pc_03 25 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 25, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: William Ketcher
Jim Summerlin
j Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
Betty Sipes
Richard Massie
Jerilyn Nicholson
Fred Perkins
John Schlereth
Ida Boles
David Jones
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Dub Elrod
9
March 25, 1986
Item No. A - Z- 4092 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and
Chester D. Phillips
Robert N. Cearley, Jr.
Fairview Road and Pleasant
Ridge Road
Rezone from "MF -12" to 110-3"
Office Development
6.2 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Vacant,
Zoned
"PRD"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -6"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone
the Cedar Branch Subdivision from "MF -12" to "0-3" for
an office use. The property is platted for low density
multifamily development, but all lots are vacant. The
site is situated at the northwest corner of Fairview
and Pleasant Ridge Roads in an area that has a mix of
zoning and land use. The zoning includes "R -2," "PRD,"
"MF -6" and "0-3" with primary land use being single
family residential. There are some nonconforming
commercial uses to the southeast and a high percentage
of the land is still vacant including an existing "0-3"
tract. The immediate area appears to be better suited
for a mix of residential uses with single family to the
south and higher densities to the north of Pleasant
Ridge Road. This is due to the property's location
which does not have a great amount of visibility which
is needed for a viable office development.
2. The site is vacant, wooded and increases in elevation
from east to west.
March 25, 1986
Item No. A - 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 position on the
site. The property was rezoned to "MF -12" in October
of 1983.
7. Staff's position is that the property is better suited
for multifamily development and does not support the
110 -3" request because the property is too isolated for
an office project and the request is in conflict with
the adopted plan. The property is removed from more
visible nonresidential locations and does not lend
itself to office development because of that factor and
the existing development pattern. The Suburban
Development Plan identifies an area to the east
primarily between Woodland Heights and Rodney Parham
for office development. Staff views that as being a
1 more desirable location. The Highway 10 Study which
was never formally adopted by the City Board of
Directors also recommended a multifamily use for this
site with office development being to the east and
southeast. The existing "MF -12" is compatible with the
area and should be maintained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0 -3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 17 -85)
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the
owner /applicant had submitted a written request for a
deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
January 28, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 28 -86)
Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the item
be deferred to the February 25, 1986, meeting. A motion was
made to defer the request to the February meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 25 -86)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A
motion was made to defer the request to the March 25, 1986,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief status
report on the request. A motion was made to withdraw the
item without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
a
l
March 25, 1986
Item No. B - Z- 4250 -A
Owner: Hartford and Kadelia Hamilton
Applicant: Carolyn Ulmer
Location: Fairview Road North of
Pleasant Ridge Road
Request: Rezone from "PRD" to 110 -2"
Purpose: Office Development
Size: 7.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the property from "PRD" to
"0 -2" for an office development. The site is located
south of Highway 10 in the Fairview and Summit Road
area. In the immediate vicinity, the zoning is
primarily residential with some "0 -3" and "C -1" to the
north along Pleasant Ridge Road. The land use is
single family residential with a high percentage of the
area still vacant including the "0 -3" and "C -1" sites.
Because of the property's location and the existing
development pattern, it appears that the most
reasonable use of the land is residential at an
appropriate density. The property does not have the
necessary visibility for a viable office location being
north of Pleasant Ridge Road.
2. The site is wooded and has a single family residence at
the northeast corner.
3. Fairview Road is classified as a residential street
which normally requires 50 feet right -of -way. The
survey indicates a right -of -way of 30 feet so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
March 25, 1986
Item No. B - Continued
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. The property was reclassified from "R -2" to "PRD" in
August 1984. The proposal was for 14 fourplex lots,
one tract for 16 units and a single family lot with a
total of 73 units or 10 units per acre. There was no
neighborhood opposition and several petitions were
submitted in support of the request.
