pc_01 11 1994I.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 11, 1994
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the November 30, 1993 meeting were approved
as mailed. (Diane Chachere abstained)
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Diane Chachere
Ramsay Ball
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Bill Putnam
Brad Walker
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Ron Woods
Joe Selz
(One Open Position)
Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z-5686
B. Z-5726
II. REZONING ITEMS
1.
Z -3150-G
2.
Z-5762
3.
Z-5775
4.
Z-5777
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
JANUARY 11, 1994
4807 Ballinger
Peach Tree Drive
North Chicot and I-30
513 South Cedar
White Rock Lane
Asher Avenue and
John Barrow Road
III. OTHER MATTERS
5. Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment
R-2 to PRD
R-2 to O-3
C-4 to C-3
R-4 to O-1
R-2 to R-5
R-4 to C-3
(G-23-200)
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5686
Owner: Ike Uketui
Applicant: Ike Uketui
Location: 4807 Ballinger
Request: Rezone from R-2 to R-5
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 0.9 acres
Existing Use: Single -Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Railroad tracks, zoned R-2
South - Single -Family, -zoned R-2
East - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2
and R-5
West - Single -Family, zoned R-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
4807 Ballinger Road is occupied by a single family residence
and the owner would like to convert the building to four or
five units. To allow the increase in the number of dwelling
units, the property must first be rezoned to R-5. The
existing residence sits on the front 1/4 of the lot and the
rear 3/4 is undeveloped. The site has 125 feet of frontage
on Ballinger and a depth of 410 feet.
Zoning is R-2, R-3, R-5 and I-2, with the property in
question abutting R-2, R-3 and R-5. There are several
tracts to the east that are zoned R-5 and two of them appear
to be undeveloped. The I-2 is found to the northeast, east
and southeast, the industrial area that is along Patterson
Road. Land use is made up of single family, commercial and
industrial. There are no conventional multifamily
developments in the immediate vicinity. The abutting R-5 is
developed with several detached single family structures.
The proposed R-5 rezoning is in conflict with the adopted
65th Street East Plan, and staff does not support the
request. The plan does not recognize the existing R-5 on
Hoffman and the nearest multifamily area shown on the plan
is approximately 1/4 mile to south. It is our position that
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 (Cont.)
the recommended land use pattern should be maintained by not
approving the proposed R-5 reclassification. Endorsing the
R-5 could create additional problems for the area, which has
already been impacted by some of the multifamily sites found
along Butler Road. Another concern is that R-5 rezoning
could allow between 20 to 25 units based on the lot size and
the land area per family requirement in the R-5 district. A
large number of units on the property could create an
undesirable living environment, and impact the livability of
the entire neighborhood.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The request is in conflict with the plan. The 65th Street
East Plan recommends single family for this location.
Conditions have not changed in the area to warrant a plan
amendment.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 15, 1993)
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred because the applicant did not notify the property
owners. As part of the Consent Agenda, the issue was
deferred to the July 27, 1993 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 27, 1993)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
requested a deferral to October 19, 1993 hearing. As part
of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to defer the
issue to October 19, 1993. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 nays and
4 absent.
2
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993)
Staff updated the Commission and indicated that the owner
would like to amend the application to PRD for a total of
four units, and had submitted a letter requesting the PRD.
Staff stated that they were still opposed to any multifamily
reclassification of the site.
Ike Uketui, the owner, was present. There was one objector
in attendance. Mr. Uketui discussed his understanding of
the property's zoning and said that he was informed by the
City Enforcement staff that a portion of the site was zoned
for multifamily use. Mr. Uketui went on to say that he
purchased the property based on the information provided by
the City. He then discussed his plans for the property and
said he would like to be allowed to use the land for a
maximum of three units.
There was a long discussion about the request and the
property zoning.
Benjamin Watson, a resident on Apple Cove, objected to the
proposed reclassification and submitted a petition opposed
to the rezoning. Mr. Watson described the neighborhood and
some of the area's problems. He then reminded the
Commission that Butler Road was located in the general
vicinity.
A motion was made to defer the item to allow the staff and
Mr. Uketui to resolve the zoning question. The issue was
deferred to the November 30, 1993 hearing. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(NOVEMBER 30, 1993)
The applicant, Ike Uketui, was not present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be
deferred.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted
to defer the issue to the January 11, 1994 hearing. The
vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 11, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff recommended that the
item be withdrawn without prejudice.
3
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 (Cont.)
