Springs Road in the "I -2" area where the principal land use is commercial. There is also a large multifamily project directly to the west and an office use across the street. The most recent development proposal for the area is a hotel. North of the tract zoning is "I -2," but the land use is commercial and multifamily. The existing "C -3" zoning in the neighborhood is just to the southeast of this property. It extends from Geyer Springs Road to Frenchman's Lane. Because of the existing development pattern, reclassifying this property to "C -3" should not create any problems for the area. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single building and parking area. October 30, 1984 Item No. 12 - 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The area was annexed into the City in 1959 and has been zoned "I -2" for a number of years. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. With the use in place and the surrounding land use and development, staff supports the requested rezoning. The area is identified on the Suburban Development Plan as a community shopping district and "C -3" is a more appropriate zoning classification for that type of area. Currently there is a uniform line south of this tract separating the "I -2" from the "R -2" and "C -3" areas. Should this request be approved, that line would be somewhat askewed, but that should be of little consequence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to recommend approval of the request as filed. October 30, 1984 Item No. 13 - Z -4346 Owner: Alfred Miller Applicant: Gladys Hosman Location: 9714 I -30 Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "I -2" Light Industrial Purpose: Truck Sales and Service Size: 2.63 acres Existing Use: Retail and Some Service SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" East - Commercial and Industrial, Zoned "C -3" and "I -2" West - Vacant, Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2," "C -3" and "C -4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for a truck sales and service facility which requires an "I -2" classification. The site is along a portion of I -30 that has a number of different types of land uses with a similar zoning pattern. This tract abuts "R -2," "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2" properties and various land uses. The immediate area is made up of auto dealerships, some retail use and a large trucking facility that is directly to the east. Along I -30 at other locations, the zoning mix is "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2" is common and appears to be the trend for properties with I -30 frontage, especially in southwest Little Rock. The proposed use is compatible with the immediate area and its impacts, if any, should be minimal. 2. The site is a long narrow track with two structures on it. From the frontage road to the rear of the property is over 700'. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. October 30, 1984 Item No. 13 - 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 was part of the I -30 annexation that occurred in 1979. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the area for stripped development which is normally associated with the "C -4" zoning district. Areas along I -30 with this land use designation tend to be more of a mix of commercial and light industrial uses with "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2" being the recommended classifications. Because of the existing land use pattern in the area, staff feels the rezoning is appropriate for the location and supports the request. Along I -30 where there this mix of zoning districts has taken place, no major problems or concerns have developed. The remaining "R -2" tracts in the immediate vicinity will probably be reclassified to either "C -4" or "I -2." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After discussing the case briefly, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. 14 - Z -4348 Owner: First Federal Service Corporation Applicant: John A. Castin Location: East End of Tall Timber Blvd. Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "R -3" Single Family Purpose: Single Family Size: 30.18 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Hindman Park, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone approximately 30 acres to "R -3" which is the City's small lot single family district. In the "R -3" district, the minimum lot area is 5,000 square feet vs. 7,000 square feet in the "R -2." The minimum lot depth of 100 feet is the same in both "R -2" and "R -3," but the minimum lot width is 60' in "R -2" and 50' in "R -3." In addition to those differences, two family residences are permitted as a conditional use in the "R -3" district, but the minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance states that the "R -3" district is "established an order to provide for an appropriate district for the existing developed areas occupied by smaller scale single family housing, and it is intended that this district be utilized for new construction only within the existing urban area and especially for infill development." It can be questioned as to whether the land being considered for rezoning is within the existing developed urban area. From the staff's viewpoint, this does not appear to be a major issue, but needed to be mentioned. Normally, the existing "R -3" areas are found to the east of University. To the north of this area, much of what is considered the John Barrow neighborhood, is zoned "R -3." The 30 acre tract is adjacent to a partially developed subdivision so it can October 30, 1984 Item No. 14 - Continued be argued that the location is not totally removed from the existing developing urban area. The 11R -3" district could also be viewed as one method for providing affordable housing because of the small lot provision, and this is something that the City has been trying to encourage recently. 