7. This property is part of the Suburban Development Plan
area which does not recognize a nonresidential use for
the site. Because of the plan, staff does not support
the rezoning proposal. This position is consistent
with the Highway 10 study which was never adopted by
the City Board of Directors but did recommend a
residential use for the land. The area does not lend
itself to an office development and should remain
residential with a mix of densities. (Staff has also
recommended denial for an "0 -3" request on the property
directly to the south of this site.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
} Staff recommends denial of the "0 -2" rezoning based on the
existing plan, but suggests a deferral as being appropriate
due to the work currently underway to develop a new plan for
this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 28 -86)
Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the item
be deferred for at least 30 days. A motion was made to
defer the request to the February 25, 1986, meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 25 -86)
Staff recomended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A
motion was made to defer the rezoning issue to the March 25,
1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)
The applicant, Carolyn Ulmer, was present. There were no
objectors. Ms. Ulmer requested that the item be withdrawn
from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the
request without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. C - Z -4607
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
First Commercial National Bank
Joseph Love
1501 Izard Street
Rezone from "R -4" to "C -1"
Beauty Shop
0.23 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
West - Mixed Uses, Zoned "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the southeast corner of
West 15th and Izard to "C -1" for a beauty shop. The
property is located in a neighborhood that has a very
mixed use zoning pattern which includes "R -4," "R -6,"
110 -3," "C -3" and "I -2." The land use is not as diverse
as the zoning with residential being the primary use.
South of West 14th there is a substantial amount of
"C -3" land, but a majority of it is either vacant or
used for residential purposes. There are also some
nonresidential uses, such as churches, on the "C -3"
lots. Because of the situation, the need for
additional commercial land is questionable. It does
not appear that the request is being made because there
is a demand for more commercial land in the area.
Based on the existing land use, the neighborhood is
over zoned and some of the zoning is misplaced.
2. The site is a vacant 100' x 100' tract of land.
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.
March 25, 1986
Item No. C - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on the site.
7. Staff's position is that the existing commercial zoning
pattern and line should be maintained and does not
support the "C -1" rezoning. A majority of the current
zoning was accomplished through the High Street Urban
Renewal Plan and provided for more than an adequate
amount of commercial property. Allowing the zoning
lines to be changed at this time could establish
undesirable precedent. The rezoning, if granted, would
be an intrusion into a residential block and could have
an adverse impact on those lots and other properties in
the immediate area. And finally, there is no real
demand or need for the additional commercially zoned
land.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -1" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 25 -86)
The applicant, Joe Love, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff informed the Commission that the necessary
notice materials had not been submitted. Mr. Love addressed
the notification issue and said that a majority of the
notices had been returned. He went on to discuss this
proposal and the surrounding area. Because of the
notification problem, a motion was made to defer the request
for 30 days to the March 25, 1986, meeting and for the
applicant to renotify the property owners. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)
The applicant, Joe Love, was not present. There were six
objectors in attendance. Staff reported to the Planning
Commission on the status of the request and that it was
unknown whether any renotification had been accomplished.
The Planning Commission then voted on the request as filed.
The vote 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The "C -1" rezoning
was denied.
March 25, 1986
Item No. D
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Woodlawn, Inc.
Markham and State
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 372 -7700
Pleasant View Revised
Preliminary
Northend of Sugar Maple Lane,
Northwest of Sam Peck Road
ENGINEER:
011en Dee Wilson
212 South Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375 -7222
AREA: 1 acre NO. OF LOTS: k2 FT. NEW STREET: 250
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Staff Report
This is a request by the applicant to add one acre to
an existing single family subdivision. This tract will
add an extra 12 lots to the subdivision. The amount of
new street to be provided is 250 feet.
Staff has no problems with the request.
B. EnQineerinq Comments
None.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
March 25, 1986
Item No. D - Continued
D. Subdivision Committee
Staff was requested to research plans for the extension
of Peckerwood Drive. The applicant was asked to submit
a hillside analysis.