A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning request without
prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
4
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5726
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
D. B. Davis Corporation
J. E. Hathaway, Jr.
Peach Tree Drive
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Of f ice
0.74 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Koger Office Development, zoned 0-3
South - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2
East - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2
West - Single -Family, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The site on Peach Tree Drive is currently zoned R-2, and the
request is to rezone the location to 0-3 for future office
use. The property is situated at the entrance to the
Sandpiper Subdivision and is adjacent to I-430. In fact, a
portion of the tract was taken for use as right-of-way for
I-430. The site has approximately 273 feet of frontage on
Peach Tree Drive.
Zoning in the general area is R-2, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and OS.
There is also a large PCD, the Summit Mall site, on the
south side of I-430. The property in question abuts R-2
land on three sides and 0-3 zoning is directly across Peach
Tree Drive. Land use is primarily single family and the
Koger Office Development. At the corner of Hickory Hill and
Peach Tree is the location of the subdivision's recreational
area. There is undeveloped land throughout the area,
especially to the west of Centerview Drive.
Because of the property's location and other factors, it
does appear that the site has some potential for limited
nonresidential development. However, it is questionable
whether 0-3 is the best zoning approach for the site. The
lot has a 40 foot platted building line, and because of a
very shallow lot depth, the addition of the 15 foot rear
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.)
yard setback could severely limit the use of the property,
possibly make it unfeasible to develop. Staff suggests a
POD as a better option for the site because it does offer
more flexibility. The property is somewhat unique, and the
POD process is designed for atypical situations. Also, a
POD would insure that any development (site plan) is
sensitive to the residential lots located directly to the
west.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The adopted plan in the I-430 District recommends either no
use or office. Any office use should be carefully designed
to minimize any negative impacts to adjacent single family.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning and suggests
that the POD process be utilized for the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the
item be deferred. There were two objectors present, and
there was a brief discussion about deferring the issue. The
item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
October 19, 1993 meeting. The Commission's vote was 8 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson).
(The Planning Commission's action also waived the deferral
provision in the bylaws requiring a written request five
working days prior to the meeting.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993)
Staff told the Commission that the applicant had submitted a
written request for a deferral, however, it was not received
at least five working days prior to the hearing. After some
discussion, the item was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the November 30, 1993 meeting. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. (The
Commission's action also waived the Bylaw provision for
requesting a deferral.)
2
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 30, 1993)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were two
objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway distributed some
materials to the Planning Commission and then proceeded to
describe the area and reviewed the written information.
Mr. Hathaway then presented two conceptual plans and
described the proposed development as low density with
maximum buffers. He said the plans were very similar, but
there were some minor variations in each plan. Mr. Hathaway
described the site and said that the maximum size of the
building would probably be 8,000 square feet. He then
proceeded to review four conditions that would be included
in the ordinance and they were:
1. To create a 20 foot wide naturally landscaped
buffer on the western side of the lot.
2. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 25%.
3. Building height not to exceed two-story.
4. To create a landscaped buffer area with a minimum
depth of 10 feet along Peach Tree Drive, except
for two curb cuts.
Jim Magnus, a resident of the neighborhood, then addressed
the Commission. Mr. Magnus submitted a petition and said,
the residents were opposed to the office rezoning. He said
there were potential traffic problems due to limited
visibility and a hill. Mr. Magnus also said the location of
the subdivision pool was a concern. He continued his
presentation by describing the environs and said the
rezoning would not help the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus
reminded the Commission that the plans were just concepts
and not part of the request before them. He said there were
approximately 115 names on the petition opposed to the
rezoning from single family to office. Mr. Magnus told the
Commission that no meetings have taken place between the
neighborhood and Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Magnus made some
additional comments and said he would prefer a POD.
Ron Newman, Planning staff, discussed the plan for the area.
Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, offered
some comments and said the staff was in support of the 0-3
rezoning with the proposed conditions.
Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners
Association, said the group was strongly opposed to the
office rezoning. Mr. Wilson said the subdivision has only
P
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.
two entrances and an office use would create traffic
problems. He said the property acts as an entry for the
neighborhood. Mr. Magnus went on to say that the site plan
did not address the possible traffic problems and made other
comments.
Jim Magnus spoke again and discussed the Koger development.
He made some comments about the site and said additional
review of a plan would be appropriate.
Jim Hathaway told the Commission that he did attempt to
meet with the neighbors/property owners association.
