pc_04 22 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 22, 1986
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:
William Ketcher
Jim Summerlin
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
Richard Massie
Betty Sipes
Fred Perkins
Ida Boles
David Jones
John Schlereth
City Attorney: Pat Benton
April 22, 1986
Item No. A - Z -4621
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
William Terry
Larry Terry
Baseline Road at Otter Creek
Rezone from "R -2" to "AF"
Sod Farm
10.65 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone the tract of land to "AF"
Agriculture and Forestry for a sod farm. The Zoning
Ordinance states that the "AF" zone provides "a usable
zoning definition and to provide for certain compatible land
uses during the interim period between annexation and final
determination of proper zoning districts." Based on this
provision and the property's location, staff feels that the
request is appropriate and supports the rezoning. The Otter
Creek District Plan identifies the area for Single Family
use and shows a large floodway between I -430 and Stagecoach
Road.
This site has some floodway involvement, approximately the
west 1/2, so by Board of Directors policy that area will
have to be dedicated to the City. Engineering will address
this issue at the time of the hearing, but has indicated
that a sod farm meets the requirements for an activity
located in the floodplain and floodway. Also, the owner
should contact the Corps of Engineers regarding the approval
of a wetlands permit.
The Traffic Engineer requests that the access point be shown
and the description of the road and its condition be
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
April 22, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
One final item is the Master Parks Plan which shows the
general area as a proposed lake. The exact status of this
concept is unknown at this time and will be clarified by the
public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "AF" rezoning with the
floodway portion being dedicated to the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the
Commission that all the necessary notification materials had
not been submitted. A motion was made to defer the request
to the April 22, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 22 -86)
Staff informed the Commission that the owner had requested
that the item be withdrawn from consideration. The rezoning
was withdrawn by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. B - Z -4624
Owner: Regina L. Norwood and Rose
Bickerstaff
Applicant: Ascomb Enterprises, Inc.
Location: 13441 Cantrell Road (Hwy. 10)
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -1"
Purpose: Laundromat
Size: 0.30 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Building
STTRRC)TTNDTNC, T,ANT) TTRF ANT) 70NTNG!
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone
two lots along Highway 10 in the Pankey area to "C -1"
to permit a laundromat. The Highway 10 frontage in the
immediate vicinity is primarily single family
residences or vacant lots. There are also two or three
nonconforming uses and a County School District
facility. The zoning is "R -2" Single Family with to
nearest commercial zoning being approximately 1/4 mile
to the west. To the east along Highway 10 there is
some office and multifamily zoning.
2. The site is two lots with one nonresidential building
on it that is currently unoccupied.
3. Cantrell Road or Highway 10 is classified as a
principal arterial which normally requires a
right -of -way of 100 feet. The right -of -way along this
section of Highway 10 is deficient, so dedication of an
additional right -of -way will be necessary.
4. Engineering reports that:
1. Right -of -way dedication shall confirm to
current AHTD plans for Highway 10
improvements at this location.
1
April 22, 1986
Item No. B - Continued
2. If development of the property occurs before
Highway 10 Project is let for bid, the
property owner is required to implement the
required street improvements.
3. Access onto Highway 10 shall conform to AHTD
plans. It is preferable that only one access
point be allowed from this development.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this
request.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or
history on this particular site. In the past the
residents of Pankey have indicated their
opposition to any commercial reclassifications in
the neighborhood and a "PCD" located on the north
side of Highway 10 and to the west was denied by
the City.
7. The Highway 10 corridor has been a part of a
number of plans and planning studies including a
current effort to develop a new land use plan for
the northwest part of the City. All reports
adopted or otherwise, have never recommended any
commercial uses within the Pankey neighborhood.
The Suburban Development Plan identifies the area
for continued Single Family use and the final
neighborhood plan as recommended by the CDBG
Committee and the resident does not recognize any
commercial development. The new proposed Highway
10 Corridor Plan which will begin its formal
review shortly, shows the Pankey area for a mix of
residential uses. Because of being in conflict
with the previously described planning efforts and
creating a spot zoning, if granted, staff does not
support the request. The "C -1" classification
could have an adverse impact not only on the
Pankey neighborhood but also on the Highway 10
Corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -1" rezoning as filed.