Utility Comments: Water - Extension of main required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 11 -86)
Staff reported that Peckerwood Drive was on the Master
Street Plan and would affect a portion of this plat.
Engineering stated that they wanted the street to remain on
the plan.
The application was represented by Mr. Dee Wilson. A
hillside analysis was not submitted.
A motion was made for a two week deferral, subject to the
applicant: (1) meeting with Engineering and working out the
street problem; and (2) submitting a hillside analysis.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86)
The applicant was present. Engineering decided that there
was not a need for the extension of Peckerwood Drive on the
Master Street Plan. Staff explained that a hillside
analysis was not needed since the plan served as a revision
of most of the lots with a gain of only two new lots.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z- 3613 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Properties West, Inc.
Joe D. White
Shadow Lake Drive at Nix Road
Rezone from "MF -18" to "R -2"
Single Family
10.0 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18"
South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the 10 acres from "MF -18" to "R -2"
for a single family subdivision. A preliminary plat, Shadow
Ridge, has already been filed and appears that the street
construction has been started. The addition to the west is
fairly new, but there are a number of houses that have been
constructed. The "MF -18" tract to the north is developed
with a quality multifamily project.
This area is shown for single family development on the
Suburban Development Plan and staff supports the request.
There are no outstanding issues associated with this
rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R -2" zoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning
request as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z- 4339 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Mike Trusty
Larry W. Carter
6401 Asher Avenue
Rezone from "C -3" to 11C -4"
Auto Sales
2.1 acres
Auto Sales (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
South - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "C -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
1 The proposal is to rezone the tract to "C -4" to permit auto
sales, an used car lot. The applicant began to display and
sell cars prior to getting the necessary zoning so this
request is before the Planning Commission because of an
enforcement action.
The site is located on Asher Avenue, west of University
Avenue, and is part of the Boyle Park District Plan which
recommends a service commercial use for the property. "C -4"
zoning is normally associated with this type of land use
pattern and staff supports the rezoning. In addition, the
Zoning Ordinance states that appropriate locations for the
"C -4" District are along heavily traveled, major traffic
arterials such as Asher Avenue.
There are two items that the applicant and /or owner should
be made aware of. The first being that in a "C -4" District,
"there shall be no open display of any kind whatsoever in
the first 20 feet of the required front yard setback ". The
second has to do with the possibile dedication of additional
right -of -way for Asher Avenue. Recently, on the north side
of Asher, in this immediate vicinity, there was some
right -of -way dedication through a Board of Adjustment
action.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
Engineering has provided the following comments:
1. Boundary street improvements for a five lane
section of Asher Avenue corresponding to the AHTD
design are required as well as right -of -way
dedication for a 100 foot wide right -of -way on
Asher Avenue. This requires the property owner to
furnish dedication of 50 feet from the
centerline.
2. It appears that a very small portion of the
floodway area is located on the south end of the
property. Also, approximately 120 feet from the
south property line north is located within a
floodplain. Therefore, the property owner should
furnish a survey showing a floodway and floodplain
area on the south end of the property, located
either by a professional engineer or a land
surveyor.
3. Access points to the property shall be located on
the east side of the property and approved by the
Traffic Engineer before any construction begins.
The Board of Adjustment case on this property involved the
placement of satellite receiving dishes between the street
right -of -way and the principal structure. The variance was
approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -4" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -4" rezoning
as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z -4614
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
Russell Clark
Adams and West 30th Southeast
Corner
Rezone from "R -3" to 11I -2"
Industrial
0.46 acres
Vacant and Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -5"
East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the site to "I -2" for some
type of industrial use. The property is one block
north of Asher Avenue in a neighborhood that has
experienced some substantial zoning changes. In the
general area the zoning includes "R -3," 11R -4," "R -5,"
"C -3" and "I -2" with a wide range of land uses,
especially adjacent to Asher Avenue. Along Asher there
is a mix of commercial and industrial uses with this
pattern extending 1 to 1 1/2 blocks north of Asher.
