Loading...
pc_07 24 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD JULY 24, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: John Schlereth Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett William Ketcher Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones James Summerlin Ida Boles Members Absent: Richard Massie City Attorney: Jim Sloan July 24, 1984 Item No. A - Z-2552-B Owner: Lilie Mae Davis Applicant: Same Location: 6618 Forbing Road Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Used Car Lot Size: .643 acre Existing Use: Used Car Lot (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-4" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-4" West - Single Family, Zoned "C-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This site is currently a vacant lot. At one time the property had a structure on it and was operating as a used car lot. The building was destroyed by fire, and the property lost its noncomformity. The Building Permit's Office determined that more than 50 percent of structure was destroyed. The proposal is to rebuild the structure and operate another used car lot. Forbing Road is the southern end of a segment of South University that is made up primarily of auto dealerships. The property in question is just west of South University Avenue and has "C-4" zoning on three sides. 2. The property is flat with a vast majority of it being paved. 3. Forbing Road is classified as a collector and the existing right-of-way is adequate for collector standards. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. July 24, 1984 Item No. A - Continued 6. There is no neighborhood position on the site. The property in question and a tract to the west were rezoned to "F" Commercial ( "C-3 ") in 1972. Auto dealerships were permitted uses in the old "F" Commercial district. The site to the west was rezoned to "C-4" in 1981 as a conversion adjustment. 7. The site has commercial zoning on four sides with "C-4" zoning on the east, north and west property lines. The proposed zoning classification and use are appropriate for the location, and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant was not present. Also, the applicant had not notified the property owners within the required 200 feet. A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant had requested a deferral of this item. A motion to defer the request to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 24, 1984) The applicant was not present when this item was first called. Staff stated that the materials for the required notification had not been submitted. A motion to defer the item to the August 28, 1984, meeting passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Later on in the hearing, the applicant indicated that she was present and had mailed the required notices. A motion was made to place the rezoning back on the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The applicant provided the staff with the necessary information for the notice requirement. There were no objectors present. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. B - Z-4232 Owner: Gaylon Carter Applicant: Same Location: 9813 Chicot Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "O-1" Quiet Office Purpose: Office Size: 7,770 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Office, Zoned "O-1" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted other than the proposed use of the property is to be an office. The property is currently occupied by a single family structure and the immmediate plans are to utilize it for a rental unit. The owner of this site also owns the "O-1" tract directly to the south and that property is being used for a clinic. The office potential of the property is somewhat limited because of its size and being able to accommodate the necessary parking. The owner may have plans to incorporate this piece with a tract to the south and provide additional parking or some related activity. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single family structure on it. 3. Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan which requires a right-of-way of 80 feet. The existing right-of-way is deficient, so dedication of additional right-of-way will be necessary. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. July 24, 1984 Item No. B - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The site was annexed in 1981 as part of the south central island. There is no documented neighborhood position on this particular property, but with the previous "O-1" rezoning, there was some neighborhood concern. 7. The property is not identified for office use on the Suburban Development Plan and the staff is opposed to the rezoning request. Staff position on the previous "O-1" rezoning was also one of nonsupport because the location was viewed as being inappropriate for office zoning and development. Even with the approval of the "O-1" to the south, the plan was never amended to recognize the change. Staff is concerned if additional rezonings are granted that it will be hard to establish a zoning line at a given point and this could lead to an undesirable land use pattern on the west and east sides of Chicot Road. The existing office zoning should be confined to the present boundaries and not be allowed to expand north or south. There is some "O-1" property in the block that is still being used for single family so it appears that the demand for additional office zoning is questionable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant was not present but had requested a 30-day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days (June 26, 1984 ) passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant had requested another deferral. This was the applicant's second request to defer the item. A motion to defer the rezoning to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 24, 1984) The applicant was not present but was represented by Joe Buffalo, an attorney. There were no objectors present. Mr. Buffalo described the area and indicated that the proposed use would be for additional office space. The Commission discussed the request at length. Discussion included land use along Chicot Road and the Suburban Development Plan for the area. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION: The Planning Commission felt that this was a reasonable request because of the Board of Directors previous action on the property to the south. The Commission determined that the Board of Directors set policy for the immediate area by rezoning the other parcel to "O-1." July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Z-4240 Owner: Jim Shue Applicant: Paul W. Davenport Location: Cedar Hill Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 1.0 acre ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Park, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "R-5" to permit four multifamily units. Because no specific plans have been submitted, so the type or style of unit is unknown. The applicant has suggested that units are to be condominiums. The site is located in an area that has mixed land use and zoning patterns with the primary land use being single family. There are some multifamily projects with "R-5" zoning in the neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of this site. This tract is part of a subdivision that has been developed only for detached single family residences and that use should be continued. The site has a stronger relationship to the single family use than to the multifamily developments and "R-5" zoning should not be permitted at this location on Cedar Hill Road. Because of the property's physical characteristics, it appears that it lends itself more toward a single family unit than a multifamily project. 2. The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot. It is possible that a multifamily development would require substantial site modification. This would detract from the appearance of the site. The physical layout of the tract should dictate the type of development suitable for the property. July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. (The applicant has not provided this office with the necessary right-of-way agreement.) 