April 22, 1986
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)
The applicant, Bruce Osbourne, of Ascomb Enterprises,
Inc., was present. There were four to five objectors
in attendance. Mr. Osbourne discussed in some detail
the proposal, a laundromat facility, which would serve
the neighborhood and a larger area. He also pointed
out that at one point the property had been zoned "C -1"
and that his company had a lease agreement with the
owners based on that information. There was a long
discussion about the "C -1" zoning issue and the
nonconforming status of the property. After several
additional comments, Mr. Osbourne requested that the
item be deferred for thirty days. A motion was made to
defer the request to the April 22, 1986, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 22 -86)
The applicant, Bruce Osbourne, was not present. There
were several persons in attendance who expressed an
interest in the case. Staff informed the Commission
that Mr. Osbourne would be unable to attend the
hearing because of being out of state and had requested
that the rezoning be deferred for another thirty (30)
days. Regina Norwood, one of the owners, spoke briefly
on the deferral issue. Diane Piggee Kinsey, asked that
the item not be deferred. A long discussion was held
and then a motion was made to defer the item. The
motion failed by a vote 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
The deferral request was denied. Ms. Norwood addressed
the Commission and discussed the history of the
building. Ms. Kinsey said that the residents wanted the
neighborhood to remain residential and that they were
opposed to any commercial changes. Henry Norwood, a
resident, then spoke. He said that Pankey needed a few
commercial uses and asked what would be the impact on
the neighborhood from some commercial zoning.
Mr. Norwood indicated support for the "C -1" rezoning
and said that some commerical zoning was needed for the
growth of Pankey. Ms. Norwood spoke again and said the
proposed use, a laundromat, would not be a problem and
would provide a needed service for the community.
Barbara Douglas, representing the Pankey Community
Improvement Association, said that there was support
for the laundromat if it could be established as a
nonconforming use.
April 22, 1986
Item No. B - Continued
Oscar Dyer, then spoke and reinforced what Mr. Norwood
had said. The Planning Commission voted on the "C -1"
request as filed. The vote 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2
absent. The rezoning was denied.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z- 4357 -A
Owner: Jitendra Patel
Applicant: Richard Smith
Location: 5325 Asher Avenue
Request: Rezone from "C -3" to "C -4"
Purpose: Used Car Lot
Size: 0.21 acres
Existing Use: Used Car Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "I -2"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site to "C -4" to permit a used
car lot. The lot is currently in operation, an illegal
nonconforming use, and the issue is before the Commission as
a result of an enforcement action. The property is located
at the intersection of two arterials and has been used in
the past for auto related uses. At one point, the location
was used for a service station, and the most recent use was
an auto repair garage (CUP - Z- 4357).
Because of the site's location and the mixed zoning pattern
in the area, staff supports the request. The "C -4" rezoning
will not have an impact on the neighborhood, and the use is
compatible with the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -4" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -4"
rezoning as filed. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z- 4555 -A
Owner: Big K Development Corporation
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Shackleford Road south of
Colonel Glenn Road
Request: Rezone from "MF -18" to "I -1"
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 8.9 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
The staff recommends that this item be deferred to
May 13, 1986, in order to permit further review in
connection with the 65th Street West plan being prepared by
staff.
TT TATAT TAT /T n/lwRl /T['fT Tl�AT A/T T/IAT.
The staff rcommended that the item be deferred to the
May 13, 1986 meeting. The applicant concurred with the
recommendation. A motion was made to defer the request to
May 13, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z -4593
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
R.E. Bradshaw
Same
3900 -3924 Asher Avenue and
2701 -2711 Cedar
Rezone from "R -3" and "C -3" to
"C -4"
Commercial
1.5 acres
Existing Use: Single Family and Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" and "I -2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Commercial and Quasi - public, Zoned "0 -3"
and "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the site to "C -4" for a used
car lot and possibly some type of storage facilities.