Along with the nonresidential uses in the immediate
vicinity, there is a fairly stable single family
neighborhood to the west and north. The zoning is
still "R -3" in those areas for the most part and there
have been very few rezoning changes. Because of this
tract's particular location, a transitional area, a
nonresidential use of a site is reasonable if property
developed.
2. The site is three typical residential lots with a
single family structure on the middle lot. The
remaining two are vacant.
3. Some dedication right -of -way will be required for Adams
because it is a 40 foot residential street.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
4. Boundary street improvements and dedication are
required on Adams and on West 30th Street. This
includes drainage improvements on both streets and
stormwater detention on -site is required.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. Staff's position is that the property could be
developed for an "I -2" use if done in the manner that
would not impact the residential area to the west and
staff supports the rezoning request. To lessen the
effects on the residential uses, the site should be
oriented to the north towards the existing "I -2" and
provide screening along the west and south sides. It
appears that this can be accomplished through a
Subdivision Ordinance which requires lots to be
replatted into one industrial lot. In this
neighborhood Adams Street north of West 31st has been
used to limit nonresidential zoning to the west, and
that line could be reinforced by creating West 30th as
the frontage for this piece of property. This would,
hopefully, direct the nonresidential traffic to West
30th and Washington Street. The area is part of the
Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which recommends a
multifamily use for the property or kind of a holding
zone. Staff feels that "I -2" is reasonable because of
the existing zoning pattern and it should have a
minimum impact on the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Russell Clark, was present. There was
objector in attendance. Mr. Clark spoke and said that
property would be primarily used for storage. He then
on to describe the neighborhood. Staff made several
comments and there was a long discussion about various
issues. Mr. B. Mullen, then addressed the Commission
voiced some concerns about the rezoning. He gave some
one
the
went
and
history on the "R -5" zoning to the south of the property
question and suggested that a more comprehensive approach
rezoning should be taken in the area. There were some
additional comments made. A motion was then made to
in
to
March 25, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
recommend approval of the "I -2" request as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z -4618
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Earsell R. Braswell
Jimmie L. Davis
3400 and 3402 Mabelvale Pike
Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3"
Commercial
0.32 acres
Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "C -3"
East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
} The request is to rezone the 2 lots to "C -3" for a
commercial use. Currently, there is one residential
structure on each lot. The immediate area has been heavily
impacted by previous zoning actions with this site abutting
"C -3" on two sides and with "I -2" on the east side of
Mabelvale Pike. Because of the location, with frontage on
Mabelvale Pike, and the existing land use and zoning
patterns, staff supports the "C -3" rezoning.
There is a Master Street Plan issue associated with this
request. Mabelvale Pike is identified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial which normally requires a
right -of -way of 80 feet. Based on a survey provided by the
applicant, the existing right -of -way is 40 feet, so
dedication of the additional right -of -way will be necessary.
Engineering has provided the following comments:
1. Boundary street improvements are required on both
34th Street and Mabelvale Pike.
2. Mabelvale Pike is a minor arterial, therefore a
total of 80 feet of right -of -way is required. The
property owner is required to furnish from the
centerline to his property line a 40 foot
right -of -way. Sidewalks are also required.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
3. Access to the property shall be reviewed by the
Traffic Engineer and approved by the Traffic
Engineer before any construction begins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" rezoning
as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 5 - 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.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 5 - 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:
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.
i
March 25, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z -4623
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
C.E. Miller and Brenda Bewley
Ron T. Broadway
5504 Baseline Road
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Commercial
0.47 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Mobile Home Park & Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site to "C -3" for a commercial
use and the land is vacant so a new building will be
constructed. The property is on Baseline Road east of Geyer
Springs and in the area that was annexed into the City in
April of 1985. Because of this, the frontage along Baseline
in the immediate vicinity is primarily made up of
nonconforming uses. To the west and east of the property is
adjacent to commercial uses and across Baseline there is a
mobile home park and commercial uses.