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position, but the staff has received some calls from nearby residents opposing the the request. They are concerned about the traffic on Cedar Hill Road and the type of development proposed. The residents want the property to remain single family. It has been mentioned that there are possible deed restrictions on the subdivision restricting the property to single family use. The entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal project that expired a few years back. 7. The request is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan which identifies the property for single family use. The staff's position is that the property should remain single family and not be rezoned. Also: if the Bill of Assurance does, in fact, restrict the property to single family use and then that takes precedence until an amendment is made to it. The approval of this request would extend "R-5" zoning to the north and create an undesirable zoning pattern. The zoning is not compatible with the residential development that the property abuts to the south and the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984) The applicant had requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984) The applicant had requested a deferral. A motion to defer the item to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. July 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 24, 1984) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. The applicant had not mailed the required notices, nor had made any contact with the staff. The Commission voted to withdraw the item from the agenda. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z-1730-A Owner: M.C. Wins Applicant: Same Location: 201 West Roosevelt Request: Rezone from "C-3" General Commercial to "C-4" Open Display District Purpose: Used Car Lot Size: 19,600 square feet Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to permit a used car lot. The site has been used for commercial purposes for a number of years, but those uses were more neighborhood oriented such as small eating establishments. Because of the property's relationship with surrounding land use, primarily single family, the existing "C-3" classification should be the most intense zoning for the tract in question. Even with the Roosevelt frontage, the property is not a desirable location for a "C-4" rezoning or related uses. 2. The site is three vacant lots. Some of the property is paved and there have been buildings on it in the past. 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. July 24, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued 6. The property was rezoned to "F" ( "C-3 ") Commercial in 1964. Since that time, there have been various commercial uses on the site. Staff has received some calls in opposition to the request. 7. Staff is opposed to the request because of possible negative impacts on the residential neighborhood and approval of this rezoning could lead to a "C-4" strip along Roosevelt. There are other vacant tracts fronting Roosevelt that could be rezoned to "C-4" if this request is approved. The zoning pattern on the south side of Roosevelt should be maintained and not disrupted by granting this rezoning. The existing "C-4" zoning in the area is located at Main and Roosevelt at the intersection of two arterials and a more desirable location for a "C-4" use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, M.C. Wins, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Wins presented some history of the site and then stated that a used car lot would generate jobs. He indicated that Roosevelt Road was commercial in nature and the request for rezoning would not effect the surrounding property. Mr. Wins also said that he would address the drainage problem that is on the site. The Commission discussed at length the various commercial districts and the possible stripping out of Roosevelt Road with "C-4" locations. Mr. Wins stated that he did not see any problems with the used car lot. Allen McNutt, the property owner directly to the south of the site in question, spoke against the request. He indicated that he was representing the immediate neighborhood and presented a petition with 15 signatures opposing the rezoning. Mr. McNutt stated that a used car lot was inappropriate for the location and would not benefit the neighborhood. He then went on to describe other concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Wins spoke and addressed the issues voiced by Mr. McNutt. There was some additional discussion about land use in the general area. A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. July 24, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z-3592-A Owner: Dr. W. Wise Applicant: Michael Watson Location: South of Kanis and West of Shackelford Request: Rezone from "OS" Open Space, "O-2" Office and Institutional and "C-2" Shopping Center to "OS" Open Space and "R-2" Single Family Purpose: Church and Buffer Size: 1.1 acre ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Church, Unclassified South - Vacant, Zoned "O-2" and "C-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "OS" and "C-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "OS" and "O-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for church expansion. The church located to the north of the tract in question plans to construct an additional building on the site after the rezoning has been accomplished. The request also includes an "OS" strip which will maintain the same relationship as is currently in place between the various tracts of land. The 40-foot "OS" area will buffer the church and other properties from the "O-2" and "C-2" parcels. This rezoning and Z- 3592 -B (item #3) are involved in a land swap that has created the need to request rezoning on the two sites. The church will gain this tract and give up the property being rezoned to "C-2" item #3. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. July 24, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position on this site. The tract was part of a large rezoning that was approved by the City in early 1981. 7. There appears to be no outstanding issues and staff supports the request. The church will have a larger piece of property to work with and not adversely impact any plans for the "O-2" and "C-2" tracts to the south ( "R-2" was recommended because when the property to the north is annexed to the City it will come in as "R-2" also.) With the "OS" strip, this will establish a more workable zoning pattern. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "OS" and "R-2" as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Planning Commission discussed the case briefly and then voted to approve the request as filed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z-3592-B Owner: Rose Hill Church of the Nazarene Applicant: Michael Watson Location: Kanis Road West of Shackelford Road (700 feet) Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "C-2" Shopping Center District Purpose: Commercial Uses Size: .3153 acres + Existing Use: Church Parking Lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "O-3" South - Vacant, Zoned "O-2" and "C-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "O-3" West - Church, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to incorporate this property with the large "C-2" tract to the south. No specific plans have been submitted, but the uses will be limited because of the size of the site. It is conceivable that the location in question will be used to provide additional access for the existing "C-2" parcel. And finally Z-3592-A and B are part of a land swap involving the church and the Wise property. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a paved parking lot for the church. 3. Kanis Road is classified as a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. A minor arterial requires 80' of right-of-way. 4. Engineering has indicated that street improvements will be required on Kanis Road once development occurs. No other comments have been received. July 24, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented history on the site because it is currently outside the city limits. 