pc_02 26 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 26, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 9 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Jerilyn Nicholson
John Schelereth
Richard Massie
Bill Rector
Betty Sipes
Dorothy Arnett
David Jones
Ida Boles
John Clayton
William Ketcher
Jim Summerlin
Vickie Fewell
February 26, 1985
Item No. A -Z-4373-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Jesse Smith
Same
1518 Wright Avenue
Rezone from "R-4" to "C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial
Parking area
Existing Use:
5,700 square feet+
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
STAFF REPORT
-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
-Vacant, Zoned "R-6"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
-Vacant, Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
This issue is on the Planning Commission agenda at the
request of the Board of Directors. In December 1984, the
Planning Commission denied a rezoning to "C-1" for the
property at 1520 Wright Avenue. At the Planning
Commission's Public Hearing, a number of residents spoke in
opposition to the request and voiced concerns with parking
and traffic. The owner, Jesse Smith, appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to the Board of Directors in February
of this year. The Board of Directors deferred action on the
"C-1" rezoning at 1520 Wright Avenue (Z-4373) to allow the
owner to try to resolve the parking issue.
At the direction of the Board of Directors, the owner,
Jesse Smith, filed a rezoning application for the lot at
1518 Wright Avenue. Mr. Smith owns both lots at 1518 and
1520 Wright Avenue. The Board of Directors suggested this
approach because they thought that the additional lot could
provide a solution to the parking problem and that the
Planning Commission could address the request as a package
because of adequate land area for a commercial use. Some of
the Board members were also concerned about another
structure, 1520 Wright Avenue, remaining vacant in the
neighborhood.
February 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
Staff supported the "C-1" rezoning for 1520 Wright Avenue
and supports the current request for 1518 Wright Avenue. A
"C-1" reclassification is appropriate for this location on
Wright, a minor arterial, and also because of the zoning and
land use patterns in the area. Additionally, "C-1"
neighborhood commercial district should be more compatible
with a residential neighborhood. A two-lot "C-1" site
fronting on Wright Avenue should have a minimal impact on
the single family neighborhood to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-1" request for
1518 Wright Avenue and still supports the "C-1"
reclassification for 1520 Wright Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(Note: Items A and A-1, Z-4373, were discussed at the same
time.)
The applicant, Jesse Smith, was present. There were seven
to eight objectors in attendance. Staff informed the
Planning Commission that a petition with 25 signatures was
submitted prior to the Public Hearing. James Isum,
representing the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the
request. Mr. Isum said that the residents were opposed to
"C-1" for both lots at 1518 and 1520 Wright Avenue. He said
that the rezoning would have a severe impact on the
neighborhood, and parking would still create a problem, even
with the additional lot. Mr. Isum went on to say that the
proposed parking lot could add to the problems in the area
and the commercial rezoning would increase traffic. This
was a major concern to the neighborhood, because Bishop
Street is used by children for some of their activities.
Mr. Isum pointed out that the location was a high crime area
and that there was a need to protect the corner and keep
commercial encroachment from turning north on Bishop.
Thomas Brodneck, a representative of Arkansas Baptist
College, spoke in opposition to the request. He expressed
the same concerns as Mr. Isum and stated that the
neighborhood needed to remain residential. Mr. L. Carson
spoke for Mr. Smith. He said that the property was listed
for at least two years and that it was unsuitable for
residential use. Mr. Carson said that the commercial
rezoning would enhance the area. Jesse Smith then spoke
briefly and submitted a proposed parking scheme.
Mrs. v. Isum spoke against the rezoning and disagreed with
Mr. Carson. She said that a commercial use would create
many problems for the neighborhood and that there was a need
February 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
to maintain the residential character. There was some
discussion about an "0-1" or "0-3" compromise and filing a
conditional use permit for the beauty shop. Mr. Isum again
expressed concerns about the parking lot. Another person
voiced their thoughts about the parking and traffic
problems. Mr. Carson spoke briefly about some of the
issues. After additional comments, the Planning Commission
voted on the "C-1" rezoning as filed. The vote: 0 ayes,
9 noes and 2 absent. The request was denied.
