pc_06 25 1985,,,-..._
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 25, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
II.
A quorum was present being 10 in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Me eting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Members Present:Jerilyn Nicholson William Ketcher Bill Rector Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes
Members Absent:
City Attorn ey:
John Clayton David Jones Jim Summerlin Ida Boles
Dorothy Arnett
Pat Benton
June 25, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: The Heig hts Theatre "PCD" ( Z-2827-A)
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Flake & Co./Geo. Wells P.O. Box 990 Cromwell, Tr uemp er, Levy, Parker and Woodsmall Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 376-8005 #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900
AREA: 1.19 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing -"R-2" Proposed -"PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
A.
B.
Site History
The current development consists of a theatre originally constructed in 1945 and an adjacent restaurant. The theatre consists of a projection booth on the second level of 1,371 square feet , a theatre area of 9,759 square feet and the restaurant on the ground floor consists of 4,254 square feet.
Devel opment Proposal/Objectives
1.The renovation of an existing theatre/restaurantof 15,384 square feet into 16,263 square feet fora shopping mall with a possible office useupstairs and retail shops downstairs, all on 1.19acres.
2.To provide a covered corridor separating theexisting lobby area from the remainder of thebuilding so that pedestrians from the parking lotcan have better access to storefronts facingKavanaugh Boulevard, which will result in a lossof 500 feet from the original square footage.
3.To provide a potential office or restaurantupstairs with access from a stairway off theparking lot and to increase this area to 4,121square feet.
June 25, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
c.
4.Parking will consist of 66 spaces on-site.
5.The tenant mix will be comparable to the existingneighborhood. The proposed uses will conform tothe "C-1" and "0-3" Districts.
6.Time frame for development:
(1)October 1, 1985 -acquisition of ti tle byFlake and Company stockholers;
(2)Commenc ement of construction -immediatelyafterward;
(3)Completion/opening by February 1, 1986.
Engineering Comments
Comments to be provided at the meeting.
D.Analysis
Staff is favorable to the concept presented. Theproposed parking conforms to the required amount ofspaces, namely 1 per 400 square feet for office and 1per 300 square feet for commercial; however, therequirement for restaurants is 1 per every 100 squarefoot of space will not be met if the projection boothis converted to a restaurant. The applicant is alsorequested to explain the access to the rubbish.
E. Staff Recomm endation
Approval, subject to comments made.
F. Subdivision Committee Review:
The applicant was requested to provide staff wit hinformation regarding the maximum amount of squarefootage to be devoted to restaurant use before thepublic he aring.
June 25, 198 5
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. George Wells represented the developer. Numerous residents from the neig hborhood and merchants of the area were present. The main concerns of the residents were possible adverse impacts to their property values and fear of an increase in traffic along their st reets due to a shortage of parking. The merchants were also concerned about the lack of parking. Staff reported that letters of opposition had been received from:
(1)W.W. and Vera Pate of 5722 Stonewall -"in vehementopposition" to the change in use; and
(2)Mr. Lawrence A. Parker of 5723 Stonewall, who felt that(a)notices were improper and untimely; and (b) theBill of Assurance restricted Lots 134 and 135 of ForestHeights Place to single family residential use only.
Mr. Parker requested that there be no exit onto Stonewall or Forest Heights, there be a su itable and properly maintained tree and shrub buffer strip and that some consideration be made to prohibit the parking of commercial, employee and customer autos in and along the residential st reets in this area, as well as all other residential areas of the City.
The Commission felt that proper notice had been given since the intent of the notice requirement was to inform the public even though the appl icant had failed to get the notice receipt stamped with a date indicating mailing 10 days before the public hearing. Staff determined that the amount of parking spaces were short nine spaces since the applicant was now proposing 4,254 square feet of restaurant space and 16,263 of retail. It was determined that to conform to requirements the restaurant sp ace would ha ve to be reduced to approximately 1,88 0 sq uare feet. The applicant agreed to reduce this type sp ace. However, he felt that persons concerned were trying to penalize him for the lack of parking, which is an existing and widespread problem through the area. He was also concerned that any meeting with the residents be productive. The residents gave him this assurance. Theresa Elkins, Director of the Heights Merchants Association, offered to host the meeting.
Finally, a motion for a two-week deferral was made and passed, subject to: (1) a meeting with the neighborhood,and (2) a meeting with the Traffic Engineer. The vote was 9 ayes, O noes and 2 absent.