7. Staff is in support of the rezoning, but does recommend that the west 40' be rezoned to "OS" to maintain the buffer concept that separates the various tracts. Because the property is outside the City, it must be annexed before final rezoning takes place. Staff recommends that this item not be forwarded on to the Board until an annexation petition is also on their agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-2" and "OS" for the west 40'. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Robert Brown, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Brown agreed with the staff's recommendation to rezone the west 40' to "OS" Open Space which would continue the buffer concept in the area. He amended the application to reflect this change. The Commission then voted to recommend approval of "C-2" and the west 40' to "OS." The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. NOTE: This item will not be forwarded on to the Board of Directors until the annexation petition is placed on their agenda. July 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z-3614-B Owner: Williams and Jones Company Applicant: Robert M. Brown Location: Bowman Road Future Extension North of Markham Request: Rezone from "MF-24" Multifamily to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial Shopping Center Size: 1.96 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-24" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use is a commercial shopping center but no specific plans have been submitted. The tract has "C-3" zoning on three sides with a large multifamily project to the east which is on higher ground. The property in question has a better land use relationship to the existing "C-3" tracts because the land slopes up to the east where the apartment project is located. This change in topography does create a break in the land use pattern and affords this site better potential for commercial uses. This property is lower than the existing multifamily development and does appear to be suitable for commercial uses. 2. The site is vacant and flat. 3. Dedication of right-of-way will be required for the future extension of Bowman Road which is classified as a minor arterial. The recommended right-of-way for a minor arterial is 80'. July 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Because of the way this property is situated and its poor relationship to the existing "MF-24" development, it appears to be more suited for some type of commercial use. Also because of the "C-3" in place and this tract having substantial frontage on the proposed extension on Bowman Road, staff supports the rezoning. Approval of this request will create a unified commercial tract and a more desirable land use pattern. 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, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). July 24, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4081-A Owner: Jeffrey H. Jenkins Applicant: Same Location: 9215 Asher Avenue Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family and "C -3" General Commercial to "C -4" Open Display Purpose: Wrecker Service Size: 2.63 acres + Existing Use: Service Station and Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize some of the property for a wrecker service and storage of vehicles. This activity is to occur on the southern portion of the tract on a hillside. The Asher Avenue frontage is a service station currently in operation. A service station use on Asher Avenue is appropriate because of the development pattern associated with Asher Avenue. The storage activity of inoperable vehicles is not compatible with the immediate vicinity and would create some adverse impacts for the area. 2. The street frontage is occupied by the service station which is at grade with Asher Avenue. Immediately behind the building the lot rises steeply for approximately 400'. It appears that only the north 150 to 200' adjacent to Asher is usable for commercial space. 3. State Highway #5 (Asher Avenue and Stagecoach Road) is classified as a principal arterial and the recommended right -of -way is 100'. The existing right-of-way is deficient on both streets so dedication of additional right-of-way will be necessary. July 24, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Engineering staff has indicated that street improvements will be required on State Highway #5. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. In September 1983, the applicant requested rezoning to "C-4" on the same piece of land. The proposed use was a used car lot and the request was a result of an enforcement action. At that time, staff recommended that only a 200 -foot depth off Asher be rezoned. The Planning Commission recommended approval of "the north 200' only along the Asher Avenue frontage and the balance of the tract including the Stagecoach Road frontage remain "R-2" Single Family." The Board of Directors has yet to act on the application because with the previous request, the owner stated that he would not dedicate the needed right-of-way. The item is now before the Board of Directors because the applicant has agreed to dedicate the right-of-way along the Asher frontage. The Board of Directors action is only to be on that portion of the tract recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1983. It is the staff's understanding that the necessary easement deed for the right-of-way has not been submitted to the City. With this request, the applicant has agreed to dedicating additional right-of-way. (This application is for the remainder of the property.) 7. Staff's position on this request is the same as the previous case. Asher Avenue, an arterial, is an appropriate location for a "C-4" use, but staff cannot support the balance of the site being rezoned to "C-4. The storage of vehicles is an undesirable use, especially being on a hillside, and could cause problems for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed for the balance of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 28, 1984, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z -4266 Owner: Linda L. Glover Applicant: R.D. Bailey Location: 7102 Geyer Springs Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Purpose: Light Industrial Uses Size: 11,250 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Office, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is for some type of light industrial use. The site has "I-2" zoning on two sides and "C-3" to the east across Geyer Springs Road. To the south, there is a small residential subdivision zoned "R-2." The subdivision is surrounded by nonresidential zoning and has been impacted by those rezonings. This section of Geyer Springs is close to 100 percent occupied by nonresidential uses and approval of this request will not create any additional problems for the remaining residential structures. This parcel is part of a larger tract that is zoned "I-2." 2. The site is flat and occupied by one single family unit. The dimensions are those of a residential lot. 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. July 24, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. 7. The land use pattern along Geyer Springs Road north of Forbing is characterized by a mix of various nonresidential uses with some vacant land. The residential uses that front Geyer Springs will probably be phased out over the next few years and trends indicate that existing residentially zoned lands will be reclassified. Because of the changes that have already occurred in the area, staff supports the rezoning and feels that it will do nothing to alter the character of the area. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the location for major industry. 