-·
February 26, 1985
Item No. Al -Z-4373
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Jesse Smith
Sarne
1510 Wright Avenue
Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to
"C-1" Neighborhood Commercial
Beauty Shop and Retail
5,700 square feet+
Vacant residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
west
-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
-Vacant, Zoned "R-6"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
-Duplex, Zoned "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal for 1520 Wright Avenue is to convert an
existing two story residential structure into a beauty
shop with some limited retail. This lot is one of
seven lots on the north side of Wright between High and
Summit that are still zoned for low density residential
use. The remainder of the five block strip from High
to Summit is zoned "C-3." In addition, a majority of
the south side of Wright along the five block stretch
is zoned "C-3" except for the "0-3" and "R-6" lots on
the block directly to the south of the property in
question. The zoning pattern along Wright is fairly
cons is tent with the "C-3" but the land use is more
mixed. There is some residential use in the "C-3" area
and the commercial uses vary but, for the most part,
they are neighborhood oriented. Because of the
existing zoning and development found along Wright, the
proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood. It
appears that the long-term desirability of residential
use for lots on Wright in this strip is questionable.
With the heavy traffic flow and the development trends,
the existing residential uses will probably be phased
out over the corning years.
,_
, '
February 26, 1985
Item No. Al -Continued
2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story
structure.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no neighborhood position or documented history
on the site.
7. With "C-3" being the predominant zoning classification
in the immediate area and continued residential use
becoming less desirable along Wright Avenue, staff
supports the rezoning. The proposed use, a beauty
shop, is more neighborhood oreiented and should hae
very little impact on the surrounding properties. In
addition, the "C-1" zone is the neighborhood commercial
district so that makes it more appropriate for the
location being at the corner of a minor arterial right
and a residential street. It is anticipated that the
remaining residential lots in the immediate area will
be considered for rezoning changes in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-1" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-18-84)
The applicant, Jesse Smith, was present. There were four
objectors also present. Staff indicated that a petition
opposing the request had been submitted prior to the public
hearing. James Ison spoke and objected to the request
because of a number of problems in the area including
traffic and parking. Mr. Smith said parking would be
provided on-site. Another resident voiced his opposition
and said that the corner could not accommodate the proposed
use. Jo Martin, a property owner, said she had problems
with the use and expressed other concerns because of the
elderly and children in the neighborhood. Jesse Smith
spoke again. The Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of the "C-1" request. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes
and 1 absent. The request was denied.
February 26, 1985
Item No. Al -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-26-85)
(Note:
record.
Refer to Item A, Z-4373-A for the complete minute
The two items were discussed together.}
The Planning Commission reaffirmed their previous denial of
Z-4373 at this hearing by voting O ayes, 9 noes and
2 absent. The "C-1" rezoning was denied.
February 26, 1985
Item No. l -Z-1716-C
Owner: Pleasant Ridge Development Co.
Same by Chris Barrier Applicant:
Location: State Highway 110, north side,
east of South Ridge Drive
Request: Rezone from "R-4" Single Family
to "0-2" Office and Institutional
Purpose: Office Development
Size: 2.40 acres+
Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South -vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East -Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
west -Public, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop the site for an office use.
The property is located along a section of Highway #10
that is beginning to experience a change in land use.
To the east, a church is under construction and to the
west and south substantial zoning changes are being
proposed for a large tract of land. If all the
requests are granted, the character of the area will be
completely changed and create a significant
office/retail location along the Highway #10 corridor.
The property in question should be viewed as having
some land use potential other than residential because
of being part of this larger area. A quality office
project should not detract from the immediate vicinity
and not adversely impact the surrounding properties.
2. The site is occupied by a single family residence and
the remainder of it is vacant with woods. The property
has some grade, but it is not of a difficult degree.
3. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway #10
will be required. The City Engineer has determined
that SO feet from the centerline is necessary for
Highway 110.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 1 -Continued
4. Engineering reports limited access on Highway #10 and
street improvements for Highway #10. There have been
no other adverse problems received from the reviewing
agencies.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. This site in question has a lengthy history to it. In
September of 1983, an application was filed for "0-3."