Mr. Hathaway reviewed the site plans and said the property
was about a block away from the crest of the hill. He said
the proposed conditions would ensure a compatible
development and they would be included in the ordinance and
run with the land. Mr. Hathaway then asked for a vote to
rezone the site to 0-3. He then said the amount of
additional traffic would be minimal and reminded the
Commission that Peach Tree Drive was a collector.
There was some discussion about 0-2 for the property.
Mr. Hathaway said the owner would accept 0-2.
A motion was made to recommended approval of 0-2 as amended.
The motion failed to receive a second.
Discussion continued on a number of items, including
deferring the issue.
Jim Hathaway said that he would be willing to defer the
item.
A motion was made to defer the 0-3 rezoning request.
Comments were offered by a number of individuals.
Jim Magnus said deferrals tend to create problems and asked
the Commission to deny the 0-3 request.
Reginald Wilson said that he saw no problems with deferring
the item.
The Commission then voted on the deferral motion. The vote
was 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Brad Walker)
and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the
January 11, 1994 hearing.
4
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: H Z-5726 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were
approximately 15 objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway
spoke briefly and said that he was still considering the
same type of plan and that he did attempt to have a meeting
with the neighborhood.
Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners
Association, said that the deferral gave the neighborhood
adequate time to prepare for the hearing. Mr. Wilson said
the neighborhood was still opposed to the 0-3 because of
increased traffic and reduced property values. He then
submitted a petition with 80 names opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. Wilson reminded the Commission that Sandpiper was a
single family neighborhood and the residents want it to
remain that way. Mr. Wilson went on to say that the
neighborhood tried to see if there was anything that could
be done to support the rezoning and the answer was no. He
also said that Mr. Hathaway had not mentioned the
possibility of reaching a compromise with the neighborhood
and the residents opted not to meet with Mr. Hathaway.
Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood considered uses that would
be appropriate and they would like to see a request for a
specific use. Mr. Wilson then responded to some questions.
Julia Ketner, second house from the site, then addressed the
Commission. Ms. Ketner said the she understood Sandpiper to
be a residential area and she wanted it to remain a single
family neighborhood. She was concerned with safety because
of being on the crest of the hill. Ms. Ketner went on to
say that a business would increase traffic flow and a
rezoning would cause a decrease in property values.
Ms. Ketner also said that the safety of children in the
neighborhood was a concern.
Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, made
some comments about the I-430 plan.
Jim Magnes told the Commission that a portion of the
neighborhood was not part of the property owners
association. Mr. Magnes said that a major problem with the
0-3 request was the lack of a restriction on use. He went
on to say that a POD would be more desirable because of
restricting the use.
Horton Steele, Sandpiper Property Owners Association,
thought the property was part of the I-430 right-of-way.
Mr. Steele also said that he has a problem with certain uses
in O-3.
Jerry Gardner, City Engineering, offered some comments about
the right-of-way.
5
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.)
Mark Allen talked about potential traffic problems and said
the Sandpiper area was growing.
Dennis Johnson, a resident, said that Koger did create some
buffer areas. Mr. Johnson said the property in question was
adjacent to a residential lot and the proposed rezoning was
encroaching into the neighborhood.
Jim Hathaway then addressed the Commission and passed out
some materials, the zoning sketch and an aerial photo.
Mr. Hathaway then discussed access to the property and said
there would probably be a minimal amount of additional
traffic through the neighborhood. He then said he
envisioned low density utilization of the site and described
some conditions and restrictions which would be included in
the rezoning ordinance. Mr. Hathaway then said that it was
unfortunate that no meeting took place. He continued by
discussing the use issue and said that the owner was willing
to limit the use to seven uses in 0-3 and no accessory or
conditional uses. The seven uses would be:
• Clinic (medical, dental or optical)
• Day nursery or day care center
• Establishment of a religious, charitable or
philanthropic organization
• Laboratory
• Library, art gallery, museum or other similar use
• Office (general and professional)
• Travel bureau
Mr. Hathaway said the use restriction would be incorporated
into the ordinance.
Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, said the ordinance
could have restrictions and they would run with the
property. Mr. Giles said the restrictions should be filed
for record with the deed.
Jim Hathaway spoke again and discussed the Koger
development. Mr. Hathaway reminded everybody that Koger has
the right to build two more buildings. He then went on to
say that the rezoning would not impact the neighborhood and
the uses were consistent with land use in the area. He also
said that it was unprecented to have use restrictions
through an 0-3 rezoning. Mr. Hathaway made some additional
comments and described a conceptual site plan for the
property.