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 request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z-4269 Owner: Don Capps Applicant: Lee Lemons and Don Capps Location: New Benton Highway West of Production Drive Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Purpose: Camper and Motor Home Sales Lot Size: 2.30 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "I-2" West - Industrial, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use for the property is a sales lot for campers, motor homes, and other recreational type vehicles. The site is located along the section of I-30 that has a number of uses that range from a motel to some manufacturing. This property has industrial use on one side and a truck sales facility on the east side. The zoning patterns are similar with "I-2" zoning abutting property on two sides, "C-3" on the west side and the interstate on the north. Over recent months, "R-2" tracts in the area have been rezoned to either "C-3" or "I-2." 2. The site is vacant and flat. The property has been used in the past for a mobile home sales lot. 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. July 24, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was part of the large I-30 annexation that took place in 1979. The property was annexed as "R-2." 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the location for strip development for which a vehicle sales lot is the appropriate use. "I-2" or "C-3" and "C-4" are the zoning classifications normally associated with this type of development pattern. There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. The Planning Commission discussed the case briefly and then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z-4270 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: E.G. Eberle Location: 8001 Stagecoach Road West of I 430 Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Retail Size: 15.6 acres ± Existing Use: Single Family and Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Interstate Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize approximately 16 acres for various retail and commercial activities. The site is appropriate for this type of use being located at the interchange of a state highway and an interstate. There are a number of nonconforming uses in the immediate vicinity including commercial and industrial so the area is not totally residential even though a high percentage of it is zoned "R-2." The only physical constraint on the land is Fourche Creek and its floodway along the southern boundary of the property. All the acres requested for rezoning are located in the floodplain. 2. The site is flat and primarily vacant. There is a single family structure located on the western five acres. All the property is in the floodplain and approximately the southern 1/4 is located in the floodway. 3. Stagecoach Road (State Highway #5) is classified as a principal arterial with a minimum right-of-width of 100 feet. The existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. July 24, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued 4. Engineering has indicated that the Floodway and Floodplain Ordinances will apply to the development on this property and that access must be approved by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and the City of Little Rock. As of this writing, no other 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. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the property for commercial development. Based on this and the location of the site, the staff supports commercial development, but suggests that "C-2" district as being more appropriate. "C-2" provides site plan review and properties that have some problems, such as this one with flooding, need additional review of the proposed development prior to construction. Also, "C-2" is a district that has been utilized for other properties along the I-430 corridor. The Planning Commission recently recommended approval of the "C-2" request on Stagecoach Road just east of I-430. One additional plan element is the Master Parks Plan. This site is part of a much larger area that is identified in the Parks Plan for open space and possibly a detention pond. The status of this proposal is uncertain at this time, but staff does recommend that the floodway not be included in the rezoning and that it be dedicated to the City. This position is keeping with the Board of Directors new policy on floodway lands. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-2" on that portion of the property outside the established floodway and that the floodway remain "R-2" and be dedicated to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Gene Eberle, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Eberle discussed the application and presented a brief history of the flooding problem in the area. He then went on to question the location of the floodway, but did indicate that two of the three property owners had agreed to dedicate the floodway. Mr. Eberle July 24, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued stated that there was some disagreement with the floodway line and that he would have an engineer go out to determine the exact location of the floodway line and elevation. He then agreed to "C-2" as recommended by the staff and amended the application. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amended application to "C-2" excluding the floodway and that the floodway be left as "R-2" and dedicated to the City. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z-4271 Owner: W.C. McMinn Company, Inc. Applicant: Dwight Blissard Location: 1516 -1520 West 10th Street Request: Rezone from "I-2" Light Industrial to "O-3" General Office Purpose: Training Facility Size: 14,900 square feet Existing Use: Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" South - Office, Zoned "O-3" East - Parking Lot, Zoned "C-3" West - Office, Zoned "O-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to convert an existing building into a training facility or institution for special education. The staff's understanding of the use is that it will train persons with certain emotional or mental handicaps to allow these persons to get back into the mainstream of society. The training will be in skills that will permit the individuals to seek employment and become more self sufficient. The site is an area that has a mix of land uses including an elderly high-rise, the Children's and Central Baptist Hospitals, a state office complex and a major church. The area has become more oriented toward public and quasi-public facilities and the proposed use is compatible with that type of development pattern. The parcel is one of the few remaining "I-2" tracts left in the general vicinity. 2. The site is three typical lots with a single structure on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Plan issues associated with this request. July 24, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued 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. 7. There is no established zoning pattern in the area so approval of this rezoning will not create a new precedent for the neighborhood. The property is surrounded by a number of different uses and zoning. Some of the major uses and I-630 have had impacts on the general area. With the Children's and Central Baptist Hospitals, there are similar uses in place as the one being proposed. Staff supports the request and feels that it is a desirable location for the use. 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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of the request as filed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 10 - Z-4272 Owner: T & R Realty Applicant: Greg R. Peckham Location: West 3rd and Ringo, NW Corner Request: Rezone from "C-4" Open Display to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Offices Size: 15,000 square feet Existing Use: Clinic SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "C-4" South - Industrial, Zoned "C-4" East - Office, Zoned "C-4" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted at this time, but the proposal is to construct additional office space on the property. The location is currently occupied by a chiropractic clinic, and it is unknown whether the rezoning is to allow the clinic to expand or for construction of a separate building. The site is located in a part of downtown that has a wide range of uses. Abutting this property on the north and west are commercial and multifamily uses. To the east and south across the street there are office and industrial uses. The use is compatible with the area. 2. The property is flat and occupied by a single structure on the northeast corner. A majority of the remaining area is used for parking. 