That request received strong opposition from the Walton
Heights neighborhood. A petition with 310 signatures
was submitted and the rezoning was denied. No appeal
was made to the Board of Directors. In December of
1983, a PCD was applied for and approved by the
Planning Commission, but denied by the Board of
Directors. Again, the Walton Heights residents
objected to the proposed PCD and presented a petition
with 372 names opposed to the request. The
neighborhood expressed their support for the Suburban
Development Plan in both instances. With the two
requests, staff recommended denial. (These two
applications were filed for the larger of two tracts
that have been combined for this rezoning proposal.)
7. In the past, staff did not support any reclassification
for the location because of the Suburban Development
Plan and other concerns. Staff's position has now
changed because of a recent planning study undertaken
for Highway #10 from I-430 to Pankey. The committee
that was responsible for formulating the plan for that
corridor has recommended office use for this site and
staff is in agreement with that concept. Staff feels
that an office reclassification is appropriate for the
site but not for an entire tract as filed. Staff's
recommendation is "0-2" for the property west of the
east boundary extended from Highway #10 to Southridge.
This would exclude that portion that abuts the curve in
Southridge Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends "0-2" for the tract west of the east
property line extended from Highway #10 north to Southridge
Drive.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 1 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(Note: Items No. 1 -Z-1716-C, No. 8 -Z-4410 and No. 9 -
Z-4411 were discussed at the same time.}
The applicants, Winrock Development Company and Pleasant
Ridge Development Company, were present. Both parties were
represented by Chris Barrier, Attorney. There were
approximately 20 objectors in attendance. The first items
to be discussed were the proposed land use plan and the
realignment of Southridge Drive. Jim Lawson of the Planning
staff addressed those issues and spoke at length about the
Southridge Drive realignment. The discussion centered
around how the City would be assured of the street
improvements taking place. Mr. Lawson described two
possible options: (1) a tri-party agreement, or (2) filing
a final plat. There was a long discussion about those
items. The City Attorney present expressed some concerns
with the proposed agreements because of the possibility of
contract zoning. The Planning Commission then turned their
attention to the three rezoning requests before them. Chris
Barrier addressed the proposed rezonings. He first spoke
about Item No. 9 -Z-4411, and presented a new zoning
proposal which showed all the commercial land to be located
on the east side of Pleasant Ridge Drive with some office
zoning on both sides of Pleasant Ridge Drive. There was a
long discussion about the alternative plan. Mr. Barrier
then went on to indicate that the Pleasant Ridge Development
Company agreed with the staff recommendation for Z-1716-C,
and Winrock was not opposed to the 75 foot "OS" strip, as
suggested by the staff for Z-4410. Again, there was a
lengthy discussion about the issue of contract zoning. Ron
Tyne of Winrock spoke briefly and discussed the various
concerns. At this point, John Schlereth, suggested that the
Planning Commission could adopt a resolution rescinding the
plat if the rezonings were not approved by the Board of
Directors. David Henry, a resident on Woodland Heights
Road, then addressed the Commission. He presented some
background information on the area and Highway #10. He said
that the proposed rezoning would have an impact on the area.
He also discussed the various planning efforts addressing
the Highway #10 area. He pointed out that the Suburban
Development Plan recommended two sites for neighborhood
commercial, not stripping out Highway #10, and preserving
the Highway #10 corridor. Mr. Henry then presented a 1980
letter from Pleasant Ridge Development Company that
described the proposed plan for the land in question. The
development concept then was very limited. He expressed
February 26, 1985
Item No. l -Continued
some concerns with the proposed site plan and stated that
the area's residents were opposed to the three rezoning
requests, Z-1716-C, Z-4410 and Z-4411. A petition with 138
signatures against the rezonings was then presented to the
Planning Commission. J.D. Crockett, representing the Walton
Heights neighborhood, spoke and addressed the Highway #10
Study Plan. He indicated that they were not opposed to the
rezonings because of the proposed signalization of the
Highway #10 and Southridge intersection. John Hugg, a
resident on Summit Road, spoke against the rezoning and said
that the request was inconsistent with basic zoning because
of the conflict between residential and nonresidential uses.