A portion of the property has been used for a car sales
lot, and the City does recognize the use as having a
legitimate nonconforming status. The land is located
on Asher Avenue between Pine and Cedar. Several of the
lots also have frontage on both Pine and Cedar. The
area has a very mixed zoning and land use pattern. The
zoning includes "R -3," "R -4," "R -5," 110 -3," "C -3" and
"I -2" with similar uses. On the "0 -3" tract to the
west, there is a charitable organization located there,
a quasi - public use. For the most part, the existing
land use conforms to the zoning. A "C -4"
reclassification for this particular location should
not have an impact on the neighborhood especially since
it has had a "C -4" use on it in the past. The primary
issue associated with this request is how far should
the commercial zoning be extended north of Asher.
2. The site is made up of several residential lots and an
abandoned street right -of -way. There are two
nonresidential structures located along Asher and three
single family residences on the Cedar Street lots.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
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 documented neighborhood history on the
site. In 1962, a zoning variance was approved for the
used car lot. Recently, the City has initiated some
enforcement action against the owner because of some
outdoor storage. It's the staff's understanding that
the items in question will be removed in the near
future.
7. The site under consideration is part of the Stephens
School Neighborhood Plan area. The plan does identify
some of the property for commercial use and does draw a
line between the commercial and residential about
mid - block. Staff feels that this is a reasonable
approach and recommends that only the portion currently
zoned "C -3" be rezoned to "C -4." This would exclude
the two "R -3" lots on Cedar. Staff's position is that
allowing commercial zoning to West 27th could have an
impact on the neighborhood to the north, and the corner
of Cedar and West 27th is not a desirable "C -4"
location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that only those lots zoned "C -3" be rezoned
to "C -4."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, R.E. Bradshaw, was present. There were four
objectors in attendance. Mr. Bradshaw presented some
history on the site and described the existing nonconforming
use on the "C -3" property. He then indicated that he would
accept the staff's position to delete the two "R -3" lots at
West 27th and Cedar from the "C -4" request. Mary Jane
McDonald, then addressed the Commisison. She said that the
property had problems because of existing storage and that
she was opposed to the rezoning. Kenny Scott, of the City
Staff, then dicussed the enforcement issue attached to the
storage activity taking place on the site. Mr. Bradshaw
then spoke and said that all the items in question have been
removed. Ms. McDonald made some additional comments and
asked that only the Asher frontage be rezoned.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
Another resident of the area spoke and discussed the
appearance of the property. There was a long discussion
about the various issues. The Commission then voted on the
amended application to only recommend approval of a
rezoning from "C -3" to "C -4" and exclude the two "R -3" lots
from consideration. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z -4627
Owner: James H. and Janet Adams
Applicant: James H. Adams
Location: 7214 Asher Avenue
Request: Rezone from "C -3" to "I -2"
Purpose: Tire and Heavy Equipment Company
Size: 0.72 acres
Existing Use: Tire and Heavy Equipment Company
(nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This rezoning issue is before the Commission because of
an enforcement action, establishing a use on the
property prior to obtaining the necessary zoning. The
use is truck storage and associated with the
nonconforming industrial operation to the west. The
property is located on Asher Avenue west of Rock Creek.
The land use in the area is fairly mixed with
nonresidential uses restricted to Asher for the most
part and the residential uses off Asher. The primary
use found along Asher is commercial with nonconforming
industrial uses to the west and east which is an Arkla
facility. Also, in the neighborhood, there are two
major public uses, a school and post office branch
currently under construction. This section of Asher
does not lend itself well to being a mix of commercial
and industrial uses because of the single family
neighborhoods and the existing zoning which is either
"R -2," "C -3" or "C -4."
2. The site is occupied by two structures and used for
storage of vehicles. At one time, the two buildings
were used as eating establishments.