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. July 24, 1984 Item No. 10 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on this site. A majority of the area is "C-4" which was a conversion from the old "G-1" Commercial District. "C-4" does not permit many of the uses previously allowed in "C -1" so rezoning "C-3" has become common in the area. The property directly to the west was rezoned from "C-4" to "C-3" at the end of last year because of similar reasons. 7. Staff supports the request and does not view it as creating any problems for the area. There are many different uses currently in place and it is diffcult to determine what the primary land use pattern is. A clinic or additional office use is consistent with the area's mixed development and that appears to be the trend for the future. Staff does not foresee any difficulties with establishing these small "C-3" locations. There are four other "C-3" sites within two blocks of this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Commission discussed the request briefly and then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Z-4273 Owner: Joe A. Powell Sr. Applicant: Same Location: 715 North Van Buren Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily, 4 Units Size: 7,000 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize property for four multifamily units. There is currently a vacant single family residence lot and it is unknown whether the structure will be converted or removed and a new building constructed. The property is located in a block that is totally occupied by single family units and the approval of this request would permit the only multifamily development south of "G" Street to Lee. The area appears to a very stable single family neighborhood and "R-5" rezoning would be an undesirable intrusion into the neighborhood. On the block to the north, there are two multifamily developments and a commercial use. Those properties are zoned "MF-24," "O-3" and "C-3," but even on those blocks the primary use is single family. On the northwest corner of "F" and Van Buren, there is a nonconforming commercial use. South of "G" Street the only zoning in place other than "R-2" are some "R-4" lots and those are being used for single family units. The residence on the property in question is in good condition and should continue to be utilized for a single family unit. Allowing the lot to be developed as proposed, the multifamily units will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and should not be supported by approving this request. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one residence on it and an accessory building to the rear. 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. One legal issue attendant to this request is spot zoning. 6. There is documented history on the site. Staff has received some calls in opposition to the request. 7. The rezoning is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to it. If approved, the request would create a spot zoning and permit the first multifamily development south of "G" Street. The neighborhood is primarily owner occupied single family units and should not be imposed on by allowing a higher density on one lot. The use is incompatible with the immediate area and would place some hardships on the neighborhood. The stability of the area should be maintained by denying the "R-5" rezoning. There is also some question as to whether the property can adequately accommodate the required off-street parking. 7. The rezoning is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to it. If approved, the request would create a spot zoning and permit the first multifamily development south of "G" Street. The neighborhood is primarily owner occupied single family units and should not be imposed on by allowing a higher density on one lot. The use is incompatible with the immediate area and would place some hardships on the neighborhood. The stability of the area should be maintained by denying the "R-5" rezoning. There is also some question as to whether the property can adequately accommodate the required off-street parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Ward. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Ward spoke at length about the staff's recommendation and requested that the item be deferred to give the applicant more time to respond to the comments made in the staff's analysis. Leslie Ablondi of 701 Van Buren asked that the matter be heard and not deferred for 30 days. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent. Mr. Ward spoke again and described land use in the area and the proposed project. He stated that it would be a town house design with adequate parking and access would be provided from the alley. Mr. Ward also indicated that the project would upgrade the neighborhood and that the cost to renovate the existing structure would be close to $30,000. There was additional discussion about the renovation cost. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Ward. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Ward spoke at length about the staff's recommendation and requested that the item be deferred to give the applicant more time to respond to the comments made in the staff's analysis. Leslie Ablondi of 701 Van Buren asked that the matter be heard and not deferred for 30 days. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent. Mr. Ward spoke again and described land use in the area and the proposed project. He stated that it would be a town house design with adequate parking and access would be provided from the alley. Mr. Ward also indicated that the project would upgrade the neighborhood and that the cost to renovate the existing structure would be close to $30,000. There was additional discussion about the renovation cost. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued Robert Bailey, an architect for the applicant, spoke and described the condition of the property. He said that the interior was very deteriorated and that it would be expensive to upgrade. He also added that the design of the proposed project would not detract from the neighborhood. Several commissioners questioned Mr. Bailey as to whether the project was appropriate land use for the neighborhood. Mr. Ablondi spoke again and presented petitions from the neighborhood opposing the request. He objected to the rezoning and described the area as a stable single family neighborhood. Mr. Ablondi felt that the structures were ideal for rehabilitation and that it would be done. He said that the existing duplexes had been in place for years, and he was also concerned with adding additional traffic to the area. Milton Wells objected to the rezoning and described the area as a single family neighborhood. Harry Williams spoke against the request and read a letter he had submitted to the Planning Commission. He was concerned with traffic and property values. Rick Lewis, representing the owner, then spoke. He said that the structure was in poor condition and that a brand new building would add to the neighborhood. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. July 24, 1984 Item No. 12 - Z-4274 Owner: R.P. Merritt Applicant: E.E. Edwards Location: 6707 and 6709 Forbing Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "O-3" General Office Purpose: Office Size: 0.74 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" East - Office, Zoned "C-3" West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-6" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal for the property is to utilize the location as office space for a union. There is an existing union hall that is located directly to the east of the site in question. Immediate plans are to use one of the structures on the property for an office and at some future date construct a new building for office uses. The property abuts "C-3" zoning on two sites and "R-6" on the west site. The immediate area has a mix of land uses including office and commercial. The proposed use for the tract in question is compatible with the surrounding properties and should not impose any hardships on the neighborhood. 