Ernest Rush was opposed to the proposal and said that the
quality of life in the area was disappearing. Kurt Henley
spoke against the Highway #10 Study, because he said it had
too many problems. He said there was a lot of opposition to
the plan and rezonings. Chris Barrier addressed the
Commission about the various concerns. He said that the
developers were opposed to stripping out Highway #10, and
the residential area could be protected. There was a long
discussion by the Planning Commission about various issues.
The Commission members decided to vote on each request, but
not to forward the recommendations to the Board of Directors
until the final plat has been filed for the Winrock property
on the north side of Highway #10. The Commission then voted
to recommend approval of Z-1716-C, as amended, and not
forward it to the Board of Directors until the final plat
has been filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
,._ February 26, 1985
Item No. 2 -Z-4393
Owner: John B. McDaniel/Robert and
Becky Fain
Applicant: John B. McDaniel
Location: Mann Road and Walnut Street
(Mabel vale)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-1" and
"C-3"
Purpose: Office and commercial
0.86 acres+
Residential
Size:
Existing Use:
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
-Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2"
-Vacant, Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
-Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R-2"
-Church, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is for a total of five lots, four for
"C-3" and one for "O-1." The property is located in a
part of Mabelvale that has a mix of land uses,
including a large church and an industrial operation.
In addition, there are some railroad tracks directly
across the lots fronting Mann Road. Because of these
existing conditions in the immediate vicinity, it
appears that this particular area on the south side of
the tracks is appropriate for some nonresidential
rezoning.
2. The site is made up of five typical residential lots
with a single family residence on the Mann Road
frontage and one building on the Walnut Street lot.
The structure on Walnut Street is known as the Cochran
House, and is reported to be the oldest existing
structure in Mabelvale. The owners have provided the
staff with a written history of the property and house,
which will be available for review at the Pubic
Hearing.
~-
February 26, 1985
Item No. 2 -Continued
3. Both Mann Road and Walnut Streets are currently shown
on the Master Street Plan. Because of this, dedication
of additional right-of-way will be required for both
roads. Engineering will provide the amount of
right-of-way needed and address the possibility of
downgrading Walnut to a collector, because of some
proposed Master Street Plan changes in the general
area.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing. Street
improvements will be required for both Mann Road and
Walnut Street.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The area was annexed into the City in 1977.
7. This location is part of the Otter Creek Plan and the
preliminary draft of the plan only identifies a strip
north of the railroad tracks along Mabelvale Pike for
commercial use. Staff agrees with this, but also feels
that there could be an area south of the railroad
tracks for commercial development, and the property in
question appears to be the best suited for this.
Because of the existing uses in the area and being
located at the intersection of two potential major
streets, the site does lend itself to some
nonresidential zoning, especially for the lots fronting
the railroad tracks. In this particular situation,
staff supports the "C-3" rezoning but not the "0-1"
request. The block is divided by an alley, and staff
feels that this is an appropriate division between
residential and nonresidential zoning in the area.