I
April 22, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
3. Asher Avenue is identified as a principal arterial on
the Master Street Plan, so dedication of additional
right -of -way will be required because the existing
right -of -way is deficient.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The only documented history on the site is the current
enforcement action by the City. Staff has received
several calls and some concern was expressed over the
possibility of an industrial rezoning at this
particular location.
7. The area is part of the Boyle Park District, which
identifies the property for commercial use. Staff
feels that a "C -3" or "C -4" classification is better
suited for the site and "I -2" rezoning could have an
adverse impact on the neighborhood. Also, should the
"I -2" be granted, it would create a spot zone. The
property in question is somewhat unsightly, and it
appears that is due in part to the site being too small
for the use. The area is more appropriate for
commercial or service commercial and not an industrial
use such as this.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "I -2" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, James Adams, was present and represented by
Josh McHughes. There were three objectors in attendance.
Mr. McHughes addressed the Commission discuss the immediate
area including the property to the west also owned by
Mr. Adams. Mr. McHughes went on to describe the use of the
property which he referred to as truck sales. Kenny Scott
of the Zoning Enforcement Office then spoke and said that
the City was in court with Mr. Adams concerning the property
in question. There was a long discussion. A motion was
presented to defer the request to the May 27, 1986, meeting
because of the court action. After additional comments, the
motion was withdrawn. Mr. McHughes spoke again and
discussed the site and area in detail. Several statements
were made by Mr. Scott and Pat Benton of the City Attorney's
Office concerning the enforcement issue. Evelyn Stafford
then addressed the Commission and indicated her opposition
April 22, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
to the "I -2" rezoning. She said that it would impact
property value in the neighborhood and described the junk
that was being kept on the rear portion of the property.
Mr. McHughes made some additional comments. The Commission
then voted on the "I -2" rezoning as requested. The vote 0
ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z -4634
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Billie Jean Barkley
Walter Hyde
9202 Stagecoach Road
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Beauty Shop
1.7 acres
Single Family and Beauty Shop
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
East
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue before the Commission is to rezone the
property to "C -3" for an existing beauty shop. The
shop was in operation prior to being annexed, but some
time after coming into the City expansion took place
which is not permitted because of being a nonconforming
use. After that was determined, the owners were issued
an enforcement notice, and then filed the rezoning
request. The site is located on Stagecoach Road
(Highway No. 5) south of Baseline Road in the Otter
Creek area. The land use is primarily vacant or single
family on large tracts. There are some nonresidential
uses in the vicinity of the intersection of Baseline
Road and Stagecoach Road. The zoning is "R -2" with
some multifamily to the south and commercial at the
intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach.
2. The site is a level piece of ground with a single
family residence on it and the building is being used
for a beauty shop.
3. Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) is identified on the
Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. The
existing right -of -way is deficient for an arterial so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property was annexed into the City in 1980.
7. The adopted Land Use Plan for the Otter Creek District
recommends a multifamily use for the property not
commercial as is being requested. The plan shows
commercial uses to the north of this tract and
concentrated at the intersection of Baseline and
Stagecoach. Staff believes that the plan's concept
should be maintained and does not support the "C -3"
request. The rezoning of this tract to commercial
could lead to the stripping out of Stagecoach which
would create an undesirable development pattern. The
"C -3" parcel on the east side of Stagecoach was
accomplished with staff support because of being a
large tract and having frontage on both Baseline and
Stagecoach. (The application for Z -4325 was filed
prior to the adoption of the Otter Creek Plan but was
not acted upon until the plan had been completed.