June 25, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
Henk Koornstra offered comments on his study of traffic generation and access. He answered several questions from the Commission concerning impact on adjacent streets, traffic volumes and parking. The City Attorney was requested to comment on the legal opinion request previously made by the Commission dealing with Bills of Assurance. Pat Benton of the City Attorney staff offered a response, first by saying that the issues were not allied; however, the interpretation provided by the City Attorney generally states that there are no legal ramifications for the Planning Commission in dealing with matters involving Bills of Assurance.
The Planning Commission Chairman then as ked for involvement by the neighborhood. There were several persons in attendance, approximately seven, represented primarily by Dorcy Kyle Corbin. Mrs. Corbin offered the ne ighborhood concerns which were the parking conflict between the proposed use and the ne ighbor hood, the conflicts which would be created by the change in use from primarily nighttime activity to day users, the conflicts created by displacement of existing daytime parking and by existing commercial users in the area. She further offered that the Heights/Hillcrest plan effect was to improve the quality of life and circumstances in the process of re development or ne w developments. And finally, she offered that the neighborhood concern about the mix of uses primarily deals with the amount of office space. She felt that a reduction in the commercial and an increase in the percentage of office use would reduce traffic impact.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving all parties. During the course of this discussion, Mr. Wells was queried concerning whether or not he would make a commitment to limiting the bank space to Space No. 9 as now indicated in the plan. He stated that was acceptable to him. However, he stated that a financial institution was not a su re user at this time.
A motion was then made to approve the application as filed subject to the following considerations:
1.That access to the site be by way of the Taylor Streetdriveway.
2.That exit from the site be taken onto KavanaughBoulevard at the bank location.
June 25, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-25-85)
The Planning staff was requested to offer its comments relative to this case inasmuch as it is a deferred mat ter from the previous Planning Co mmission meeting on June 11. The staff offered a recommendation of approval of the Planned Co mmercial District as appropriate to the site. Staff stated that it felt the use was an appropriate continuation of the commercial building and uses. However, the approval should be granted after resolving issues which we feel are of significance. The first of these being parking controls related to land uses and provision of sufficient num bers of stalls. Secondly, access to the site, controlling the flow of automobiles between Taylor and Kavanaugh. The third being the use mix primarily as to the percentage of office or bank usage within the st ructure.
Mr. George Wells was then requested to make a presentation. Mr. Wells commented on the neighbo rhood mee tings that were held and his discussions with the City Traffic Engineering staff. He offered comments extracted from a letter to the Planning Office offering several amendments to his filing as follows:
1.He proposes that access to the site be off TaylorStreet only with traffic exiting the site ontoKavanaugh only . Signage will be place d at both Taylor and Kavanaug h access points.
2.Four additional parking spaces are to be provided in arestricted parking area along Kavanaugh possibly asmany as four.
3.Two southbound lanes be provided on Taylor Street at the intersection of Kavanaugh providing for movement inboth directions so as to prevent blockage of trafficmovement.
4.A revised parking/striping pl an which will add twoadditional stalls providing a total of 68 parkingspaces.
5.As the result of further analysis, the restaurant useis to be limited to the maximum of 2,550 sq uare feet.
6.Elimination of the westernmost pedestrian entrance tothe parking lot off Stonewall. This should he lp reduce off-site parking in that area.
June 25, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A -Continued
3.That the parking lot be striped and provided with theadditional two stalls as indicated.
4.That the wall opening along Stonewall be closed toprohibit pedestrian access.
5.That the financial institution be limited to the areaspecified as No. 9 on the site plan.