6
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.)
Stephen Giles responded to the use question and said the
applicant offered the restrictions and conditions.
Mr. Giles said the ordinance could include the use
restriction because the applicant volunteered to limit the
uses.
Reginald Wilson spoke again and made comments about the
Koger development. Mr. Wilson then asked the Commission to
vote against the 0-3.
There was additional discussion about the various issues.
The Commission then voted on the 0-3 rezoning with four
conditions and the use restriction (seven permitted uses in
0-3) to be part of the ordinance. The vote was 5 ayes,
4 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The item was deferred
to the February 22, 1994 hearing because a majority vote was
not obtained.
7
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3150-G
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Payless Cashways, Inc.
Victory Fellowship Church by
Paul Doherty
I-30 and North Chicot Road
Rezone from C-4 to C-3
Church and School
7.116 acres
Vacant Building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Multifamily, zoned MF -18
South - I-30 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned C-4
West - Multifamily and Mini -storage Units, zoned MF -18
and C-4
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone a seven acre tract from C-4 to C-3
for a church and private school. The site is situated at
the northeast corner of North Chicot Road and the I-30
Frontage Road. The property has been used as a building
supply company, but it is unoccupied at this time. There
are two structures on the site, an enclosed 49,300 square
foot building and an open shed structure. The property has
964 feet of frontage on North Chicot and approximately 400
feet of interstate frontage.
Zoning in the general vicinity includes R-2, MF -18, 0-3,
C-3, C-4, I-2 and OS. The property in question is
surrounded by either MF -18 or C-4 land. Land use is single
family, multifamily, commercial, mini -warehouse units,
industrial and a Shriner's Temple. Some of the land is
still undeveloped, including the property directly to the
east.
Rezoning this parcel to C-3 is compatible with the area and
will not affect any of the nearby properties. Over the
years, the City has endorsed a C-3, C-4 and I-2 zoning
pattern along I-30. The proposed reclassification conforms
to the adopted plan and there are no outstanding issues.
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3150-G (Cont.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted
plan recommends commercial use. No issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and
1 open position.
E
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5762
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Michael and Charlotte Hood
Michael Hood
513 South Cedar
Rezone from R-4 to 0-1
Single -Family and Office
0.15 acres
Single -Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family, zoned R-4
South - Single -Family, zoned R-4
East - Single -Family, zoned R-4
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-4
STAFF ANALYSIS
This rezoning request is before the Commission because of an
enforcement action against the property. Several months
ago, the current occupant of the residence placed an office
sign on the house, and it was sighted by an enforcement
officer. The individual occupying 513 South Cedar was told
that he must first try to rezone the lot to the appropriate
district to allow an office use on the property. After
discussing the situation with the staff, an application was
filed for a rezoning from R-4 to 0-1. The property is a
50 foot lot and there is a one story residence on it.
zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and 0-3. The property in
question abuts R-4 on three sides and the zoning across
Cedar Street is R-4. Land use in the area includes single
family, multifamily, the Veteran's Administration Hospital
and University of Arkansas Medical Sciences campus. Both
institutional uses have had an impact on the neighborhood,
and the Med Center is in an expansion phase and making its
presence known in the block from Elm to Cedar. Recently, a
major research facility was completed north of West 4th.
There are also some clinics and other ancillary uses located
in the first block east of Elm Street.
With the adoption of the first neighborhood plan for the
Woodruff School area, the city recognized the Med Center's
growth potential and identified the Elm to Cedar block for
institutional or related uses. The blocks east of Cedar
were shown for low to medium residential use, a transitional
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5762 (Cont.)
area into the established single family neighborhood. The
current plan, I-630, reinforces the neighborhood plan and
shows no nonresidential use east of Cedar. What is being
proposed with this request is a significant departure from
the adopted plan and all previous planning efforts. An
office reclassification of 513 South Cedar could have a
significant impact on the direction of the plan and create
an undesirable zoning pattern for the area. To protect the
integrity of the neighborhood, the land use plan needs to be
maintained by denying the proposed office rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the I-630 District. The adopted plan
recommends multifamily. Cedar Street has been an important
dividing line with office and medical related businesses to
the west with a 100 foot buffer West of Cedar. Between
Cedar and Pine the land use transitions from the Medical
Complex to single family with multifamily and low density
multifamily. To cross Cedar with nonresidential is a major
break in the plan. Care must be taken in changing the land
use in a transitional neighborhood. Staff cannot at this
point recommend or support violating the plan and the City's
agreement with the Woodruff neighborhood.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
South Cedar Street is classified as a collector. The
existing right-of-way is deficient, and dedication of 5 feet
is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 0-1 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994)
The applicant, Michael Hood, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Hood spoke and said the appearance of the
residence would not change. Mr. Hood discussed the office
use and said there would be some visitors coming to the
location. He then described the area and said the use was
compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hood pointed out that
the traffic count for Cedar was 5,000 cars.