During that time period, an amended rezoning plan was
submitted based on input from the staff and the Otter
Creek Property Owners' Association. The southern
portion of the parcel is not identified on the plan for
commercial use.) Staff feels that a "C -3" rezoning of
this site could have a greater impact on the area than
allowing the "C -3" tract on the east side to extend
south of the commercial line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Walter Hyde, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Hyde described the area and said that there
was only one building on the site and not two as stated in
the staff writeup. He said that a carport was enclosed to
provide the space for the beauty shop. There was a long
discussion about the possibility of a nonconforming use and
structure. Kenny Scott, of the City Staff, addressed th-e
enforcement action because of the sign. He said that his
office had no information on the nonconforming status of the
property. Betty Jean Hyde then spoke and said that
equipment had been stored on the site but not in use since
1962.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
Tommy Evans then addressed the Commission and said that he
was speaking for the Hyde's. He said that the beauty shop
was an asset for the community and would not cause any
problems. There was a long discussion about the various
issues. The Commission voted on the "C -3" request as filed.
The vote was 0 ayes, 4 noes, 3 absent and 4 abstentions (Jim
Summerlin, Jerilyn Nicholson, Betty Sipes and Richard
Massie). Because of failing to recieve a majority vote, the
rezoning was deferred to the May 27, 1986, meeting
(Commissioner Massie requested that the Planning Staff study
the area along Stagecoach south of Baseline Road and review
the existing Otter Creek plan).
April 22, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z -4635
Owner: William L. Huffstutlar
Applicant: Same
Location: 10,510 and 10,600 I -30
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" and
"C -4"
Purpose: Office and Commercial
Size: 12.9 acres +
Existing Use: Office and Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Residential, Zoned "R -2"
South - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family and Vacant Buildings, Zoned
"R -2" and "I -2"
West - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone a 2.3 acre tract to "C -3" and an
10.5 acre site to "C -4." Both parcels are currently
occupied with nonconforming uses, sales lots for metal
(storage) buildings and a structure with some office and
retail uses. The property is located on I -30, west of the
Baseline Road overpass, in the area that has a mixed land
use pattern and zoning that includes "R -2," C -4" and "I -2."
Some of the uses are single family residences, a mobile home
park and a used car lot.
This area is part of the Otter Creek District Plan which
identifies the general location for strip development along
the I -30 frontage. The proposed districts, "C -3" and "C -4"
are normally associated with that type of land use pattern,
and because of that, staff supports the rezoning concept but
recommends that the north 150 to 200 feet of the "C -4" tract
be left "R -2." This would be consistent with the zoning
line established by the "I -2" rezoning to the east and with
the adopted plan.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" zoning as filed and
the "C -4" with the exception of the north 200 feet. This
should maintain the line created by the "I -2" zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, William Huffstutlar, was present. There were
no objectors. Mr. Huffstutlar said that he had problems
with the staff's recommendation for the proposed "C -4"
tract because it would reduce the possibility of selling the
property with a decrease in size. He went on the describe
the area and again stressed his reluctance to have split
zoning on the "C -4" tract. There was a long discussion and
at that point Mr. Huffstutlar agreed to amending the
application to leave 150 foot strip south of Baseline Road
as "R -2." The Commission voted on the request as amended
the exclude the north 150 feet of the "C -4" site. The vote
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z -4636
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
William L. Huffstutlar
S ame
4918 Baseline Road (at Stanton)
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Office and Commercial
2.81 acres +
Office and Commercial
(nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - School, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Residential, Office and Commercial, Zoned
"R -2't
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone an existing strip center to
accommodate both office and commercial uses. The property
is nonconforming and was annexed to the City in April 1985,
as part of the referendum area. The immediate neighborhood
has a mix of land uses including single family, commercial
and a mobile home park.
This particular location is part of the Geyer Springs East
Plan area. The plan has yet to be formally adopted by the
City, but it does recognize a commercial use for the site.
Based on the proposed plan, staff supports the request and
feels that it will have no impact on the surrounding
properties.
Baseline Road is identified as a principal arterial on the
Master Street Plan which recommends a 100 -foot right -of -way.
The existing right -of -way is deficient, so dedication of
additional right -of -way will required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed.