The proposed Geyer Springs East Plan recommends a commercial
strip from Shelley to Geyer Springs Road and "C -3" is
appropriate for that type of land use pattern. Because of
the location and the land use plan, staff supports the
rezoning.
If permanent boundary street improvements are not in place,
they will be required before any building permit is issued.
Additional right -of -way required for any future project will
be necessary at this time. On Baseline Road the total
right -of -way is 100 feet, therefore, a 50 feet right -of -way
from centerline is required from this property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z -4623
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 11 ayes, 0 ones and 0 absent.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z -4624
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Regina L. Norwood and Rose
Bickerstaff
Ascomb Enterprises, Inc.
13441 Cantrell Road (Hwy. 10)
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -1"
Laundromat
0.30 acres
Vacant Building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
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.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 7 - 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.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
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
discussion about the
nonconforming status
additional comments,
item be deferred for
defer the request to
motion was approved
absent.
information. There was a long
"C -1" zoning issue and the
of the property. After several
Mr. Osbourne requested that the
thirty days. A motion was made to
the April 22, 1986, meeting. The
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
March 25, 1986
Item No. 8 - Z -4625
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Jim E. Goad
S ame
1200 -1206 North University
Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3"
Office
0.49 acres
Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
South
- Office,
Zoned
"0 -3"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the property (three lots) to
"0 -3" for an office use. The tract is located at the
northwest corner of University and Evergreen which is
all zoned "R -2." The zoning on the other corners
include "MF -6," "0 -2" and "0 -3" with the land uses
being very similar. The only exception to that pattern
is an "MF -6" tract which is being used for parking. On
the northeast corner directly adjacent to University,
there is a 100 foot "R -2" strip that functions as a
buffer between the "0 -3" area to the east and the
residential neighborhood on the west side of University
Avenue. By establishing the "R -2" area at the
northeast corner which also includes a 50 foot strip
along Evergreen, an attempt has been made to discourage
any nonresidential zoning west of University on the
north side of Evergreen. A majority of the office land
is developed with the exception of the "0 -2" tract at
the southeast corner of University and Evergreen. That
piece of property was rezoned approximately three years
ago and with it still being vacant, the need for
additional land for office use becomes an issue.
2. The site is made up of three lots 0.5 acres in size.
Two of the lots are vacant and the northern most lot
has a single family residence on it.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
3. The dedication of additional right -of -way will be
required for both University and Evergreen. The exact
amount of dedication is unknown at this time.
4. Right -of -way and boundary street improvements on
Evergreen and University shall be required. The
boundary street requirements shall be approved by the
Traffic Engineer with regard to access before any
construction begins.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In March 1985, an attempt was made to reclassify the
southern lot (Z -4333) to "PCD" for a real estate
office. There was susbtantial neighborhood opposition
and the request was denied by the Planning Commission
by a vote of 3 ayes and 6 noes. Staff recommended
denial of the initial proposal which was for a 2500
square foot two -story building. A revised plan was
submitted reducing the size and staff supported it.
The other two lots were not part of the previous
application.
7. Because of this sites location which does create
some problems, such as access, staff does not support
the "0 -3" rezoning. Based on the existing zoning
pattern and the "R -2" buffer on the east side, it would
be inappropriate to allow a nonresidential district to
encroach into the residential neighborhood at the
northwest corner of University and Evergreen. Also, it
appears that the office or nonsingle family zoning has
not had an effect on the quality of the residential
area and finally, the need for additional office
property should be addressed because of the existing
vacant "0 -2" site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0 -3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Jim Goad, was present. There were eight
objectors in attendance. Mr. Goad indicated that he had
discussed the rezoning with the neighbors and because of
that he was now accepting the staff's recommendation of
denial. After some additional comments, the Planning
Commission voted on the "0 -3" rezoning as requested. The
vote 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The request was denied.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 9 - Geyer Springs East District Plan
The Geyer Springs East District Plan is a land use plan for
an area east of Geyer Springs Road and west of Arch Street
Pike. The southern boundary is Green Road, the northern
boundary is a line roughly 1/4 mile north of I -30. This
area has recently been annexed by the City of Little Rock.