6.That the maximum restaurant floor area within the totalplan area be limited to 2,550 square feet in area.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 1 -Z-1422-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Waldo Jones
Maury Mitchell
5921 South University
Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Auto Service
0.5 acres +
Auto Service
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Commercial, Zoned "I-2"-Commercial, Zoned "C-4"-Commercial, Zoned "I-2"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to rezone a small tract of land to "C-4" for an auto service facility. This type of reclassification is appropriate for University Avenue and staff su pports the rezoning. Within the last month, the Planning Commission recommended approval of two "C-4" requests for the lots directly to the south of the site in question.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" request as filed. The vote -10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 2 -Z-3592-C
Owner: Dr. w. Wise
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: South of Kanis and East of Bowman
Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "MF-6" to "MF-12," "MF-18" and "O-3"
Purpose: Multifamily and Office
100 acres + Size:
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
-Mixed, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zo ned "R-2"North South East West -Vacant and Office, Zoned "O-2" and "O-3"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal before the Planning Commission is torezone a portion of a 100-acre site west of theexisting Koger Executive Centre for office andmultifamily development. There are four parcels thatinvolve the following acreage:
Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D
"R-2" to "0-3"
"MF-6" to "MF-18""R-2 11 to "MF-12""R-2 to "MF-12"
5.6 acres 21.1 acres 12.5 acres 31.1 acres
(The parcel designations correspond to those on the accompanying zoning sketch.} The site is si tuated in a section of west Little Rock, the I-430 Corridor, that is experiencing significant growth and development. This is created in part by the area's accessibility to the interstate system and the general location. The primary land use is still residential with a majority of the land being zoned "R-2." This is due to some of the area just recently coming in to the City as part of the referendum area. Along both Kanis and Bowman Roads, the land use pattern is more mixed with nonconforming office and commercial uses. The most significant rezoning change that ha s oc curred in
June 25, 1985
Item No. 2 -Continued
the immediate area is directly to the east of the property in question and involves large tracts zoned "0-2," "O-3" and "C-2." Development is ta king pl ace on the "O-2" parcel, but there are sites st ill vacant. There are no significant multifamily projects in the area, but two developments were recently app roved by the City. One is east of I-430 and the second one is to the northwest of the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads.
2.The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The propertydoes have some significant topography on it withcertain locations increasing in elevat ion between 60and 90 feet.
3.The Master Street Plan identifies three new collectorsthrough the vicinity, so dedication of ri ght-of-way forthose streets will be required. One is an extension ofthe existing Executive Centre Drive that will connectwith Bowman Road. Another collector is proposed to tieinto Hickory Hill and a third one is located along theeast side of the property in question. Dedication ofright-of-way will also be required for both Kanis andBowman Roads.
4.No adverse comments ha ve been re ported by the re viewingagencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. Some of the property was recently annexed intothe City through the annexation referendum that wasupheld by the State Supreme Co urt.
7.Staff's position is one of general support for theproposed concept with the exception of the zoningrequest to "MF-12" for Parcel D. The I-430 Plan doesnot identify that tract for multifamily development,and the multifamily line should remain to the north asshown on the plan. If a multifamily project isproposed in the future, staff feels that a "PRO" ismore appr opriate for this particular site. Staffsupports "0-3" for Parcel A as re quested but re co mmends"MF-12" not "MF-18" for Parcel B and "MF-6" forParcel C. "MF-12" should be the maximum densityallowed for this area. The stepping down of densitieshas been utilized in other locations when there is asingle family subdivision in close proximity.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 2 -Contin ued
This zoning pattern will maintain the I-430 Pl an for the most part.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends approval of the "0-3" request as filed, "MF-12" for Parcel B and "MF-6" for Parcel C. At this time, staff recommends denial of "MF-12" for Parcel D.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff informed the Pl anning Commission that a written request for a 30-day defer ral had been submitted. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 30, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 3 -Z-4329-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Watson and Taylor Co.
J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
West Markham West of Shackleford Road
Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Existing Use:
Auto Dealership
6.8 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Multifamily, Zoned "MF-24"-Utility Substation, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The re quest is to rezone the property to "C-4" for anauto dealership. The site is located along a sectionof West Markham west of Shackleford that is zoned"C-3." The majority of the commercial land is ei therzoned "C-2" or "C-3" with the exception of a "C-4"tract at the northeast corner of West Markham andShackleford. That use is a convenience store with gaspumps which is now permitted in "C-3" by ri ght. Theland use pattern in the area is very mixed with asignificant portion that is st ill vacant. Land us esfound in the immediate vicinity includ e single family,multifamily, office and utilit y substations. Thevacant land is primarily found along both sides of WestMarkham to the west. This particular tract abutsmultifamily units to the north an d undeveloped land tothe east and west. The commercial uses are primarilyretail and service orie nted with nothing similar to anauto dealership. The office use is primarily found tothe east on West Markham and to the south onShackleford.
2.The site is vacant. The most significant physicalcharacteristic is the northernmost portion of theproperty which increases in elevation by approximately70 feet from south to north. This cr eates some
June 25, 1985
Item No. 3 -Continued
very steep slopes, and the survey has identified a 2.6-acre tract as "unuseable" area because of this. Some of the east side of the property is also experiencing this constraint.