) April 22, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" rezoning
as requested. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 8 - Z -4637
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Kathleen Hope
James A. and Ginger L. Mansfield
8720 and 8720 1/2 Stanton Road
Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3"
Office
0.4 acres
Existing Use: Office (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone the site to "0 -3" to
accommodate an existing office. The property is
located on Stanton Road north of Baseline Road, in an
area that has a number of different land uses. In the
immediate vicinity, the uses include single family, a
mobile home park, a school, auto repair garage and some
office space. The property in question abuts a mobile
home park on two sides, and a single family residence
on the north. Across Stanton Road to the east, there
is some vacant land that is in the process of being
rezoned (Item No. 7 - Z -4636 on this agenda). Based on
the existing land use pattern, it appears that both the
zoning and use are compatible with the area.
2. The site is approximately 1/2 acre in size and is
occupied by two structures.
3. Stanton Road is identified as a collector on the Master
Street Plan. The recommended right -of -way for a
collector is 60 feet so some additional dedication will
probably required because the existing survey reflects
a right -of -way of 50 feet for Stanton Road.
April 22, 1986
1
Item No. 8 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property was annexed to the City in April
1985.
7. This location is part of the Geyer Springs East Plan
area. The plan has not been formally adopted by the
City, but the recommended land use for the site is
mixed density residential. The plan also shows the
land to the east across Stanton Road for commercial use
and also the northwest corner of Baseline and Stanton
Road for commercial. Because of this proposed land use
pattern and the existing uses, staff feels that "0-3"
is appropriate for this particular tract and the
rezoning should only have a minimal impact, if any, on
the neighborhood. An office use and reclassification
could function as a transition area between Baseline
Road and the neighborhood to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "0 -3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commisison voted to recommend approval of the "0-3" rezoning
as requested. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 9 - Z -4639
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Parkway West Ltd.
Brad Walker
Bowman Road north of Hermitage
Rezone from "MF -12" to "C -3"
Commercial
5.2 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "MF -12"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12" and "MF -18"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a five -acre tract to "C -3" for
an unspecified commercial use. The property is located
at what will be the intersection of Bowman Road and the
future extension of the Rock Creek Parkway. The
150 -foot "R -2" strip is the proposed alignment of the
parkway. The zoning is "R -2," "MF -12," "MF -18" and
"C -3" with the land use still being single family and
some vacant parcels, including the "C -3" area to the
north. The future extension of the Rock Creek Parkway
will have some impact on the area, but also it provides
the potential for establishing good and workable zoning
lines. A large portion of the existing zoning in the
immediate vicinity was accomplished through the Rock
Creek Plan which identified significant amounts of land
for commercial use and recognized the area in question
for multifamily development which is a reasonable use
of the land. The most recent rezoning action in the
area was "MF -18" to the south.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 9 - Continued
3. Bowman Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial with the future extension of the Rock
Creek Parkway being identified as an expressway.
Engineering will provide specifics on the need for
dedication of additional right -of -way.
4. There have been no comments received from the reviewing
agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on the site.
7. Any planning effort that has been undertaken for this
area has always shown commercial land to be north of
the future extension of the parkway. The I -430 Plan is
no exception and recommends multifamily use for the
site. Staff's position is that the adopted land use
plan should be maintained and does not support the
request. There is an adequate amount of commercial
land in the area that is undeveloped, including some to
the east at Autumn and Hermitage Road which was
accomplished through a court action and rezoning by the
City. The need for additional commercial land does not
exist at this time, and the property does have some
development potential as a multifamily project. The
plan shows a large commercial area at Markham and
Bowman with another commercial node at Bowman and
Kanis. Between those areas, land is identified for
multifamily development which should be viewed as a
viable transition zone. The rezoning of this land
could encourage other commercial applications and the
potential stripping out of Bowman between Markham and
Kanis.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Brad Walker, was present. There were seven
objectors in attendance. Mr. Walker described the property
in question and the general area. He went on to discuss the
parkway extension and the need for it. Mr. Walker made a
long presentation including traffic counts and discussion of
the "C -3" district and the I -430 plan. Mary Laurie, a
resident of the area, said she was representing the
neighborhood and presented two petitions opposed to the
April 22, 1986
Item No. 9 - Continued
rezoning and a written statement. One petition was from the
immediate area along Bowman Road and contained twenty -two
names. The other petition represented residential
neighborhoods to the west and had eighty -one signatures.