Nonresidential rezoning south of the alley could create
some problems in the future, because there would not be
an adequate physical separation between the different
zoning districts. The alley does provide a good buffer
and would be easier to maintain as a zoning line at
that point. Going beyond the alley is encroaching into
the area that has stronger residential
characteristics.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "C-3" as filed, but not the
11 0-1. II
February 26, 1985
Item No. 2 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, John McDaniel, was present and was
represented by Robert McHenry. There were no objectors in
attendance. Mr. McHenry addressed the proposal, especially
the "0-1" request for Lot 7 on Walnut Street. He then went
on to describe the "Cochran House" and presented some photos
of it. Mr. McHenry also informed the Planning Commission
that the alley that the staff identified had been closed for
years. There was a long discussion about the land use in
the immediate vicinity. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the "0-1" and "C-3" requests as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 3 -Z-4394
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Bonnie Williams
Same
7177 Mabelvale Cut-Off (West of
Chicot Road)
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3
Fruit Stand
9,100 square feet
vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
-Duplex, Zoned "R-2"
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
-Church, Zoned "R-2"
NOTE: The owner has requested that this item be withdrawn
from the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted to withdraw this item from the
agenda at the request of the owner. The vote: 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 4 -Z-4395
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Curtistene Barnes
Same
4118 West 11th Street
Rezone from "R-3" Single Family
to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial
Beauty Shop
5,980 square feet
Existing Use: Single Family Residence/Beauty
Shop (nonconforming}
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
-Office, Zoned "O-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This request is before the Planning Commission as a
result of an enforcement action by the City Zoning
Office. The beauty shop is currently in place and
operating. The property is located just north of an
area along West 12th that has had a number of rezoning
changes, primarily to "C-3." For the most part, the
existing commercial zoning is restricted to the block
between 11th and 12th on both the north and south sides
of West 12th. There is exception to that pattern, and
that is along West 13th from Cedar to Oak. The "C-3"
zoning is along the south side of West 13th, but that
area has been zoned for years and has the potential of
being a neighborhood commercial center. Also, the
majority of the structures are commercial buildings
with very few single family residences. The lot at
4118 West 11th is across the street from "C-3" zoning,
a food store, but is located in a block that is all
single family except for the use to the west, which is
an office. In the immediate vicinity north of
West 11th, the primary land use is still single family.
2. The site is a typical residential lot with two
structures on it. The accessory structure at the rear
of the property is being used for the beauty shop.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 4 -Continued
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. Engineering reports that parking and access are a
problem; parking must be provided to meet current
Code. There have been no other comments received from
the reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history of the site. Staff has
received some informational calls concerning the
request.
7. This area is part of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan,
which does not reflect a commercial zoning at this
location. Because of this and the possibility of
encouraging further commercial encroachment north of
West 11th, staff does not support the "C-1" request.
The use of a beauty shop does not seem to have created
problems for the neighborhood, but there are other uses
permitted in "C-1" that could have a negative impact on
the area. The owner does have another option, and that
is requesting either "0-1" or "0-3" which does permit
beauty shops as conditional uses. Staff feels that
this is a viable alternative because of the large
commercial involvement to the south and the "0-3" lot
to the west. An office reclassification is more
appropriate for this location and should have less of
an impact on the neighborhood than a commercial
rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of "C-1."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Curtistene Barnes, was present. There were
no objectors. Ms. Barnes spoke briefly and agreed to
amending her request to "0-1." There was some discussion
about the conditional use permit that would be required for
the beauty shop. A motion was made to recommend approval of
the amended application to "0-1," waive additional filing
fees, no renotification of property owners be required and
that the use continue to operate. The motion passed by a
vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 5 -Z-4404
Owner: o.c. Flynn
Same Applicant:
Location: 512 North Oak
Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family
to "R-5" Urban Residence
Purpose: Multifamily/3 Units
Size:
Existing Use:
7,000 square feet
Multifamily (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
-Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
-Duplex, Zoned "R-5"
-Single Family, zoned "R-3"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone
a single lot to "R-5" to allow the expansion of a
nonconforming use. The structure currently has three
units, and the owner wishes to place a 14 1/2 x 26 1/2
foot addition at the rear of the building to enlarge
one of the existing units. Expanding a nonconforming
use cannot be done without first gaining proper
zoning. The lot is located in a block that has a very
mixed zoning pattern, including "C-3" and "I-2", and
the land use is somewhat similar. A majority of the
properties are residential, with the exception of one
lot on Kavanaugh that has a commercial use. The
property in question abuts an "R-5" lot to the south
that was rezoned in the mid-60's and, from the field
check, it appears to be used for a duplex. Across
North Oak, there are two "R-4" lots, but the entire
half block is only single family residences. In this
block, the primary use is single family or duplex with
"MF" multifamily to the south on Lee.
2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single
structure on it.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 5 -Continued
4. Engineering has suggested that improved parking should
be required on the property. There have been no other
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. Staff has
received some informational calls, and a few of the
residents have expressed concerns with parking.