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Planrequirements associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no docum ented neighborhood position on thesite. The conditional use permit for the property wasapproved in November 1984, and was an office,office/warehouse and self storage.
7.The I-630 Plan does identify the property for acommercial use "community shopping center." Be cause ofthis and the existing zoning pattern in the area, staffquestions the desirability of rezoning the tract to"C-4." There are several uses permitted in "C-4" thatwould not be very compatible with the area and couldpossibly have an adverse impact on some of the adjacentproperties. Staff believes that "C-2" or "C-3" are themore appropriate commercial classifications for thearea and supports "C-2" for the site in question. Anauto dealership is permitted in "C-2" as a conditionaluse. In this situation, the additional review of theproposed developm ent required for conditional use wouldbe beneficial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "C-2" and not "C-4" as filed for.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hathaway said he was representing the owners of the property and gave a brief history of the site. He said that the proposed use was a dealership for a national auto manufacturer and the planned developm ent would be of the highest quality. He went on to discuss several items in the staff analysis and said the site plan would take into con sideration the staff's concerns. Mr. Hathaway then
June 25, 1985
Item No. 3 -Continued
described the existing land use and zoning in the area and said a "C-4" reclassification would create no adverse impacts because of the location. He said that there was a specific user for the site and the "C-4" rezoning was needed. He also pointed out that there were not any other sites for dealership in this part of Little Rock. There were additional comments made about the various issues. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote -10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The "C-4" request was approved. The Planning Commission suppo rted the rezoning because:
(1)Appropriate use of the land and rezoning would notimpact adjacent properties;
(2)The proposed development would take into considerationthe issues raised by staff; and
(3)There are no suitable locations for auto dealerships inthis part of Little Rock.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 4 -Z-4461
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
J.Harold and Evelyn Williams
J.Harold Williams
9100 Sibley Hole Road
Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Construction Storage Yard
3.92 acres +
Existing Use: Construction Storage Yard (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.This request is before the Planning Commission as aresult of an enforcement action initiated by the City.The Zoning Enforcement Office received a complaint fromone of the nearby residents, and it was determined thatthe owner had expanded the use, a nonconformingconstruction storage yard. Prior to being annexed into the City, there was some stor age of materials taking place. This has been increased significantly afte r becoming a part of the City. The property is lo cated on Sibley Hole Road between I-30 and Base Line Road in an area that is still primarily undeveloped. The uses in the immediate vicinity include single family an d a nonconforming industrial operation to the south. Single family uses ab ut this property directly to the south. To the west across Sibley Hole and north, the land is vacant.
2.The site is flat and occupied by several old trucktrailers. In addition, there are other co nstructionmaterials stored on the property. It also appears thatsome excavation has occurred.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 4 -Continued
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.Staff has received several calls in opposition to therequest. The residents have voiced concerns about theappearance of the site and how the owner has altered it by the excavation that has taken place. One residentpointed out that there is a 15-foot cut along hisproperty line. The property was annexed in 1979 aspart of the large I-30 annexation.
7.This location is part of the Otter Creek Plan areawhich identifies the property for multifamily use.Staff supports the plan and opposes the rezoning to"I-2." The site is somew hat removed from I-30 which isa more desirable industrial location. The rezoning ifgranted would be misplaced and co uld have an adverseimpact on the re sidential properties whic h the areaseems to be more suited for. There is no permanentstructural involvement on the site, so to call theproperty a viable nonconforming industrial location isquestionable. The land is more of a dumping area andendorsing that type of use by rez oning the site couldcreate problems for the other property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The appl icant, John Gill, was present and representing Harold Williams, the owner. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Gill then addressed the Planning Commission. He said that Mr. Williams was a general contractor and that he was storing materials and equipment on the site. He indicated that expansion of a nonconforming use was not what had occurred. Mr. Gill then discussed the Suburuban Development Plan which had identified the area for light industrial uses and went on to say that the Otter Creek Plan had changed that to show multifamily for the area. He said the use was not changing the character of the area and the request was reasonable. Mr. Gill said the property was purchased in 1980 and the front one-half ha d been in use since then. It was pointed out that the property had been annexed in 1979 so there was a question
June 25, 1985
Item No. 4 - Continued
about the nonconforming status. Bob Summers, a resident of
the area since 1976, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
He said the land use had created too many problems such as
dust and trash. Mr. Summers presented some photos and said
Mr. Williams began using the site in 1980. He said that
heavy equipment was also being stored. Kenny Scott of the
City discussed the enforcement issue. Another resident
spoke and said the property was nothing more than a
junkyard. Mr. Gill spoke and said that excavation was due
to a sewer line that was constructed through the area.