Ms. Laurie said that the neighborhood was concerned with how
commercial zoning would be stopped in the future if this
request was approved. She went on to describe the existing
zoning in the area and said that there was more than
adequate amount of commercial land available. She pointed
out that the quality of life was good in the neighorhood and
that "C -3" was inappropriate for it. She also questioned
the long range impacts of the proposed zoning on the area
and said that the site had development potential because of
existing "MF -12" zoning. Charles Lord discussed the I -430
plan in the area. He said that there was no demand for
additional commercial zoning and read a statement from
Rodney Parham, who opposed the C -3" request. Mr. Lord said
that there was no reason to extend the commercial zoning on
the south side of the proposed parkway and presented a
written statement from Kay Kelly. Walter Kamps described
the area and said that he enjoyed it becuase it was quiet.
He also said that the area did not need any more commercial
zoning. Marie Taylor said it would be better to keep the
property multifamily and asked several questions. She felt
that the "C -3" request was premature. Robert Chowning then
addressed the Commission discuss the economic considerations
and extension of the parkway. He said that the parkway is
to be constructed through a voluntary improvement district
and that the existing multifamily zoning on the property
could not support the cost of the road. He also pointed out
that without the rezoning, the property in question could
not be part of the improvement district. Mr. Chowning said
that the rezoning was compatible with the area and was
needed for the improvement district to construct the road.
Charles Lord spoke again and discussed the parkway and
costs. Mr. Chowning made additional comments about the
improvement district and said it could be formed within the
next thirty days. Mr. Lord said the viability of the
neighborhood was a major issue that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Chowning and Joe White, engineer for the improvement
district, discussed the parkway and the property in
question. There was a long discussion about the all the
issues. The Commission then voted on the "C -3" request as
filed. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 2 abstentions
(William Ketcher and Dorothy Arnett). The rezoning was
recommended for approval. A motion was then made and
approved that directed the Planning Staff to reexamine the
impact of the parkway.
April 22, 1986
} Item No. 10 - Z -4641
Owner: Grover C. and Betty Bolin and
Big K Development
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: West of Shackleford Road south of
Colonel Glenn Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" and "MF -18" to
"I -1"
Purpose: Maintenance /Distribution Center
Size: 26.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "MF -18"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
The staff recommends that this item be deferred to
May 13, 1986, in order to permit further review in
connection with the 65th Street West plan being prepared by
staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the
May 13, 1986, meeting. Joe White, the applicant, agreed to
the deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to
the May 13, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9
ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 11 - Z -4644
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Francis K. Wood and Telka K.
Connerly
William H. Asti
1900 Block of South University
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Auto Speciality Shopping Center
10.0 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USE
AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family
and Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
and "C -3"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a 10 -acre site from "R -2" to
"C -3," and the proposed use is an auto speciality
shopping center. It appears that certain uses that are
to be included in the center will require conditional
use approval also. The property is located on South
University just south of the commercial strip between
West 12th and West 19th /Boyle Park Drive. The site
abuts single family residences on three sides, and on
the east side of University, there is a large vacant
tract which is owned by the University of Arkansas at
Little Rock. At the northeast corner of the property,
there is a commercial use zoned "C -3." The remaining
portion of the land is surrounded by "R -2" zoning. The
property in question appears to be removed from what
would be considered a more desirable commercial
location and has significant issues that need to be
addressed, such as access and its relationship to the
single family neighborhood. For an auto related use
such as being proposed, the site has very inadequate
access because there is no median cut along University
in that area, and direct access at this time is only
from the north.
April 22, 1986
Item No. 11 - Continued
2.
The property is vacant and has been significantly
modified over the years because of some site work.