7. Staff's position is one of nonsupport for the "R-5"
request. The staff recognizes the existing three
units, but is concerned with additional "R-5"
encroachment in the mid-block and the potential for
increasing the number of units if the zoning is
granted. The three units seem to have had minimal
impact on the neighborhood, but rezoning the lot could
change that. Staff realizes that the lot at 512 North
Oak abuts an "R-5" property to the south, but that
appears to be misplaced, and staff would not have
supported the rezoning at that location. The continued
zoning disruption of the block is inappropriate and
should not be advocated by approving this request. The
Heights Hillcrest Plan recommends an area along
Kavanaugh for multifamily use where "R-5" is in place
and staff agrees with that. The plan shows the
multifamily to include the first three lots south of
Kavanaugh along North Oak and not beyond that point.
One final item is the parking. Several residents have
said that it is currently a problem, and "R-5" zoning
could aggravate that situation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, O.C. Flynn, was present. There was one
objector present. Mr. Flynn addressed the Commission and
stated that the structure had been used as a triplex for
approximately 15 years. He went on to say that the building
needed to be enlarged and that the three units would be
maintained. Ron Newman, a resident of the area, expressed
concerns with the "R-5" zoning because of the possibility of
increasing the number of units. Mr. Newman also pointed out
that there was a parking problem on the street. At this
point, there was a long discussion about utilizing a PRD for
the location. Mr. Flynn indicated that he had no plans for
February 26, 1985
Item No. 5 -Continued
adding additional units and was receptive to the PRD
concept. A motion was made to recommend that the request
for 512 North Oak be converted to a PRD, that additional
filing fees be waived and no further notification be
required with the exception of those property owners that
submitted written objections to the staff. The motion
passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
.. --. February 26, 1985
Item No. 6 -Z-4408
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Perry w. Norwood
Darcia Norwood
1608 Nichols Road
Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "I-2" Light Industrial
Office and Contractor Yard
7,000 square feet
Parking and Storage
(nonconforming}
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
-Industrial, zoned "R-2"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
-vacant, Zoned "R-2"
-vacant, zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone one lot to "I-2" for a paving
company office. An existing mobile home is currently
being utilized for the office, and it is the owner's
plan to replace that with a newer structure. The lot
will also be used for storage and parking for the
paving company. The entire operation is on four or
five lots, so it is a substantial noncomforming use in
the area. At this time, it is unknown as to how long
the use has been in place. The surrounding
neighborhood is either single family residences or
vacant lots. There are some minor commercial uses
found in the area, but not to the scale of this
particular use. It does not appear that legitimizing
an industrial use at this location would be beneficial
for the neighborhood or the most appropriate action to
take. It is anticipated that some type of
redevelopment will occur in the area, but not for heavy
commercial or industrial uses. Those types of
developments are not compatible with the surrounding
area. The only recent rezoning activity in the
vicinity has been for "R-4" to the south of
West 20th Street.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 6 -Continued
2. The site is primarily asphalted with a metal building
at the rear of the property.
3. The survey shows 40 feet of right-of-way for Nichols
Street, so it appears that some additional dedication
will be required to meet standards for a residential
street. The normal right-of-way for a residential
street is 50 feet.
4. Engineering states that: (1) boundary street
requirements (1/2 street construction to industrial
standards) along Nichols Street and (2) Planning
Commission should be made aware that area streets are
inadequate for industrial traffic. There have been no
other adverse comments received from the reviewing
agencies as of this writing.
5. The only apparent issue is the creation of a spot
zoning.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The area was annexed to the City in 1983.