Mr. Summers said that the digging was still taking place.
There was a long discussion about the plan and the
nonconforming issue. The Planning Commission then voted on
the request. The vote - 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The
"I -2" rezoning was denied.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 5 -Z-4462
Owner:
Appl icant:
Location:
Requ est:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
O.F. and verbal Alexander
L.J. Carter
13,015 Stacy Drive
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Retail
0.68 acres +
Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Single Family & Office, Zoned "R-2" & "O-3"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Industrial, Zoned "O-3"-Multifamily, Zoned "MF-18"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the propert y from "R-2" to"C-3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retailbusiness. The site is located on a bl ock south of West Mark ham Street in the Rock Creek Parkway area. Both land use and zoning patterns are very mixed in the area. The zoning includes "R-2," "MF-18," "O-3" and "C-3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the "C-3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconformin g industrial use to the east. Because of the hi gh perc�ntage of land zoned "C-3" in the area, the ne ed for rezoning addit ional properties to "C-3" can be questioned. The site appears to be better su ited for continued residential use.
2.The site is flat and occupied by a single familyresidence.
3.Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as acollector on the Master Street Plan, so dedication ofadditional right-of-way may be requ ired. There are noMaster Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 5 -Continued
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighbor hood position or hi storyon the site.
7.Staff's position is that the location is inappropriatefor a "C-3" rezoning and opposes the request. Thisopposition to the re classification is supported by theSuburban Development Plan, which shows the area forsingle family development. The majority of theproperty zoned "C-3" in the immediate area is north ofWest Markham and that appears to be a log ical divisionbetween residential and nonresidential zoning. Some ofthe office and commercial zoning that was granted sout hof West Ma rkham was done over the ob jections of thestaff and in conflict wit h the Rock Creek Plan. Theexisting "C-3" zoning to the ea st was app roved toaccommodate a nonconforming use and now is being usedfor industrial purposes as is a majority of the "0-3"property sout h of Stacy if it was extended ea st ofGamble Road. Rece ntly, the Planning Commission denied a "C-3" request for the "0-3" property to the ea st. No action was ever taken by the Board of Directors. There was sig nificant neighborhood opposition to that request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the request and said that the area was no longer desirable for residential use. Tate Roberts, a cont ractor, discussed the proposal. There was a long discus sion about the request and the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the it em for two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to meet wit h staff to clarify various issues. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
June 25 , 1985
Item No. 6 -Z-4463
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Michael B. Coulson
Same
8100 West Markham
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-1"
Convenie nce Store with Gas Pumps or Service Station
0.53 acres +
Con venience Store with Gas Pumps (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"-Public, Zoned "R-4"-Multifamily, Zoned "R-6"-Office, Zoned "O-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone an existing convenience storewith gas pumps to "C-1." This type of use is aconditional use in "C-1," so prior to any changes beingmade on the proper ty, additional review and app roval bythe City will have to take place. At this time, it isunknown whether the existing st ructure will remain asis or a major renovation project will be undertaken.The site is located on West Markham approximately 1 1/2blocks east of Rodney Parham in an area that has amixed zoning patter n. The proper ty abuts "R-5" and"O-3" with "R-4" on the south side of West Markham. Inthe immediate vicinity, the zoning also incl udes"MF-18, "PRD," "PCD" and "C-3." Land use is verysimilar with the commercial use being concentrated tothe west on Markham and to the south on Rodney Parham.Because of the proper ty's location and the existinguse, it appea rs that "C-1" is a reasonablereclassification.
2.The site is flat and oc cupied by one st ructure andseveral gas pump islands.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 6 -Continued
3.There are no right-of-way re quirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
4.There hav e been no adverse co mments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no docum ented neighborhood position on thesite. The use has been in existence for a numberof years.