3.
There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with the request.
4.
There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.
There are no legal issues.
6.
Staff has received some information calls regarding the
rezoning. There is no documented history on the site.
7.
Staff feels that the site is not a viable commercial
location, especially because of the access issue and
does not support the request. Another major concern is
that a "C -3" rezoning could have some adverse impacts
on the surrounding single family neighborhoods which
appear to be very stable. A use such as is being
proposed could disrupt the livability of those
neighborhoods because of generating excessive noise
levels and needing bright lights. The Boyle Park
District Plan which this location is a part recognizes
that the site is not a single family area and
recommends an office use for the property. The intent
of the plan was to provide some development potential
for the site with a use that would not create heavy
traffic loads. Because of being in conflict with the
plan, the access question and the potential impact on a
single family neighborhood, the "C -3" reclassification
should not be granted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, William Asti, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be
deferred to allow the City's Traffic Engineer to review the
access issue. Mr. Asti indicated they had no problems with
the deferral and presented some information to the
Commission. A resident of the neighborhood then spoke. He
said he opposed the "C -3" rezoning and objected to the
deferral request. Mr. Asti made some additional comments.
A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the May 13, 1986,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes 0 noes
and 5 absent.
April 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Parkway Place Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4650)
LOCATION: The Southwest corner of the
Intersection of W. Markham Street
and Parkway Place Drive
(300 Parkway Place Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Parkway Place Baptist Church/
R.H. Keen
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 13,400 square
classrooms, seats 525 and is
provide a total of 100 paved
land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
feet sanctuary (includes six
43' 5 3/8" in height) and
parking spaces on 6.15 acres of
Located at the intersection of two collector streets
(West Markham Street and Parkway Place Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site currently contains a church education
building and a parking area. The six acre tract is
abutted by single family uses on three sides with a
vacant area adjacent to the north. This proposal will
be compatible with the surrounding area with proper
landscaping. The large size of the tract, as well as
the fact that the sanctuary will be below grade from
the closest single family use, enchances its
compatibility.
April 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains two primary access points (one on
Parkway Place Drive, and one on West Markham Street).
A secondary access to a small handicapped parking area
is located on Markham Place Circle. The proposal
initially calls for 100 paved parking spaces with an
additional 56 spaces to be added in Phase II.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surrounding
area resulting from the proposed use. There are,
however, some clarifications and issues that need to be
resolved. The site plan needs to include dimensions of
the proposed drives as well as the dimensions of the
existing building. The applicant also needs to submit
a landscape plan. The parking requirements are 105
spaces. The site plan needs to be revised to include
five additional parking spaces to meet ordinance
requirements. The church apparently has been driving
across the curb (on West Markham Street) in order to
park their bus (adjacent to a single family use). The
church should refrain from this access and parking in
the future. Finally, the height of the proposed
sanctuary is 43 feet 5 3/8 inches which is 8 feet 5 3/8
inches in excess of the requirements (maximum allowable
height in "R -2" is 35 feet). Approval of this height
is subject to the Commission's recomemndation to the
Board of Directors. *Staff has not received comment
from the City Engineers or the Utilities. Approval is
subject to their comments.
6. Staff Recommendation
The Staff recommends approval provided: (1) the
applicant agrees to submit a landscape plan; (2) the
applicant submits a revised site plan that includes the
dimensions of all buildings, accesses and five
additional parking spaces; (3) the applicant agrees to
refrain from parking and taking access from
April 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
West Markham Street (on other than the approved access
point) ; ( 4 ) the Commission approves the height of the
proposed sanctuary; and (5) the applicant agrees to
comply with the City Engineering requirements and the
Utility request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (4 -8 -86)
The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had
received responses from the utilities as well as from all
City departments. The Traffic Engineer had requested some
minor design revisions. The applicant stated that they
would comply with all staff recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had complied with all
requests. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the
staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to
by the applicant.
April 22, 1986
There being no further business before the Planning
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Chairman
Date
Secret ry