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