7.Staff su pports the request because of the existing use,location and the "C-1" reclassification. Fronting onWest Markham and surrounded by "R-5" and "0-3" zoning,the change to "C-1" should not ha ve an effect on any ofthe surrounding properties. Previous zoning actionshave already impacted the area. It should be pointedout that the staff's positive position on the requestis not an endorsement of co mmercial zoning on the southside of West Markham. In fact, any co mmercial request directly to the south should be strongly disco uraged and the existing line maintained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "C-1" as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote -10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
-·�June 25, 1985
Item No. 7 -Z-4464
Owner: Gladys E. Post
C.J. CropperApplicant:
Locat ion: Hermitage and Autumn Road Northwest Corner
Request: Re zone from "R-2" to "O-3"
Purpose: Office
Size:
Existing Use:
0.5 acres +
Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal is to rezone the northwest corner ofHermitage and Autumn Roads to "0-3" for an office. Nospecifics have been provided, but it is anticipatedthat the existing st ructure will be converted intoan office use. The property is located west of theFinancial Centre Parkway area, which is developing intoa major office location for west Little Rock, but thissite is somew hat removed from that area. On the eastof Autumn, north and south of Hermitage, there is some"C-3" zoning in place, but a majority of that wasaccomplished by a court decree. The cl osest officezoning is approximately 700 feet to the east onHermitage. The immediate area is primarily undevelopedwith some single family and a nonresidentialinvolvement to the south on Autumn Road.
2.The site is occupied by a single fam ily residence, andthere are no unique physical characteristics.
3.There is one significant Master Street Plan issueassociated with this request and that is the futureextension of the Rock Creek Parkway. The currentplan/designs for the parkway call for approximately 90percent of the tract in question to be used for
June 25, 1985
Item No. 7 -Continued
right-of-way. Only the southwest corner would not be involved.
4. At this time, there have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. The property was recently annexed to the City by the April 1985, court decision.
7.The rezoning is in conflict with the adopted I-430Plan, and staff does not support the request. The planrecommends that nonresidential uses be restricted tothe area east of Autumn Road and staff views that as anadequate line that should be maintained. The previouszoning actions have not impacted this property and therequested rezoning is inappropriate. Finally, becauseof the proposed parkway, the site has a limited future,and the rezoning should not be endorsed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, C.J. Cropper, was present . There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Cropper discussed the I-430 plan and the immediate area. There was a long discussion about the extension of the Rock Creek Parkway and its impact on the property in question. The Planning Co mmission then voted on the "O-3" rezoning. The vote -0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The request was denied. A resolution was presented recom mending to the Board of Directors that the City enter into immediate negotiations with the property owner to acquire the site for the necessary right-of-way for the Rock Creek Parkway Extension. The resolution was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 8 -Z-4465
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Richard Easterly
Truman Ball
3023 Ware (West 31st Street and Ware -Northeast Co rner)
Rezone from "R-2" to "R-4"
Duplex
0.16 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East -Single Family, zoned "R-2"
West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request before the Planning Commission is to rezonea single lot for a duplex. The property is locatedwest of University Avenue and north of Asher in an areathat is primarily single family with a scattering ofduplexes to the north and south. The existing duplexes are all nonconforming. Other land uses in the immediate vicinity als o include churches and two schools to the south on West 32nd. The zoning is all "R-2" with the exception of a fi ve-block "R-3" pocket to the east. The area appears to be stable, and the properties are well maint ained for the most part, which usually indicates a high percentage of owner occupied units. The primary is sues with this request are the appropriateness of rezoning a single lo t and the potential effect on the other pro perties in the neig hborhood.
2.The site is a typical 50-foot re sidential lo t and isvacant.
3.There are no right-of-w ay requirements or Master StreetPlan is sues involved with this request.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 8 -Continued
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal is sues.
6.There is no documented neighbor hood position or his toryon the site.
7.The rezoning, if gra nted, would create a spot zoning,and staff could not support that type of zoningpattern. Because of that and the Boyle Park Plan whic h identifies the area for continued single family use, staff is opposed to the rezoning request. The zoning has been maintained over the years, and approving this "R-4" request would have an adverse impact on the neighbor hood being the first non-single family rezoning. Undesirable precedent could be set by approving the cha nge, and it could have a disruptive influence over the ne ighbor hood. Another concern that staff has is the width of the lot -50 feet. The Zoning Ordinance does recommend that an "R-4" lot not be less than 70 feet which staff feels is an adequate width. The 50-foot width appears to be too narrow, but because of this being a previously platted lo t, a rezoning action can take place on it.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "R-4" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed to be deferred because of the required notification of property owners ha d not been completed. A motion to defer the request to the July 30, 1985, meeting was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent.