7. The I-430 District Plan addresses this area, and the
Land Use Plan shows continued residential use for the
neighborhood. The Plan recommends small lot single
family development with the closest nonresidential use,
suburban office, located on the west side of Aldersgate
Road. Because of this and other concerns, staff does
not support the "I-2" rezoning. The I-430 Plan
specifically addresses this area, The Hicks Interurban
Addition on pages 13-15. The text describes the
subdivision and then goes on to list three possible
options for the neighborhood: (1) maintaining the
status quo: (2) upgrading the area; or (3) total
redevelopment. None of the alternatives make mention
of commercial and industrial uses as a possibility for
the future. The redevelopment section states that,
"the optimal use of the area is residential given the
surrounding existing and proposed land uses."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" request.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 6 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Darcia Norwood, was present. There were
approximately 14 persons objecting to the request in
attendance. Ms. Norwood spoke and gave a history of the
location occupied by the paving company. She stated that
the operation relocated to Lots 16 and 17 in 1981 and then
enlarged to Lots 14 and 15 at a later date. She also
indicated that Lot 17 would primarily be used for an office
and that it was a good location for their use because of its
proximity to I-430 and I-630. Ms. Norwood then presented
some slides of the area and discussed at length the Hicks
Interurban Addition, including land use and other
nonconforming uses. Because of the makeup of the area, she
felt that it was losing its desirability as a residential
neighborhood. Mr. J. Wallace spoke in opposition to the
request. He said that the streets were a problem and that
it should be kept as a residential neighborhood. Danny Nash
discussed Ms. Norwood's presentation and slides. He then
presented photos of the neighborhood and the property in
question. He said that he was against the rezoning because
the area is inadequate for the use and was creating many
problems. Another resident spoke about various problems.
Wanda Shipp, the property owner to the north, indicated that
she was totally opposed to the request. George Snider,
representing the property owner on the east side of Nichols
then spoke. He said that he recognized the nonconforming
aspect, but the continued use would impact properties in the
area. He also expressed concern with the issue of spot
zoning. Lauren Milligan spoke against the rezoning because
of children and their safety. Ms. Norwood spoke again and
addressed the various issues raised by the residents. There
was a long discussion about the request and its
appropriateness. A vote was then taken on the "I-2"
request. The vote: 0 ayes, 7 noes and 4 absent. The
rezoning was denied.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 7 -Z-4409
Owner: Lenon Bradford
Same Applicant:
Location: East 9th and Picron Street,
southwest corner
Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family
to "C-3" General Commercial
Purpose: Eating place
Size:
Existing Use:
5290 Square Feet+
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
west
-Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3"
-Single Family, zoned "R-3"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
-Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1 • The proposal is to rezone the property to "C-3" for a
restaurant. The site is located in an area that is
primarily occupied by residential uses. The
predominant zoning classification is "R-3" with some
nonresidential zoning to the northeast "I-2" and to the
south along East 10th. Lots that are on East 10th with
"C-3" or "I-2" zoning are across the street from the
Airport's property, a major nonresidential use in the
area. A use such as the airport with related
facilities could provide some justification for the
commercial/industrial zoning on the north side of
East 10th. Those lots are confined to just a
three-block area along this portion of East 10th. The
land use on East 10th is still mixed with some "C-3"
and "I-2" lots occupied by residential uses. North of
East 10th, the land use in the immediate vicinity is
residential with the exception of one block north of
East 9th, and that site was rezoned a number of years
ago to "I-2." It appears that a commercial
reclassification for this property is inappropriate and
could have a negative impact on the surrounding
residential uses. There are also some questions as to
whether the property could accommodate a quality
commercial use with the necessary parking and other
requirements.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 7 -Continued
2. The site is a vacant lot with street frontage on three
sides.
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. (Access shall
be coordinated with the City Engineer before any permit
is approved.)
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on this site.
7. Staff's position is that this rezoning, if granted,
would create a commercial spot zoning at an
inappropriate location along East 9th, and is opposed
to the request. The potential for this proposed
rezoning to /adversely impact the residential character
of the immediate neighborhood is too great and
outweighs any benefits from the project. The long-term
goal of the East Little Rock community is to
concentrate and establish a quality neighborhood
commercial center on East 6th Street in close proximity
to the East Little Rock Community Complex. This
proposal is counter to that objective and should not be
granted. Every effort should be made to strengthen and
preserve this residential neighborhood, and this
rezoning could disrupt that.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff informed the Commission that the owner/applicant had
not notified the required property owners and the item
needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the
request to the March 26, 1985 meeting. The motion passed by
a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
,,.--,
February 26, 1985
Item No. 8 -Z-4410
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Winrock Development Company
Joe White
State Highway #10, North Side,
West of Southridge Drive
Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "OS" Open Space, "MF"
Multifamily and "0-2" Office
and Institutional
Multifamily and office development
"OS": 7.51 acres
"O-2": 7.37 acres
Multifamily, "MF-12": 13.69
acres
Total: 28.57 acres
Existing Use:
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
west
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
-Vacant, Multifamily & Commercial,
Zoned "MF-12 and 18", "C-1" and "C-2"
-Vacant and Public, Zoned "R-2"
-AP&L Substation, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF REPORT:
This proposal is part of the Highway #10 corridor that was
addressed by the Highway #10 Study Committee. This request,
as is submitted, conforms to the proposed land use plan that
has been recommended by the Committee. The plan/report has
not been acted on by the Board of Directors.