There were some comments made by various individuals.
2
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5762 (Cont.)
The Commission then voted on the R-4 to 0-1 request. The
vote was 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The
rezoning was denied.
3
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5775
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
A. S. Rosen Associates, Inc.
Timothy E. Daters
White Rock Lane
Rezone from.R-2 to R-5
Multifamily - Duplex/Fourplex
0.53 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant, zoned R-2
South
- Multifamily, zoned MF -24
East
- Vacant, zoned R-2
West
- Vacant, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a
one-half acre tract of land from R-2 to R-5. The proposal
is to develop the site for duplexes and/or fourplexes. The
property is situated east of Reservoir Road and just north
of the Raintree Apartment development.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, MF -12, MF -24 and 0-3.
The site under consideration abuts R-2 and MF -24 land. The
nearby apartment project is zoned MF -24 and 0-3. Land use
found in the surrounding neighborhood is either single
family or multifamily. There is also an elementary school
on the west side of Reservoir Road.
The property in question is part of a larger tract that is
proposed for a 21 lot subdivision. The development, Brennan
Addition, will be served by a cul-de-sac from Reservoir
Road; the proposed R-5 area will only take access from white
Rock Lane. Because of the site's location and the existing
multifamily use, it appears that a reclassification to R-5
is a reasonable option for the property.
The R-5 district does allow up to 36 units per acre,
however, it also has a lot area per unit requirement to
ensure a quality development and livability. For lots
ranging from 10,000 square feet to one acre, the ordinance
requires 2,000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit.
By using the 2,000 square foot ratio, the permitted density
for this .53 acre parcel is 10 to 12 units. The number of
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5775 (Cont.)
units is compatible with the area and the R-5 rezoning
should not create any problems for the surrounding
properties.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the West Little Rock District. The adopted
plan recommends single family with park/open space along the
creek. There is multifamily across the street. If the
proposed multifamily is going to take access from White Rock
Terrace only with low density multifamily, this could be
appropriate. However, any further multifamily development
should be reviewed carefully looking not only at the site in
question, but also the remaining undeveloped single family
area to the north and west.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
White Rock Lane requires a dedication of 25 feet from the
centerline.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the R-5 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
issue was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the R-5 request. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
2
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5777
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Katherine Porfiris
Stephen Nikel
John Barrow Road and Asher
Avenue
Rezone from R-4 to C-3
Retail - Auto Parts
0.93 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-3
South - Vacant, zoned C-3
East - Single -Family, zoned R-4
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-4
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is located at the northwest corner
of the Asher Avenue/John Barrow Road intersection, and the
request is to rezone the site from R-4 to C-3. At this
time, the proposed use is the retail sale of auto parts. If
the land is rezoned to C-3, it will be combined with the
existing C-3 to the south to accommodate the intended
development. The area to be reclassified is four
residential lots and they were all platted with a 50 foot
width and a depth of 144 feet. The site fronts on two
streets, Ludwig and John Barrow Road. All of the lots are
vacant.
Zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1, C-3 and C-4. Along this
portion of Asher Avenue, the zoning is primarily commercial
and extends several hundred feet north and south of Asher.
What is being proposed with this request conforms to the
depth of the existing C-3 in the area. Land use is made-up
of single family residences or commercial uses. The
existing businesses in the area range from small retail
establishments to auto repair. Other uses found in the area
are churches and an Optimist Club ballfield. Throughout the
neighborhood, there are also parcels of land that are
undeveloped.
The Boyle Park District plan identifies the entire block,
Asher to West 46th, for commercial use. Therefore, a C-3
rezoning of the lots conforms to the plan and is an
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5777 (Cont.)
appropriate classification for the location. The C-3
rezoning, if granted, should not create any problems for the
area and will continue the established zoning pattern.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Boyle Park District. The adopted plan
recommends commercial use. No issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The existing rights-of-way for John Barrow Road and Ludwig
Street are deficient. Dedication of additional right-of-way
is required for both streets.