A public meeting was held in the district to discuss the
plan on August 5, 1985. The first Citizen's Advisory
Committee meeting was held October 17, 1985.
The staff has mailed copies of the plan document to all
members of the Citizen's Committee. The staff has received
no negative comments.
In many areas the plan reflects existing land uses.
Baseline Road is shown as primarily commercial, with some
mixed density residential. In response to citizen input on
the sensitive nature of the Young Road area, staff has
recently made some changes for the western portion of Young
Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The item was approved by the Planning Commission with one
change. This change showed an extension of
commercial /office land use on the south side of Young Road.
There were no objections. The vote for approval was 11 -0.
March 25, 1986
Item No. 10 - Highway 10 District Land Use Plan -
Extraterritorial Study
The first of the district level land use plans for the
extraterritorial plan has been prepared by the consultant
and staff. The Highway 10 Plan has been reviewed by the
Extraterritorial Citizen Advisory Group, the Highway 10
Citizen Group and the Plans Committee.
The details of the plan will be discussed at the meeting by
the consultant and staff.
The Plans Committee has recommended the adoption of the plan
with two areas of concern. These are the 150' building
setback line and the preservation of Pankey for single
family. The Plans Committee felt that Pankey should have
two land use options for discussion: (1) single family and
(2) transition zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jack Castin, representing the consultant firm Manes, Castin,
Massie and McGetrick, presented the plan, discussing the
goals and objectives and giving particular attention to the
proposed transition zones, the Pankey Community and proposed
setback requirements. A 2 -hour discussion followed. Ten
people spoke in favor of the plan and five against. A
motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing and
to vote on the Highway 10 District Plan at the April 8
Planning Commission meeting. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
1
March 25, 1986
Item No. 11 - Other Matters
A discussion of a request to notify property owners within
200 feet by a method other than what the Planning Commisison
Bylaws require.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Because of the nature of this matter it was discussed at the
Agenda Meeting. Walter Hyde asked that he be permitted to
hand carry a rezoning notice to the property owners. The
Planning Commission instructed Mr. Hyde to follow the
Bylaws for the necessary notification which includes
obtaining a list of property owners from an abstract company
and mailing the notices by certified or registered mail.
DATE�o(�/B
PLAN NIN-G ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
·ZONING ·SUBDIVISION
MEMBER ll F> e 1)
J.�ummt\rlin / / " I
lJ. Schlereth / J/ • a/
R.Massie ,/ J/ • ,/
B.Sipes / / � v"'
J.Nicholson ,/ / -,/
w.Rector ,/ ,/ • /
W.Ketcher ,/ ,/ A v
D.Arnett ,/ ,/ • /
D.J. Jones / a/' # ,/
I.Boles i/ ./ • /
F.Perkins I ,I , ,I
I
,/
,/
/
�
/
/
i/
,/
y
,/ J/
ITEM NUMBERS
z 3 'I-5 (t:, r; / ,/ / / / � v / i/ J/ //
y / / A / /
t/' / / v / ,/
/ / ,/ ,/ ,//
/ / / / ,//
/ I / f / /
/ I ,/ / / /
/ I / / v /
/ I V f i/A
y" ,/ / f v' ,/
VAYE ct NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
'rf q-./{)
� / / •/ /•v �•V /, � I/ -,/ /, ,/ / •,/ ,/, v' ,/ •/ /f•/ /
II ,,
,/"
/
/ v
/. v
/
.,/ v
.,/
�-
March 25, 1986
There being no further business before the Planning
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
I/\), kx " 1,
hai man =�
-- 2 CI - 0
Date
_ i