The comments from Engineering are:
1. Southridge Drive to be relocated to Pleasant Ridge
Road.
2. The intersection required to be signalized.
February 26, 1985
Item No. 8 -Continued
3. Right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from centerline
for Highway #10.
4. Boundary street improvements required.
5. All improvements must conform to Highway #10 Study
Committee requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "OS,11 "02" and "MF12" with
an "OS" strip for the north 75 feet of the MF tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(Note: Refer to Item 1 -Z-1716-C for the complete minute
record.)
Ron Tyne of Winrock Development Company discussed the
recommended "OS" strip and agreed to amending the
application to include a 75-foot "OS" strip for multifamily
tract. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval
of the amended request and not forward the recommendation to
the Board of Directors until a final plat has been filed.
The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The amended request
was approved.
,,,,._
._
--
February 26,
Item No. 9 -
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
1985
Z-4411
Pleasant Ridge Development Co.
Same by Chris Barrier
State Highway #10 at Pleasant
Ridge and Woodland Heights Roads
Rezone from "R-2", "C-1" and
"C-2" to "0-2" and "C-2"
Mixed Use -Commercial Center
and Office
"0-2":
"C-2":
Total:
6.81 acres
8.13 acres
14.94 acres
Existing Use: Vacant and Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South
East
West
-Vacant, Single Family and Public, Zoned "R-2"
-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and
"0-3"
Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
-Multifamily, Zoned "MF-18"
STAFF REPORT:
This request is for land located along Highway #10 that is
included in the document prepared by the Highway il0 Study
Committee. The plan/report has yet to be formally acted on
by the City.
The proposal, for the most part, conforms to the land use
plan as recommended by the Committee. Staff is in agreement
with a mix of commercial and office uses, but feels
uncomfortable with the proposed zoning lines as submitted
with this request. Because of this concern, staff is
preparing several options to the requested rezoning that
will be presented at the public hearing.
Staff recognizes the report's recommendation of 12 acres for
commercial use, and that is not at issue, but rather the
location and size of some of the proposed tracts. The
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of two acres for "0-2"
and five acres for "C-2." Several of the parcels are less
than the Ordinance requirements in terms of size. Also,
February 26, 1985
Item No. 9 -Continued
staff is concerned with the general configuration of the
various zoning proposals and how the different sites will
work together.
The Engineering staff has provided the following comments:
1. Intersection required to be signalized.
2. Right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from centerline
for Highway #10.
3. Boundary street improvements required.
4. Access onto Highway #10 must be coordinated and
approved by City Engineer.
5. All improvements must conform to Highway #10 Study
Committee requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not support the rezoning as proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(Note: Refer to Item No. 1 -Z-1716-C for complete minute
record.)
Jim Lawson of the Planning staff and Lou Schickel, one of
the developers, addressed the Planning Commission about the
various issues prior to a vote being taken on the request.
After additional comments, the Commission voted to recommend
approval of the amended application as submitted by the
owner, and that the item not be forwarded to the Board of
Directors until a final plat has been filed. Also included
in the vote was a provision that the required site plan
review occur prior to any excavation taking place on the
property. The vote: 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. The
amended request was approved.
The Planning Commission then acted on a motion to approve a
resolution stating that if one of the three rezoning
proposals, Z-1716-C, Z-4410 and Z-4411, is not approved by
the City Board of Directors, the final plat for the Winrock
property on the north side of Highway #10 will be rescinded.
The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.