2. The entire site is vacant and wooded with some slope to it. The land increases in elevation from north to south. The property on the north side of what would be the extension of Tall Timber Blvd. has some floodway and floodplain involvement. 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Based on the calls that staff has received from the residents in the existing Pecan Lake Subdivision, there is significant neighborhood opposition to the proposed "R -3" rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. Staff does not feel that an "R -3" rezoning for this type of an area is inappropriate and supports the request. It does not appear that the rezoning will significantly impact the "R -2" subdivision to the west because of a similar platting arrangement and the proposed lots are larger than the "R -3" minimum. There are some issues that should be resolved prior to final action being taken on the rezoning request. The most significant one is the status of the property north of the extension of Tall Timber Blvd. The Master Parks Plan identifies that area as proposed park land. The City's Park Department will provide additional information on this issue at a later date. Staff's position is that the area included on the Parks Plan should be left unplatted and made part of the City's parks system through whatever mechanism is feasible. Also, the floodway /floodplain is involved with this tract north of the Tall Timber Blvd. extension. A preliminary plat has been filed for the west 5.5 acres only and not the entire 30 acres as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance states that a preliminary plat be filed for all land October 30, 1984 Item No. 14 - Continued under one ownership. This allows review of the proposal including general design considerations. A consider at this time is to only for which a plat has been filed o type of plat be presented for all STAFF RECOMMENDATION: a more thorough circulation and possible option to rezone the 5.5 acres r request that some 30 acres. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the resolutions of the issues identified in staff analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jack Castin, was present and representing the owner, First Federal Service Corporation. There were a number of persons in attendance opposing the requested rezoning. Mr. Castin spoke and stated that the plans were to only have single family homes. He then presented a map and discussed the preliminary plat for 5.5 acres which is to be the first phase. Mr. Castin stated that none of the property was in the floodway and that they would consider deleting the area in the floodplain from the "R -3" request. This land north of Tall Timber Boulevard extension could possibly be made available to the City for use as a park Mr. Castin indicated. He then went on to say if the "R -3" zoning was accomplished, lots would be approximately 20 percent less than lots in an "R -2" subdivision. Sarah Bradshaw of the adjoining Pecan Lake development requested the Planning Commission to postpone action on the request until the Property Owners' Association had more time to review the proposal. She went on to say that there was a petition with 250+ signatures opposed to the request, and her concerns were lower property values, smaller lots than in the existing subdivision, duplexes were permitted as a conditional use in "R -3" and increased traffic. Mr. James McLeod, president of the Property Owners' Association spoke against the rezoning and presented the petition to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harley stated that he was opposed to anything less than "R -2" zoning. Ed Billings was concerned with an orderly development, the quality of life and property values in the existing subdivision. He also expressed a number of uncertainties with the proposal. Ernie Matkin of Superior Federal was concerned with possible duplexes and voiced some objection to the "R -3" proposal because of that possibility. Mr. Castin spoke again and indicated that Tall Timber Boulevard was a collector on October 30, 1984 Item No. 14 - Continued the Master Street Plan. He said in the first phase, 5.5 acres, 21 lots were platted with an average lot size of 6,000 square feet. He also indicated that there would be approximately 160 lots in the entire development. Mr. Castin said that he could not make any assurances that there would not be any duplexes in the remaining 25 acres. There was a lengthy discussion about the total number of units that could be developed in an "R -2" project versus an "R -3" development. Mr. Castin said that the owners could accept the rezoning to "R -3" on only the first phase and suggested that additional time for further study of certain issues might be beneficial. After more comments, a motion was made to defer the item to the December 18, 1984, meeting. Mr. Castin agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). October 30, 1984 Item No. 15 - Right -of -Way Abandonment Name: Maryland Avenue (West 9th Street) Location: A two block segment lying between Battery Street on the West and Marshall Street on the East Owner /Applicant: Arkansas Children's Hospital By: Timothy D. Fox Request: Abandon the existing 50 -foot right -of -way for use by abutting owner STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way At this writing, the right -of -way serves as an element of the I -630 traffic corridor which will be completed within the year. The City Engineer has expressed reservations about the abandonment (his comments to follow). 