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