,,.-.___
June 25, 1985
Item No. 9 -Z-4466
Owner:
Appl icant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Roy May
Maury Mitchell
5000 Block of South University
Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3" and "C-4"
Auto Service
1.43 acres +
vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "I-2"-Commercial, Zoned "I-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
STAFF REPORT:
The proposal is to rezone what will be two lots to "C-3" and "C-4" for some type of auto service. The "C-3" lot will require a condit ional use permit for the proposed use, and a plat will be filed for the two new lots. The property is located on the east side of University south of Fourche Creek. The zoning on the ea st side is primarily "C-3" or "C-4," so the proposed rezoning is compatible with the area. There are a number of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, so an auto service facility should not create any impacts on the surrounding properties.
The applicant chose to rezone the tract because of some of the required setbacks in "I-2" and the signage permitted in a commercial district versus industrial.
Staff views no outstanding issues with the re zoning and supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the re quest as filed.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 9 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of "C-3" and "C-4" as filed. The vote -10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 10 -Z-4468
Owner: Louis M. Guerrieri
Mark Dillman
12,807 Kanis Road
Applicant:
Location:
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3"
Purpose: Office
Size:
Existing Use:
2.5 acres +
Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the property to "0-3" for anoffice, possibly a medical clinic. The site is located between Bowman and Gamble just west of the Point West Subdivision. This section of Kanis was recently annexed into City, an d there are a number of nonconforming uses in the area, but this property is not one of those. The land in question is occupied by residential use. To the ea st, there is a st rip of "C-3" zoning that was rezoned over a yea r ago. A sm all "O-3" parcel was left because of being in a different owner ship. The site in question is just to the west, but it is separated from the commercial propert y by "R-2" and "MF-24" strips.
2.The site is wooded and occupied by sev eral structures,including a single fa mily residence.
3.Kanis Road is identified as a minor arterial sodedication of additional rig ht-of-way will be required.
4.There ha ve been no adverse commen ts re ceived from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 10 -Continued
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. The property was brought into the City by thecourt decision affecting the referendum area.
7.The area is addressed by the Suburban Development Plandoes not identify the site for office use. The planrecognizes nonresidential use for the area to the eastand draws a line at Timber Ridge, the street justwest of the "MF-18" parcel on the north side of Kanis.Staff's position is that the line should be maintainedand is opposed to the "O-3" request. The property issomewhat removed from what would be a more viableoffice location, and the rezoning is inappropriate atthis time. It appears that a zoning pattern has benestablished with the previous action, and this propertyis beyond the area recognized for nonresidential uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mark Di llman, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Dillman spoke and indicated that he was representing the owners and the proposed purchaser of the property. He said the plans were to convert the existing structure into a doctor's office primarily for rehabilitation type services. He then described other uses in the area which included a junkyard and used car lot. He said that the proposed use was compatible with the area. There was a le ngthy discussion about existing land use and zoning. The buyer of the property then described the use in more detail and plans for renovating the existing structu re. Jim Lawson of the Planninng staff discussed Kanis Road and the Suburban Development Plan. He said that the staff would prefer "O-1" instead of "O-3" at this location. The applicant then agreed to amending the application to "O-1." The Planning Commission voted on the request as amended. The vote -6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. The "O-1" rezoning was approved. The Planning Commission supported "O-1" for the following reasons: (1) existing uses in the area, (2)the location of the site and its relationship to thestreet system, (3) the existing nonresidential zoning to theeast, and (4) no impact on residential areas.
June 25, 1985
Item No . 11 -Z-4469
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Mrs. M.P. Henderson
A.B. Speights
Base Line and Stagecoach Roads Northwest Corner
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Commercial
2.52 acres +
Single Family and Vacant Commercial Buildings
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "C-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the property to "C-3" for sometype of unspecified commercial use. There are severalstructures on the land currently, but it is unknownwhether they will be utilized or if redevelopment willtake place. The tract is located at the intersectionof two arterials where some commercial rezoning hastaken place -the southeast and southwest corners. Itappears that commercial use of the property isappropriate because of the location.
2.The site is flat and occupied by four structures.Two buildings have been used in the past for commercialpurposes. There is also a single family residence on the property.
3.Both Base Line Road and Highway No. 5 (Stagecoach Road}are identified on arterials on the Master Street Plan,so dedication of additional right-of-way will berequired. Base Line is a minor arterial and HighwayNo. 5 is a principal arterial.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 11 -Continued
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position or hi storyon the site.