2. Master Street Plan This street is not specified as a long -term need for arterial purposes. The remaining 10 or 12 blocks of Maryland Street will serve local service needs only. 3. Need for Right -of -way on Adjacent Streets None reported. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -way Terrain Generally flat /fully improved to three lanes. 5. Development Potential None except as used by Arkansas Children's Hospital if closed. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect All of the abutting lands are office /hospitals /clinics and parking lots. The only effect would be beneficial /joining of hospital campus in an unbroken ownership. October 30, 1984 Item No. 15 - Continued 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed. 8. Effect of Public Services or Utilities The Abandonment Ordinance should provide for a right -of -way being retained as a public service and emergency vehicle access easement. Each utility has easement request for placement in the Abandoning Ordinance. This will require an entire right -of -way be retained as a utility easement. The Little Rock Fire Department has requested that the right -of -way or modified driveway serve their fire protection needs for access. 9. Provisionary Rights All of the right -of -way will be reverted to the Children's Hospital. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Engineering Division staffs have performed review of the traffic needs in the neighborhood after opening of the Mills Freeway. We determined that the segment of Maryland (West 9th) will serve a local need only. The right -of -way will be maintained as an open corridor due to the requirements of the utilities. However, staff feels that the usage retained by the hospital can develop through meetings with the City Engineer as a designed traffic corridor that will serve all interests. The specifics that the Traffic Engineer would seek to attach the design are: (1) offset intersection at Battery and at Marshall to visually sever the thru traffic aspect; (2) design of the entry to the closed street as a driveway; (3) parking and passenger drop -off areas designed so as to provide minimum conflict with automobile and pedestrian traffic; and (4) provide a street /driveway design that will accommodate the access needs of the Little Rock Fire Department as to width, overhead clearance and access to hydrants. We recommend approval of the request subject to: commitment by the applicant to the points raised above. October 30, 1984 Item No. 15 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were no objectors present. A brief held. A motion was made to recommend to Directors approval of the abandonment as staff. Further, that the ordinance embod required to carry out the conditions note recommendation. The motion passed by a v 0 noes, 2 absent. discussion was the City Board of recommended by y such easements as d in the staff Dte of 9 ayes, October 30, 1984 Item No. 16 - Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance The Stormwater Management Ordinance has been reviewed by the City for the past few months. The few remaining unresolved issues were dealt with by the Planning Commission at the October 12, 1984, retreat. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance with the modifications as suggested by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Don McChesney suggested that the staff has revised the ordinance based upon the Planning Commissioners' retreat. David Jones discussed his concern over redevelopment projects which already have a 100 percent runoff. McChesney said the 100 percent exemption requirement should cover new and redevelopment projects. The Commission discussed whether developers should have the option of retention facility construction or in -lieu fee. The Commission agreed that the developer should have the option unless ... "existing flooding occurs downstream from the development, or if the development will cause downstream flooding." Don McChesney introduced several engineers to speak on behalf of the ordinance. They were Sanford Wilbourn of Garver and Garver, Conrad Batril of the Corps of Engineers, Bob See of the Engineers' Club and Stuart Nolan of ASPE. Sanford Wilbourn stressed his support for both on -site and regional facilities. The Commission instructed the staff to have the ordinance and resolution for adoption finalized for the November 13th meeting. October 30, 1984 Item No. 17 - Master Street Plan Amendment - Elimination of Ridgewood Drive A recent rezoning request has prompted another review of the Ridgewood collector from Peach Tree Road to Bowman Road. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends that the from Peach Tree to Bowman Road Street Plan. This street will collector system to serve the PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Ridgewood Drive connection be maintained on the Master provide the necessary immediate area. There were approximately 50 persons in attendance concerning this issue, and they were represented by Dr. Robert Wright. Prior to any presentation or discussion, a motion was made to forward this item to the Board of Directors without any recommendation from the Planning Commission. Dr. Wright addressed the motion and agreed to it. Joe White, engineer for the proposed development, indicated that Winrock was opposed to removing the street from the Master Street Plan. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. The Planning Commission felt that this was not a land use issue but rather a policy decision for the Board of Directors to determine. October 30, 1984 Item No. 18 Name: Location: Owner /Applicant: Proposal: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: South Tyler Street Day -Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z -4330) Just south of the intersection of 12th Street and South Tyler Street (1208) Joanne Colon /Betty Walloch Request for Planning Commission rehearing of denied conditional use permit. The owner, Joanne Colon, was present and represented by David Henry, attorney. Mr. Henry presented some background information on the issue and why the owner wanted the Planning Commission to rehear the issue. After some additional discussion and comments by a property owner in the area, a vote was taken on the rehearing request. The vote was 1 aye, 5 noes, 3 absent and 2 abstentions (Jerilyn Nicholson and William Ketcher). The request was denied because the unanimous vote of all the members present was required. October 30, 1984 Item No. 19 A STAFF REPORT ON THE LAND USE ISSUE ON NORTH VAN BUREN STREET Purpose This plan review and report was produced at the direction of the Planning Commission in order that background information and existing commitments are known. This plan request is associated with the requested rezoning of two lots at the southwest corner of "B" Street and Van Buren Street. History of Site and Street: The "B" Street corner at issue has little documented history. The only previous request for rezoning was filed for a Planning Commission hearing on June 27, 1978, at which time the owner withdrew the request. The withdrawal occurred prior to any action by the Commission. The staff recommendation on that occasion was denial based on a plan line established by the Planning Commission in February 1968. The plan line established at that time was the centerline of "A" Street. That plan also incorporated the mixing of duplexes along Van Buren running north to Kavanaugh Boulevard. Earlier office zoning actions along Van Buren Street include: a. 810 North Van Buren Street at the southwest corner of Kavanaugh Boulevard. A request from "R -2" Single Family to "0 -3" General Office on June 6, 1966. This request was approved by the Planning Commission, approved by the City Board. The staff recommendation was denial. This site later developed to medium density apartments. b. 317 and 321 North Van Buren Street at the southeast corner of "C" Street. A request from "R -3" Single Family to "0 -3" General Office. On December 5, 1968, the Planning Commission denied the request for office and recommended duplex zoning to the City Board. The Board of Directors accepted the duplex recommendation. The staff recommendation was denial of office and approval of duplex. C. 317 and 321 North Van Buren Street, the southeast corner at "C" Street. A request from "R -4" Duplex to "O -1" Quiet Office. On October 25, 1983, the Planning Commission denied the request. There was no action by the Board of Directors. The staff recommendation was for denial of office use and retention of the duplex use. October 30, 1984 Item No. 19 - Continued d. 400 North Van Buren Street at the northwest corner of "C" Street from "R -3" Single Family to "0 -3" General Office filed on February 3, 1966. The Planning Commission recommended denial. There was no appeal to the City Board. The staff recommendation was denial. e. 205 North Van Buren Street at the "A" Street. A request from "R -3" "0 -3" General Office. On October Commission denied the request. T1 the City Board of Directors. The denial based on the 1968 plan. northeast corner of Single Family to 1, 1970, the Planning zere was no appeal to staff recommended f. 205 North Van Buren Street at the northeast corner of "A" Street. The request from "R -3" Single Family to "0 -3" General Office on March 2, 1972. The Planning Commission approved the request thereby amending the plan and zoning line from "A" Street to the alley immediately north of the subject site. The City Board approved the rezoning to general office. The staff recommendation was denial. Physical Limitations: The lots platted along North Van Buren Street do not present design constraints for conversion to office use. There are several small tracts which are portions from the original platted lot configurations. These small lots are significantly below the standard for the office districts and would require combination with adjacent lots to achieve buildable sites. In no case would the Planning staff recommend rezoning less than the district minimum square footage even though the ordinance permits that action. The ordinance standards at this time are 7,000 square feet for "O -1" and 14,000 square feet for "0 -3." We feel that the "0 -2" Office District is entirely inappropriate for the area due to the lot size limit and development criteria. Structures, Condition and Orientation: The existing housing stock in this neighborhood is very good in almost every block except where there is adjoining nonresidential usage. In those instances, we see some deterioration of the structures. Although in one instance on the south side of "A" Street, there is a residential use rearing upon the three Markham Street restaurants and quite well maintained. October 30, 1984 Item No. 19 - Continued The lots along Van Buren Street are well -mixed as to the structure orientation between West Markham and Lee Streets. A more consistent pattern of orientation exists in the area