2. The site is two residential lots with one single family structure on each lot. The eastern lot has a metal accessory building in the rear year. 3. Forbing Road is classified as a collector which requires 60' of right -of -way. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the survey indicates that there is a currently a right-of-way of 50'. July 24, 1984 Item No. 12 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood on the site. 7. The proposed use of the property is compatible with the area and the staff supports the request. The approval of this rezoning will help reinforce the existing "C-3" zoning line to the east of this property on the north and south sides of Forbing Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of the request as filed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 13 - Z-4275 Owner: R.E. Branton Applicant: C.J. Cropper Location: 11705 Alexander Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Purpose: Light Industrial Uses Size: 8.5 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I-1" South - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request of rezoning is for 8.5 acres to permit light industrial uses such as warehousing. No specific plans have been offered at this time. The property is in a part of southwest Little Rock that has a substantial amount of land zoned for industrial uses, and the majority of that land still remains undeveloped. To the north of this tract, there are approximately 300 acres of industrial zoned land and a high percentage of it is vacant. To the west of this site is a railroad spur and a large "I-2" parcel with some uses in place, primarily an electrical sub station and related activities. Because of the lack of any visible development occurring on existing industrial zoned tracts, it appears that the demand for additional lands for industrial uses is nonexistent. There is also some concern that the area has been over zoned. 2. The site is flat with 1,324-foot depth off Alexander Road. There is a single family residential structure on it. July 24, 1984 Item No. 13 - Continued 3. Alexander Road is classified as a minor arterial which requires 80' of right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be necessary. 4. The Engineering staff has indicated that the Floodway and Floodplain Ordinances will apply to development on this property. Street improvements will be required for Alexander Road. No other comments have been received at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed into the City in 1979 and came in as "R-2." 7. The area in question is part of the Suburban Development Plan and the new Otter Creek Plan which is in the process of being developed. No formal review of the Otter Creek Plan has been made by either the Planning Commission or the Board of Directors. The Suburban Development Plan, which was adopted in 1980, identified the property for light industrial uses with a portion being in the floodplain. Also, the plan recognized the area north of Alexander Road for industrial development. Currently, south of Alexander Road the only "I-2" zoning in place is west of this property and it is the location of an AP &L substation and associated uses. The preliminary draft of the Otter Creek Plan recommends that all industrial zoned lands and uses be restricted to properties north of Alexander Road. Staff is in support of this land use pattern and opposes this rezoning to "I-2" south of Alexander Road. The feeling is that area south of Alexander is better suited for other types of uses and that there is more than enough land currently zoned for industrial development. Staff realize that there is "I-2" zoning south of Alexander Road, but that was for a specific use and a majority of that land is undeveloped. On the east side of the AP &L tract, there is a railroad spur that could define the extent of industrial zoning on the south side of Alexander Road. Certain property owners in the area are concerned that additional "I-2" zoning south of Alexander Road could damage the potential for residential development. (This is also the staff's position for item #14, Z-4275. The two tracts are adjacent to each other.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (Items 13 and 14, Z-4275 and Z-4276, were discussed at the same time by the Planning Commission.) The applicant, C.J. Cropper, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Cropper then amended both applications, Z-4275 and Z-4276, from "I-2" to "I-1." He then went on to discuss the request and presented a graphics showing the area. He stated that the existing industrial areas were in large tracts and that they were not available for sale as small parcels. Mr. Cropper felt that the "I-1" would provide a good separation and that the railroad spur was not a suitable buffer. He also stated that a 100 -foot power easement to the east could be used for a buffer. He then went on to describe the area which included a large electrical substation to the west and that the property had industrial zoning on three sites. Mr. Cropper also presented photos of the area. There was a long discussion about the "I-1" proposal and the Commission felt that "I-1" could be an appropriate transition area between "I-2" and "R-2." Staff discussed the "I-1" concept and also pointed out that a portion of the property was in the floodway and recommended that the floodway be left as "R-2." After additional discussion, the Commission then voted on the amended application to "I 1" excluding the designated floodway and that it be dedicated to the City. The vote: 9 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 14 - Z-4276 Owner: Emma Cullipher Applicant: C.J. Cropper Location: 11617 Alexander Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I -2" Light Industrial Purpose: Light Industrial Uses Size: 9.92 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I-1" South - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request of rezoning is for 8.5 acres to permit light industrial uses such as warehousing. No specific plans have been offered at this time. The property is in a part of southwest Little Rock that has a substantial amount of land zoned for industrial uses, and the majority of that land still remains undeveloped. To the north of this tract, there are approximately 300 acres of industrial zoned land and a high percentage of it is vacant. To the west of this site is a railroad spur and a large "I -2" parcel with some uses in place, primarily an electrical sub station and related activities. Because of the lack of any visible development occurring on existing industrial zoned tracts, it appears that the demand for additional lands for industrial uses is nonexistent. There is also some concern that the area has been over zoned. 2. The site is flat with 1,324 -foot depth off Alexander Road. There is a single family residential structure on it. July 24, 1984 Item No. 14 - Continued 3. Alexander Road is classified as a minor arterial which requires 80' of right-of-way. The existing right -of -way is deficient so dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary. 4. The Engineering staff has indicated that the Floodway and Floodplain Ordinances will apply to development on this property. Street improvements will be required for Alexander Road. No other comments have been received at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed into the City in 1979 and came in as "R-2." 