• 17 feet for John Barrow Road
• 5 feet for Ludwig Street
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994)
The request was represented by Brian Ross, an architect for
Auto Zone. Mr. Ross responded to a question about the
proposed development and showed a tentative site plan to the
Commission.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
K,
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: G-23-200
Name: Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way
Abandonment
Location: That portion of undeveloped
Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way east
of Bowman Road
Owner/Applicant: N. Raymond Sneed and Michael
Tierney
Recruest: To abandon that platted but
undeveloped portion of Birchwood
Drive right-of-way lying south of
Lot 2A, Erwin Addition and north of
Lot 1, Montclair Heights
Subdivision.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Wav
Initial response from other departments indicates no public
need for this portion of undeveloped right-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this portion of
undeveloped right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets.
4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain
This portion of Birchwood Drive has never been physically
developed and the area of the right-of-way is heavily
wooded.
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the area of the abandoned right-of-way will
be added to the adjacent properties and included in future
development plans.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The adjacent properties, fronting on Bowman Road, are vacant
and undeveloped. The property adjacent to the north of the
right-of-way has recently been rezoned to C-1 and the
property to the south is zoned R-2.
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-200
A larger area of commercial zoning is located across Bowman
Road to the west and the Birchwood residential neighborhood
is situated to the east.
7. Neighborhood Position
In previous public hearings regarding the adjacent
properties, the residents of the Birchwood neighborhood have
voiced a desire to have this right-of-way abandoned.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The area of the abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a
utility easement. There will be no effect on public
services or utilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to the adjacent property
owners, N. Raymond and Mary V. Sneed and the Tierney -Hale
Partnership.
10. Public welfare and Safety Issues
Abandonment of this unused and undeveloped portion of right-
of-way will return to the private sector a land area that
will be productive for the real estate tax base. It will
also eliminate the possibility of the street being built
which would have a negative impact on the adjacent
residential neighborhood.
11. City Engineer Comment
Close right-of-way
curb and gutter at
asphalt as needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
to the Alamo Drive intersection. Install
Alamo Drive intersection and remove
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the area
of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility
easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 11, 1994)
The applicant, Michael Tierney, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
2
January 11, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-200
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the City Engineer's
Office had revised its comments and was no longer recommending
that the right-of-way be closed to Alamo Drive as a part of this
application. The City Engineer's Office still feels that the
right-of-way should be closed to Alamo Drive at some point.
The Commission then placed this item on the Consent Agenda for
approval, as recommended by staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent, 1 abstaining (Hall) and 1 open position.
3
O
w
ry
LU
O
Z
O
U)
O
U
Z
Z
Z
CL
c�
W
Q
D
n
IQ
jl
.0
CD
c
0
Q
m
c
CD
CD
2
F --
Z
w
cn
m
01
f
I
l
FFI
i -n
,
L
_ Z
0
W
Zcn
Z
<
m
w
cr,
U
WW
LLI
Jm
J
QO
:EZ
-J
W
z
O
�
z z
w
J
O
W
LU
O
0
-�
w
1D
O
�o
N
Z
=
Q
m3:
z
O
�W
m
o
O
�j
c
p
N
77-
m
2Cr
a
1h,
LL
c J
w
Q
z
w
w
-7
--J
LLJ
J
�
0
W
c�
0
z
Z
J
z
O
=
Q
W
uJ
��
W
W
-1
L1J
O
J
Z
W
U
Z
m
w
O
m
C�
m
-'
z
U
-'
Z
o=
0
0
W
<L
Z
Cn
o
O
J
w
W
Q=
m
U
-�
U
U
Z
J
O>
z
O=
a
O
'S
Lu
co
Q
n
IQ
jl
.0
CD
c
0
Q
m
c
CD
CD
2
F --
Z
w
cn
m
01
I
l
FFI
W
Zcn
Z
<
m
w
cr,
U
WW
LLI
Jm
J
QO
:EZ
-J
W
z
O
�
z z
w
J
O
W
LU
O
0
-�
w
1D
O
�o
N
Z
=
Q
m3:
z
O
�W
m
o
O
�j
c
p
N
77-
m
2Cr
n
IQ
jl
.0
CD
c
0
Q
m
c
CD
CD
2
F --
Z
w
cn
m
01
January 11, 1994
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Date `� ✓��
ce
S cretary Chairman
1