between Lee Street and the Kavanaugh Boulevard intersection. All of the blocks in this neighborhood were platted with a north /south orientation on the lots; however, over time, seven of the block corners have been recombined without benefit of platting to provide for Van Buren frontage. The net effect of this replatting is to create 19 lots from the former 18 lots. In most instances, a wider frontage on Van Buren is provided than that originally indicated on the plat. Existing Heights /Hillcrest Plan Commitments: The plan, adopted in 1981, provides for maintenance of the low density character of Van Buren which is a mix of "R -2" And "R -3" Single Family. The "R -3" permitting duplex as a conditional use. The plan also provides for a medium density residential as the northern anchor of the street. There are at this time two multifamily uses in place at the Kavanaugh intersection adjacent to the Kavanaugh commercial. The south end of Van Buren at West Markham Street is proposed on the plan as follows: a. The frontage properties along West Markham are indicated as general commercial to the alley line. b. The frontage lots along Van Buren from the alley to "A" Street are indicated as office usage. C. The frontage lots along "A" Street on the south side are indicated as office usage. This plan attaches to the 1968 plan line for office intrusion into the area and does not reflect the fact that a dental clinic was placed in the block between "A" And "B" Streets. That zoning action was recognized by staff and Commission as having moved the office zoning line to the alley north of "A" Street. Conclusions: The staff position on the issue at hand is that offered on the prior six or seven occasions where office rezoning was requested. We feel that the placement of office use above the present alley location is a commitment to eventual strip October 30, 1984 Item No. 19 - Continued zoning of Van Buren. The length of street involved is short enough that rezoning this corner is tantamount to a commitment to strip zoning. We believe this is the case because of the two nonconforming uses in place at "C" Street and at "F" Street. Those nonconforming uses are spaced so as to leave only two blocks of this eight block strip as single family use only. We feel that this neighborhood is a valuable housing resource both owned and rental and should be protected against further intrusion. Further, we believe that if the City advances its zoning demarcation line one more time, then there is no permanent stopping point. PLANNTNG COMMTSSTON ACTTON! The Planning Commission voted to defer this item to the November 13, 1984, meeting. October 30, 1984 Item No. 20 - Other Matters Adoption of the Planning Commission calendar for the 1985 calendar year is requested. Copies of the calendar are attached to this agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved the 1985 calendar by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. r r , REZONING HEARINGS: FILING DATE Dec. 31, 1984 Jan. 28, 1985 Feb. 25, 1985 Mar. 25, 1985 Apr. 29, 1985 May 28, 1985 Jun. 24, 1985 Jul. 29, 1985 Aug. 26, 1985 Sep. 23, 1985 Oct. 14, 1985 Nov. 11, 1985 Dec. 30, 1985 SUBDIVISION HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR 1985 ADOPTED OCTOBER 30, 1984 LEGAL AD Jan. 11, 1985 Feb. 08, 1985 Mar. 08, 1985 Apr. 12, 1985 May 10, 1985 Jun. 07, 1985 Jul. 12, 1985 Aug. 09, 1985 Sep. 06, 1985 Oct. 11, 1985 Oct. 25, 1985 Nov. 22, 1985 Jan. 10, 1986 FILING DATE LEGAL AD SUBD. COMMITTEE (3) Dec. 17, 1984 Dec. 28, 1984 Jan. 03, 1985 Jan. 16, 1985 Jan. 25, 1985 Jan. 31, 1985 Feb. 11, 1985 Feb. 22, 1985 Feb. 28, 1985 Mar. 11, 1985 Mar. 22, 1985 Mar. 28, 1985 Apr. 08, 1985 Apr. 26, 1985 Apr. 25, 1985 May 13, 1985 May 23, 1985 May 30, 1985 Jun. 10, 1985 Jun. 20, 1985 Jun. 27, 1985 Jul. 08, 1985 Jul. 25, 1985 Jul. 25, 1985 Aug. 12, 1985 Aug. 22, 1985 Aug. 01, 1985. Sep. 09, 1985 • Sep. 26, 1985 Aug. 29, 1985 Oct. 14, 1985 Oct. 24, 1985 Oct. 03, 1985 Nov. 11, 1985 Nov. 21, 1985 Oct. 31, 1985 Dec. 09, 1985 Dec. 26, 1985 Nov. 27, 1985 Jan. 02, 1986 MEETING DATE (1) (2) Jan. 29, 1985 Feb. 26, 1985 Mar. 26, 1985 Apr. 30, 1985 May 28, 1985 Jun. 25, 1985 Jul. 30, 1985 Aug. 27, 1985 Sep. 24, 1985 Oct. 29, 1985 Nov. 12, 1985 Dec. 10,'1985 Jan. 28, 1986 MEETING DATE (1) (2) Jan. 22, 1985 Feb. 12, 1985 Mar. 12, 1985 Apr. 09, 1985 May 14, 1985 Jun. 11, 1985 Jul. 09, 1985 Aug. 13, 1985 Sep. 11, 1985 Oct. 15, 1985 Nov. 12, 1985 Dec. 10, 1985 Jan. 14, 1986 NOTE: (1) All Public Hearings shall be held at 1:00 P.M. unless otherwise changed by the Commission (2) The Commission holds an agenda meeting at 12:00 P.M. on the meeting date. (Unless changed by the Chairman) (3) All meetings shall be held at 12:00 P.M. unless changed by the Subdivision Committee f P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE C CT JQ 19Ail- 2 voTES ZONING SUBDIVISIOk V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS 1 6f2 r�■oora�oe�m� Massie J. Nicholson Rector L--W W. Ketcher momm 0 0.0 woom D. Arnett own mama moommmumm.-M � I Boles . Boles MEN J. Clayton Y AYE 40 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE 6C-r. zj�j, /98� ZONING �! SUBDIVISION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ZW2 MEMBER ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ J. Nicholson Rector W. Ketcher D. Arnett � ■���� ■■ N��� B�� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ J. Clayton ■ ■ ■■ e■ t■ /AYE ®NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN . 1 31 October 30, 1984 There being no further business before the Commission, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 4 p.m. Date Secre ary