7.This location is part of the Otter Creek Plan whichidentifies the corner for commercial use, so therezoning is compatible with the adopted plan. Because of the previous zoning actions in the im mediate area, it appears that the rezonng will not im pact on other properties. Staff suppor ts the "C-3" request and feels that there are no outstanding issues associated with the rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appr oval of the "C-3" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" request as filed. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 ab sent.
June 25, 1985
Item No. 12 -Z-4470
Owner:
Appl icant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
CCMN Joint Venture II
J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Rock Creek Parkway, 1/4 Mile East of Kanis
Rezone from Unclassified to "MF-18" and "O-3"
Multifamily and Office Development
40.28 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Unclassified-Vacant, Office/Industrial, Unclassified-Multifamily, Zoned "PRD"-Church, Unclassified
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to rezone a 40-acre tract at the west end of the Rock Creek Parkway to "MF-18" and "O-3." The acreage breakdown is as follows: "O-3," 11.96 acres and "MF-18," 28.32 acres. No specific plans or development concepts ha ve been provided. The property is currently unclassified because of being outside the City limits.
This property is part of the Suburban Development Plan whic h curre ntly recognizes the land for single fa mily use only. Based on the current plan, st aff cannot supp ort the re zoning as proposed. The plan shows mu ltifamily for the land to the east, classified "PRD," and fu rther to the west, there is an area shown for commercial and some low to medium density residential development. This location would be the intersection of Kanis and the proposed Outer Belt West arterial. If the property is annexed into the City, it appears that a "PUD" would be more app ropriate for the site because of its location and the existing "PRD" to the east.
As has been stated earlier, the property is outside the City limits. An issue that will ha ve to be resolved prior to the
June 25, 1985
Item No. 12 -Continued
rezoning being accomplished is whether the City limits will be extended beyond the current line. This line was established as the "official annexation boundary line" by a Board of Directors resolution.
One final item is that this area will be included in the new planning effort that the City will undertake for west Little Rock. Both land use and future City limits will be addressed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" and "MF-18 11 as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Hathaway, the applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke and presented an aerial photo of the area which he described in detail. Th ere was a long discussion about land use and the street system. Mr. Hathaway said the "MF-18" density for the property was chosen because of various physical constraints such as utility easements. He indicated that no formal study or plan had been prepared for the site. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff then spoke. He discussed current plans for the area. He said that a "PUD" was more appropriate for the site because of the location. He also made reference to the City limits line and the Board of Directors' resolution regarding future City boundaries. Mr. Hathaway said that "MF-18 11 was a good density and that there would probably be office development in the future. Mike Batie of City En gineering said the proposed collector through the property was good. Mr. Lawson described the proposed "west belt" int ersection with Kanis and said that "MF-12" and "O-2" would be another possible zoning configuration for the land. There were additional comments made about development in the area and annexation of the property. The Planning Commission voted on the request as filed. The vote -4 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent and 2 abstentions (Jerilyn Nicholson and Jim Sum merl in). The item was deferred due to the lack of six affirmative or negative votes. The Planning Commission then voted to defer the request to the July 9, 1985, meeting. The votes 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent.
)"
DATE .:rl,J..M.:c, L'i, /985
)
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
ZONING 6 SUBDIVISION
MEMBER JJ I z 3 4-s ' 7 {I '1 JD "II IZ
J.5:rmimPr 1-i n v v ./ / I I I � ./ v -� � 15
J.Schlereth .v ,/ .v i/ ,/ v' � I I v V ;/ v
R.Massie ,I i,/ I i/ ( v ,/ � I V ,t. ,/ A-
B.Sipes v v I ./ I V v v ,/ � V v v
J.Nicholson t/ v I I/ ./ � v' � I v v v1 -�
w.Rector I y ,/ v 'j A I A. v v A ,I fl.
W.Ketcher ( v ,/ / I '../ / v' ( v If ,( It
D.Arnett A II ,4 A A II A A A ,4 A A II
0.J. Jones v v ./ ,/ ./ v I V ( ./ V v' v·
I.Boles .I v ,/ � ./ A I A I a/ I},, v' v
J� Clayton ,/ V ( V J I I v' ( v' v I ft
VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
')
June 25, 1985
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was ad'ournedp at
X4:15 p.m.
Ch it ers
S cret y
_� i