7. The area in question is part of the Suburban Development Plan and the new Otter Creek Plan which is in the process of being developed. No formal review of the Otter Creek Plan has been made by either the Planning Commission or the Board of Directors. The Suburban Development Plan, which was adopted in 1980, identified the property for light industrial uses with a portion being in the floodplain. Also, the plan recognized the area north of Alexander Road for industrial development. Currently, south of Alexander Road the only "I-2" zoning in place is west of this property and it is the location of an AP &L substation and associated uses. The preliminary draft of the Otter Creek Plan recommends that all industrial zoned lands and uses be restricted to properties north of Alexander Road. Staff is in support of this land use pattern and opposes this rezoning to "I-2" south of Alexander Road. The feeling is that area south of Alexander is better suited for other types of uses and that there is more than enough land currently zoned for industrial development. Staff realize that there is "I-2" zoning south of Alexander Road, but that was for a specific use and a majority of that land is undeveloped. On the east side of the AP &L tract, there is a railroad spur that could define the extent of industrial zoning on the south side of Alexander Road. Certain property owners in the area are concerned that additional "I-2" zoning south of Alexander Road could damage the potential for residential development. (This is also the staff's position for item #14, Z-4275. The two tracts are adjacent to each other.) July 24, 1984 Item No. 14 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (Item 14, Z-4276 was discussed with Item 13, Z-4275.) The applicant, C.J. Cropper, was present and amended the application to "I -1." The Commission voted to approve the application as amended. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 15 - Z-4278 Owner: Raymond Young Applicant: Same Location: 7626 Mabelvale Pike, West of Chicot Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Appliance Repair and Retail Size: 1.0 acres ± Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-18" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use for the property is small appliance repair with some retail in the future. There are two structures on the property, a residence and an accessory building. The proposal is to utilize this building for the appliance repair use. The site is adjacent to single family use and vacant land. To the south across Mabelvale, there is a multifamily development in place. Further to the south along the I -30 frontage road a mini - warehouse project is currently under construction. Much of the property in the immediate vicinity, fronting the frontage road, is zoned "C -4." The tract and location appear to be somewhat removed from areas that are developing for commercial uses. Because the concentration of commercial zoning has taken place to the south, the proposed "C -3" location is misplaced and should not be supported by approving this request. 2. The site is relatively flat with a single family residence and an accessory building on it. July 24, 1984 Item No. 15 - Continued 3. Mabelvale Pike is classified as a collector which requires a 60 -foot right -of -way. The survey indicates that adequate right -of -way is in place. 4. No adverse comments have been received from the reviewing agencies at this time. Engineering has indicated that street improvements will be required on Mabelvale Pike. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed in 1979. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the northwest corner of Mabelvale Pike and Chicot Road for a neighborhood convenience center. Staff's position is since the plan was developed and adopted, the area has changed significantly and the proposed site is no longer a viable commercial location. Existing commercial zoning is to the south of this property and staff believes that those tracts fronting I-30 are more suitable for commercial uses and opposes the rezoning of the property at 7626 Mabelvale Pike. The Planning Commission has approved a plan amendment to recognize this and increase the amount of commercial land with I -30 frontage. The proposed plan amendment includes commercial and multifamily uses. The Suburban Development Plan initially identified the area for light industrial development. The property adjacent to the site and to the north are more residential in character and should remain as such. The tract across Mabelvale is zoned "MF -18" and a large parcel to the east across Chicot is also "MF -18." The commercial zoning should be limited to those areas shown on the proposed plan amendment primarily south of Mabelvale Pike. The tract if rezoned would create a spot zoning. One additional item of concern is the status of the property and whether it is a legal lot of record. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 15 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Raymond Young, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Young discussed the request and stated that he had purchased the property prior to being annexed to the City. He said that the immediate uses for the location would be a music studio and some small scale electronic repair. There was a lengthy discussion about the area and the Suburban Development Plan which identified the location in question as a neighborhood convenience center. Several commissioners then discussed the possibility of rezoning the property to "C-1" because it appeared to be a more appropriate reclassification for the site. Mr. Young then agreed to rezoning the property to "C -1." When staff pointed out that some of Mr. Young's proposed uses would require a conditional use permit if rezoned to "C-1," the Commission voted on the request as filed to "C-3." The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of "C-3." July 24, 1984 Item No. 16 - Z-4280 Owner: R.P.M. Applicant: R.P.M. By: Bill Hastings Location: Merrill Drive at Macon Drive Request: Rezone from "C -4" Open Display to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Shopping Center Size: 3.891 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-4" West - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" and "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to reclassify a tract of land in the Charles Valley Subdivision from "C-4" to "C-3." The existing "C-4" classification was a conversion from the "G -1" commercial district with the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. The property abuts "C-4" zoning on two sides with "R-5" and "C-3" across Merrill Drive to the west and south. Much of the area is "C -4" but certain tracts have been rezoned to other districts such as "O-3" and "C-3." The proposed use is a shopping center similar to other developments found in the vicinity and "C-3" allows a greater range of activities including retail and office uses. There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the rezoning. 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 request as filed. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). July 24, 1984 Item No. 17 - Other Matters - Right-of-Way Abandonment Owner: J. Dan Baker By; Christopher Barrier Address: All of the 4600 block and lands east and west within the right -of -way of East Roosevelt Road beginning approximately 1/2 block west of Airport Terminal Entrance. Description: All of the South 50 feet of and east /west segment of East Roosevelt Road being 1,313.53 feet in length. Purpose of Abandonment: To attach to the adjacent lands and provide a more buildable lot depth. The intended use of abutting property is a motel. Justification: The existing 160 -foot wide right -of -way is greatly in excess of the needed 100 feet for a Master Street Plan requirement for a principal arterial. The City Engineer's Office has developed a plan to return a 50 -foot strip of Roosevelt Road to the abutting owners from the Airport entrance to approximately Confederate Boulevard. This plan was developed at the direction of the City Board of Directors. Points of Review: There is at this time no public need expressed by any agency for this right -of -way except as required for utilities. The Master Street Plan in this area requires a maximum of 100 feet in width. There are no adjacent public streets abutting the owners' property which require additional right -of -way. The land abutting the terrain and that portion to be closed is generally flat with large open drainage ditches. The land area involved in the right -of -way closure is approximately 1.5 acres or 1313.53 feet in length. July 24, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued Neighborhood Land Use and Zoning A. The land to the north is the Little Rock Airport zoned " I - 2 . " B. The land to the east is vacant and zoned "I -2." C. The land to the south is vacant and zoned "C -3." D. The land to the west is vacant and zoned "I -2." Nei4hborhood Position At this writing, none has been received. However, a verbal commitment has been received from the Airport Commission to the effect that they interpose no objection to the abandonment. Effect on Public Services: No comment was received from either Fire, Police, Parks or Sanitation. Effect on Public Utilities The following requests were made by the five basic utilities. A. Little Rock Water Works A need is expressed for retention of a Water Works easement to be expressed as 7.5 feet either side of the water line as laid. A request by the Water Works is that the owner provide an easement deed on their form and be filed before the Board of Directors meeting. B. Gas Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company expresses that no easement requirements are necessary. C. Wastewater Utility No needs expressed for easement. D. AP &L Arkansas and Power and Light expresses a need for a 12.5 -foot utility easement on both sides of the pole line as it now exists. July 24, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued E. Bell Telephone Southwestern Bell has expressed no need for easements. Leaal Issues 1. The entire 50 feet of right -of -way to be abandoned will accrue to the petitioner. 2. This right -of -way was acquired by the City of Little Rock for Master Street purposes prior to the commitment by the state to build Interstate 440. The need for a divided facility in this area has now been reduced to an arterial standard; therefore, a quitclaim deed will be in order to provide for transfer of title from the right -of -way to private ownership. 3. There are no access issues to other abutting properties attached to this petition. Staff Analvsis: The Planning staff supports this abandonment subject to the retention of utility easements within the Abandonment Ordinance and provision of separate Water Works easement being filed with that agency. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the right -of -way abandonment by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 18 - Storm Water Management and Drainage Ordinance At the December 16 Planning Commission Retreat, the staff presented the proposed Storm Water Management and Drainage Ordinance. Since that time, the ordinance has been redrafted twice after extensive discussions with local engineers, developers and other interested persons in an effort to improve the ordinance and to work out specific problems and concerns which have been identified. The ordinance is now ready to be presented to the Planning Commission for a possible recommendation to the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Don McChesney gave a brief review of the Master Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance. Don suggested that the Planning Commission had asked his department to do several things concerning the ordinance. Don stated that he had: (1) met with engineers and developers, (2) looked at other cities and what they have done with detention and retention ponds, and (3) developed test cases concerning the costs that would be incurred under the new ordinance. Mr. McChesney stated that the ordinance has been in the process of developing for 2 1/2 years. He suggested that this has been a very open process with considerable input. At the beginning of the process, a technical advisory committee was formed to review the adopting of the ordinance. He further stated that they have developed a total of three drafts for the ordinance. Don stated that several items have been taken out of the third draft. The items he mentioned were: (1) the removal of a separate drainage permit, (2) the amendment of the appeal process, (3) an exemption for small projects, (4) the elimination of the requirement for a maintenance bond, (5) the resolution of the maintenance responsibilities for detention ponds, and (6) an in -lieu contribution alternative to on -site detention. Mr. McChesney also stated that a survey of other cities has been completed. The survey focused on how many cities required detention ponds and what the results have been. Don stated that detention is a concept that is adaptable and is not difficult to work with. He explained that none of the 47 cities surveyed have backed down or changed their detention philosophy. He stated that the cities that were interviewed felt that there is no alternative to detention. Don further stated that none of the cities interviewed took as long to review the process as his office has done. July 24, 1984 Item No. 18 - Continued Mike Batie gave a review of the five case studies that he has developed concerning the ordinance. He chose those cases that the Planning Commission were familiar with and that had a diversity of project types. Case No. 1 dealt with a multifamily project on Mara Lynn Drive. He explained the project and explained that in the worst possible case and an additional $5,700 might be assessed due to the drainage requirements. He stated this might be a $19 per unit cost at the worst possible case. Project No. 2 was an apartment complex on Napa Valley. It is the Turtle Creek Project. This project entails check damns. The cost of this project would be approximately $188 per acre or $12 per unit. He stated this project would have the capability of storing a 25 -year flood. Case No. 3 dealt with a shopping center in the Colonel Glenn- Bowman Road Area. Mike stated that he had reviewed six alternatives in this project. The project alternatives included on and off -site basins, parking lot storage, the provision of a swale in the setback and a large detention area. Mike reviewed the swale concept which he stated would be an area approximately 110' x 80'. He stated the other alternatives would not involve any additional costs to the project. He stated that the swale would be the most expensive of the alternatives, that cost being $49,750. Projects 4 and 5 dealt with single family subdivisions. Case No. 4 was a subdivision proposal on Crystal Valley Road. In this particular instance, detention was recommended and would cost approximately $410. Because of the detention facility, a cost savings would probably be involved because of not having to install 117' of pipe. The last project dealt with Misty Lane. This was a four lot subdivision that would involve a 20' x 40' low area of approximately 2 1/2' in depth as a retention area. Mike estimated that this might involve a total of $1,600 or an additional $400 unit cost. In conclusion, Mike stated that he felt like the ordinance would not involve additional money to the developers. In the above cases he referred to, he always stated the worst possible condition. He stated that many times areas could be reserved for detention areas that would actually reduce the cost of the subdivision development because pipes would not be required to be installed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 18 - Continued Mr. Keys, a contractor, also addressed the Planning Commission. He referred to the written statement by the AGC -AIA Committee. This committee has been reviewing the ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed to review the Drainage Ordinance again at the second meeting in August. DATE JU!_!( 2.4, /9, ZONING MEMBER J.S11mmPr l .in J.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sipes J.Nicholson w.Rector w.Ketcher D.Arnett D.J. Jones I Boles . J.Clayton NAYE ,I J,_ A v ✓ A ✓ ✓ v ;/ V :./ V ;/ B C v ✓ J/ ,/ ----- y v v ✓ y V y / ;/ y v ,/ ✓ ,,-· y v P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS 1 2."2. 4-5 � 7 8 ·9 ·'Q ' ! 1 _, i / ✓ v V ✓ v / V v v v v V J/ V y'/ ✓ :/ V -1--L---1--------r---. V t/ V ✓V y y v V y v V ✓ ✓ ,_,-y v' y ✓v y' v ✓ ✓ V ;/ v J/ v :/ y :r :_..?.,,,. V �/ ,,,. J-"' :," V v v /,.-' v v y �/ v'� V V' J�' v· y y � ,.,..,,,.., v V V ;,,Gt'V y' y y ,,,,, V v V V V ✓v A ABSENT �ABSTAIN .... 13 /4-I /S ·�171 /c- V .,_,,..-" v,...;"' , v •./ v ✓ y ;/ V v"' II" / t/ L.------------A :/ J/ y v-v"/ :/ V :,� ✓ / l: ,,"' �./ ;/ if''' J/ 4 . v' ,/ . / ✓ i__,;. .., .,,.. y v ;/ •,,/ v ; ... " ;/ ., ¥. �·;,,.":"r,..·•./ r" ,,, ,,. y' " .Y ;./ ,..,· _.,,,,'/ ,· / V ✓V �,..-: '/ -V,.,, . <' y V �" ,:1' V :.,/ v:--.. July 24, 1984 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman