pc_10 28 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 28, 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
Walter Riddick III
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
Richard Massie
John Schlereth
Betty Sipes
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Ida Boles
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Steve Giles
October 28, 1986
Item No. A - Z -4694
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Donald C. and Ruby W. Bland
Donald C. Bland
1922 West 12th Street
Rezone from "R -4" to "C -3"
Office and Commerical
0.11 acres
Existing Use: Multifamily (Vacant)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Duplex, Zoned "R -4"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
East - Duplex, Zoned "R -4"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone a
single lot to "C -3" for a mix of office and commerical
uses. The exact nature of those uses is unknown at
this time. The site is located at the northeast corner
of West 12th and Summit in an area that has been
heavily impacted by previous rezoning actions. In the
immediate neighborhood, the zoning pattern consists of
"R -4," "R -5," 110 -2," "0 -3," "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2" with
the land use being very similar. Some of the existing
"C -3" sites are either vacant or being used for some
type of noncommercial use. Based on the current zoning
in the neighborhood, it appears that some type of
nonresidential rezoning is appropriate for the property
in question.
2. The site is a typical residential lot with a large two
story structure on it.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. Engineering has expressed some concerns with both
access to the site and parking. No other comments have
been received from the reviewing agencies.
5. There are no legal issues.
October 28, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The property under consideration is the only corner at
the intersection of West 12th and Summit that is still
zoned for residential use. The other three corners are
zoned either "0 -3" or "C -3" so commercial rezoning for
the northeast corner appears to be a reasonable option.
Because of the site's location and its relationship to
nearby residential uses, staff is reluctant to support
"C -3" and suggest that "C -1" is more appropriate
because of it being the neighborhood commerical
district. The one major issue associated with this
property is parking. The mix of uses will be based on
the lots ability to provide the necessary parking and
the owners should be aware of that situation. The
parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance are 1
space per 400 square feet for office and 1 space per
300 square feet for commercial with some personal
service uses requiring 1 space per 200 square feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of "C -1" and not "C -3" as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7- 22 -86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
not present. The Commission determined that the notice to
adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the
bylaws. A motion was made to defer this matter until
August 26. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 26 -86)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days
because of the notice issue. A motion was made to defer the
request to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion was
approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A
motion was made to defer the request to the October 28, 1986,
meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
Staff informed the Commission that the owner had requested
that the item be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was
made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion
was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. B - Z -4708
Owner: John D. Crockett
Applicant: Same
Location: Chicot Road at the MOPAC Railroad
Tracks
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2"
Purpose: Auto Sales Lot
Size:
1.0 Acres
Existing Use: Auto Sales Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
South - Commercial and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R -2"
and "I -2"
East - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone the site to "I -2" for an auto sales
lot. The lot is currently in operation and the use is
nonconforming. The property is located on the east side of
Chicot Road between I -30 and Baseline Road in an area that
is heavily zoned for industrial uses, especially north of
the MOPAC tracks. To the south, there is a mix of "R -2,"
"0 -3" and "C -3" with a well established single family
neighborhood directly south of the railroad tracks. The
area on the north side is primarily zoned "I -2" with several
"R -2" tracts, but there are no residential uses on those
"R -2" parcels. The property in question abuts "I -2" on the
north and south with the railroad tracks on the east side.
Across Chicot Road to the west, there is also "I -2" zoning.
Because of the existing zoning pattern, the proposed
rezoning will not impact any of the surrounding property.
There is a potential Master Street Plan issue and that is
the future extension of University Avenue to the south,
adjacent to the railroad tracks. The plan shows the
proposed roadway to be extended and connect with Chicot Road
at some point between the creek and tracks.
October 28, 1986
Item No. B - Continued
Engineering recommends that the property should not be
rezoned from its "R -2" status. This particular piece of
property will be purchased by the City of Little Rock for
the Chicot Road interchange connection. The Engineering
staff has contacted persons with knowledge of this site in
the past and have tentatively entered into talks to purchase
the property at various times.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff will present a recommendation at the public hearing
after reviewing the Master Street Plan issue with
Engineering.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 26 -86)
The applicant, John D. Crockett, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff recommended that the "I -2" request be
denied. Mr. Crockett spoke and said that he had purchased
the property to be leased out for an auto sales lot. He
went on to say that he knew some street plans existed, but
he didn't think that those plans would impact his property.
There was a long discussion about the master street plan
issue and the acquisition question. After some additional
comments, a motion was to defer the item for 60 days and to
stop any further enforcement action during that time period.
Mr. Crockett agreed to the deferral. The motion was
approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. (This
action was taken to give the City adequate time to pursue
the acquisition of the property.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" request
as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent. (Staff informed the Commission that the
rezoning would not be forwarded to the Board of Directors
until the City's purchase of the property has been
finalized).
October 28, 1986
Item No. C - Z -4716
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Charles G. Offutt
Same
10115 Chicot Road
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Sign Shop
0.45 Acres
Single Family
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 -7"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The proposal is to rezone the property from "R -2" to
"C -3" to permit some type of sign shop. The exact
nature of the sign shop is unclear and it is very
possible that "C -3" is not the appropriate district for
the use. In addition to the commercial operation, the
applicant also plans to reside on the lot. The site is
situated in an area along Chicot Road that is somewhat
unique. On the west side of Chicot, the land use is
very mixed and the zoning pattern reflects that.
Between Mabelvale Pike and Burnell on the west side of
Chicot, the existing zoning includes "R -2," "R -7,"
"O -1" and "C -3." The opposite of this is found on the
east side of Chicot where the zoning is "R -2" with the
exception of the northeast corner of Chicot and
Mabelv ale Pike which is zoned "C -3." Besides several
vacant lots, the land use is single family residences
on the east side of Chicot in the immediate vicinity.
2. The site is about one half acre in size and occupied by
two structures. An accessory building located in the
rear yard area is to be utilized for the sign shop.
3. Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on the
Master Street Plan so dedication of additional
right -of -way will be required because the existing
right -of -way is deficient.
October 28, 1986
Item No. C - Continued
4. In lieu contributions for street improvements on Chicot
Road will be required.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. This area was annexed into the City as part of the
South Central Island. At the time of annexation, the
City also rezoned properties in the island based on the
South Central Island plan which was developed by the
staff. The plan's goal for commercial zoning was to
concentrate it at intersections of a major street and
to recognize the more viable commercial uses. A
majority of the existing nonresidential zoning found
along this section of Chicot Road was accomplished
through the South Central Island planning effort which
only recognized the northeast corner of Mabelvale Pike
and Chicot for commercial development. The proposed
rezoning is contrary to the plan and in conflict with
the existing zoning patterns. Because of those
reasons, staff is opposed to the request and this would
be the staff's position relative to any type of
nonresidential rezoning. The rezoning could have a
very adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish
undesirable precedent for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 26 -86)
The applicant, Charles Offutt, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Offutt spoke and described his business as a
specialized sign painting company and said that there was no
walk -in traffic. He said that he could no longer afford his
current location, and with the property in question, he
could live there and work out of an accessory structure in
the rear yard. Mr. Offutt went on to say that the detached
building had been used for various nonresidential activities
over the last few years. At that point, there was a long
discussion about the property having some type of
nonconforming use status. The Commission instructed the
staff to research this issue and contact the Zoning
Enforcement Office about the nonconforming status
possibility. A motion was then made to defer the request to
the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86)
The applicant, Charles Offutt, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Offutt addressed the Commission and said
that he was able to obtain letters from seven neighbors and
three businesses in the immediate area. The letters
indicated that there had been a paint shop housed in the
accessory building located at 10115 Chicot Road until
February of 1986. Mr. Offutt also had a letter from
Franklin Paint Company stating that they had made a number
of deliveries to the property under consideration. There
was a long dicussion about the letters and other issues.
Mr. Offutt went on to discuss some problems he was having
with the City's Enforcement staff in knowing exactly what
type of information he was required to provide. There were
additional comments made by several Commissioners and the
Planning staff. A motion was then offered that interpreted
Mr. Offutt's evidence as establishing a nonconforming status
for the property at 10115 Chicot Road and that the request
be deferred until the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion
was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The
item is to be removed from consideration should the
nonconformity issue be resolved prior to October 28, 1986).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
Staff reported that the nonconformity issue had been
resolved and that the item could be withdrawn from the
agenda. A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning request.
The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0
absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. D - Z -4731
Owner: Capitol dill Properties, Inc.
Applicant: Same
Location: West Markham and Battery Streets
Request: Rezone from "I -3" to "MF -24"
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 4.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "I -3"
South - Vacant, Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned
"R -3," "R -5" and "I -3"
East - Vacant and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "I -3"
West - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -3"
"R -5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a 4.5 acre tract from "I -3" to
"114F -24" for a multifamily project. The property is
located in a small residential pocket between Cantrell
Road and West 3rd Street and to the northwest of the
State Capitol Complex. The land use includes single
family, multifamily, office, commercial and some
industrial to the north of the site in question.
The zoning pattern is just as diverse with "R -3."
"R -4," "R -5," 110 -3," "I -2," and "I -3." There are
several multifamily projects in the immediate vicinity
including the "R -5" directly to the west, adjacent to
West Markham, and tt appears that those uses have not
had an impact on the area. Provided that some issues
such as access can be resolved, a multifamily use of
the land is reasonable. This will create new housing
units close to the central core of the City which is
very desirable and needed.
2. The site is vacant and wooded.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
October 28, 1986
Item No. D - 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 history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. This location is part of the Heights /Hillcrest District
Plan area which identifies the site for industrial use.
Staff feels that the "I -3" zoning is misplaced and
supports the "MF -24" reclassification. A majority of
the uses permitted in the "I -3" District could have a
greater impact on the neighborhood than the proposed
use. Every effort should be made to rezone the
existing "I -3," especially west of the railroad track
to a district that is more compatible with the
neighborhood such as a residential use. The one issue
of concern associated with this rezoning is the access
to the property because circulation and the street
system is somewhat inadequate in the immediate area.
It is the staff's understanding that the owners are
looking into several alternatives because they have
other properties in the neighborhood. Access will be
critical to making this a viable project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "MF -24" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86)
The applicant requested that the item be deferred for 30
days. There were no objectors present. A motion was made
to defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
The applicant was represented by Randy Fraizer, an attorney.
There were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Fraizer
addressed the Commission and said that there would be a
total of 102 units and that there was a need for apartment
units in this section of Little Rock. He went on to discuss
the traffic concerns and said that the owner had agreed to
making the necessary street improvements as recommended by
the City's Engineering staff. The streets would include
both West Markham and Summit. Mr. Fraizer then reviewed the
area which he described as being very diverse and the
zoning.
October 28, 1986
Item No. D - Continued
Eddie Branton, architect for the project, then spoke and
said that West Markham would be the primary access point.
Lucy Towbin, 110 South Schiller, then addressed the
Commission. She said that the neighborhood was not
concerned so much with the use but rather with access and
traffic circulation. She said that the streets were very
narrow with no sidewalks and there was a high percentage of
on- street parking so the safety of the residents was a
factor. Ms. Towbin also asked whether access could be
provided to the north, towards Cantrell, instead of to West
Markham. Mr. Fraizer then reviewed the recommended
improvements for West Markham and Summit. Henk Koornstra,
City Traffic Engineer, addressed the access issue and said
that boundary street improvements would be required for West
Markham. He also said that the streets could handle the
increased traffic (higher density) with the improvements.
Another resident expressed concerns with the proposed
pavement width, 25 feet, and suggested that other access
points were needed. Ms. Towbin said there would be problems
with using Summit because of the traffic at West 3rd.
Additional comments were offered by both Mr. Fraizer and
Mr. Branton. There was a long discussion about the various
issues. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the
"MF -24" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 1 no and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. E - Z -4735
Owner: Union National Bank
Applicant: Bobby J. Kelley
Location: East 10th and Kirspel
Northeast Corner
Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3"
Purpose: Commercial /Parking
Size: 0.34 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
South - Airport, Zoned "I -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" and "I -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone
two lots from "R -3" to "C -3" for a commercial use.
Currently, the lot at the corner of East 10th and
Kirspel is zoned "C -3" and occupied by a vacant
building. In the past, that structure has been used
for a number of commercial uses including a restaurant.
It is the staff's understanding that the applicant
would like to open another eating establishment and
provide adequate parking. The applicant has mentioned
the possibility of removing the existing building and
redeveloping all three lots with the structure being
placed on the two lots being considered for rezoning
and providing parking on the third lot. The
neighborhood is zoned primarily for residential uses
with the exception of several sites along West 10th and
one "I -2" lot to the north on Kirspel which is vacant.
The nonresidential zoning which is found to the east of
the site is "C -3" and "I -2." Some of those properties
have commercial or industrial uses and others are
vacant. The most recent rezoning requests, Z -4058 and
Z -4409 were denied by the City because of potential
impacts on the neighborhood. Both of those were for
commercial reclassifications.
2. The site is two residential lots, each one being 35' x
140,' and both are vacant.
October 28, 1986
Item No. E - 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 history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. As with the previous commercial rezoning requests in
the neighborhood, staff is concerned with the potential
for adverse impacts and does not support the "C -3"
rezoning proposal. Allowing the existing commercial
zoning to expand to the north is undesirable and could
create some problems for the immediate neighborhood
which is fairly stable. The current nonresidential
zoning in the area is misplaced and should have never
been accomplished because those locations have not
helped the area. If the applicant wishes to upgrade
and redevelop the site, there is another-option
available that will allow use of the lots without
rezoning them. The Board of Adjustment has the power to
approve parking on land zoned for residential uses such
as is the situation in this case. Staff is more
comfortable with this approach because it provides for
a more detailed review and restricts the use to parking
only. Through this review, the residences to the north
and west can be offered some protection by ensuring
adequate buffering and screening.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86)
Staff informed the Commission that the necessary
notification materials had not been submitted and
recommended that the item be deferred. A motion was made to
defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred for thirty (30)
days. A motion was made to defer the request to the
November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z- 3108 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
A.B. Farquharson
Same
9923 West Markham
(West of Oak Lane)
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Commerical
0.74 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Office,
Zoned
"O -3"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "C -3"
East
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
West
- Office,
Zoned
"0 -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the tract from "R -2" to "C -3"
for an unspecified commercial use. The property is
located approximately one -third mile west of I -430
along a corridor that is zoned primarily for office
use. The zoning in the area includes "R -2," "R -4,"
"R -5," O -2," O -3," "C -3" and "PCD." In addition to
the "C -3" reflected on the accompanying sketch, there
is some "C -3" located at the northeast corner of West
Markham and I -430 that is developed with a mix of
commercial uses. The land use pattern in the
neighborhood is residential, quasi - public, office and
some commercial. Also, some of the existing "O-2" land
to the west is vacant. This section of West Markham is
developing as a quality office corridor, and new
rezonings in the area should continue to reinforce that
concept.
2. The site is approximately 320 feet deep and occupied by
a single family residential unit.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
4. Engineering reports that:
On -site detention is required.
. Only one driveway allowed on to West Markham.
No other comments have been received from the reviewing
agencies.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In 1977, a request was filed to rezone the property to
"O -3" (E -1). The zoning was approved by the Planning
Commission but denied by the Board of Directors. At
that time, there was a right -of -way issue involved
because this portion of West Markham had not been
widened, and the owner did not dedicate the additional
right -of -way.
7. Staff's position is that the "C -3" rezoning could lead
to a commercial strip along this section of West
Markham and could have adverse impact on the existing
residential uses to the south and east. For those
reasons, staff does not support the commercial rezoning
at 9923 West Markham. The need for additional
commercial land or space can also be questioned because
there are several structures at the southeast corner of
West Markham and Oak Lane, zoned "C -3," that are
vacant. And finally, recent attempts to rezone
properties for commercial uses in the area have either
been denied by the City or withdrawn from
consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the
item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the rezoning
to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved
by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z -4748
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
City of Little Rock
Same
By: Buster F. Riley
9015 Kanis Road
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Commerical
1.0 acres +
Existing Use: Fire Station
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -
Vacant,
Zoned
"O -3"
South -
Vacant,
Zoned
"C -3"
East -
Single
Family,
Zoned "R -2"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"C -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site to "C -3" for a commercial
use. The property is currently occupied by a City fire
station, and the proposal is to sell the land and relocate
the station to the east if the rezoning is accomplished. In
addition to this action, there is also a platting issue
associated with the site. Within 1,300 feet west of the
intersection of Kanis and Barrow, there are only three
tracts of land zoned "R -2" with the property under
consideration being one of them. The nonresidential zoning
in the immediate vicinity includes: "O -3," "C -3" and "C -4"
with the site in question abutting "C -3" land on two sides.
The request is compatible with the area and recent rezoning
actions.
Engineering reports that both boundary street improvements
and stormwater detention will be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" as filed.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the request as
filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0
absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z -4750
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Soumek Sithihao
Same
3515 West 30th
Rezone from "I -2" to "R -3"
Single Family
0.32 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "C -3"
South
- Single
Family,
Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned "I
-2"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "I -2"
STAFF ANALSIS:
The issue before the Planning Commission is rezone two lots
from "I -2" to "R -3" to permit a single family residence to
be constructed. This action was filed after the necessary
building perrait was not issued because the "I -2" District
does not permit single family units. The property is
located south of Roosevelt Road and west of the Pulaski
County governmental facilities. The zoning is primarily
nonresidential with a similar land use pattern. The large
"I -3" tract to the west is vacant, and the "R -3" to the
northeast has a public use on it. The pocket between
West 30th and West 32nd has a number of single family
residences, and there are some residential uses on the north
side of West 30th. On West 31st, there is a small
industrial use, and some of the lots are vacant. An
additional residential use with the necessary zoning will
not impact the area, and staff supports the request. A
somewhat irregular zoning pattern will occur if the rezoning
is granted, but that should not have any effect on the
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R -3" request as filed.
October 28, 1986
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Item No. 3 - Continued
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred because the notification of property owners had not
bee completed. A motion was made to defer the request to
the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z -4752
Owner: Catherine Davis
Applicant: John Epps
Location: 1710 East 16th
Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "I -2"
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 0.41 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site from "R -3" to "I -2" for an
unspecified industrial use. The lot is occupied by a single
family residence and is part of the Garden Homes Addition
which extends from East 15th on the north to East 22nd on
the south. This residential area has industrial zoning on
four sides with some nonresidential zoning encroaching into
the neighborhood between East 15th and East 17th. Some of
those lots are either vacant or still have single family
units on them, so the previous zoning actions have not had a
severe impact on the area. Because of the property's
location and having frontage on both East 15th and East
16th, the zoning is a reasonable proposal, and staff
supports the request. It is anticipated that in the
long -term more of the lots will be zoned for industrial
uses, and the residential character of the neighborhood will
be phased out.
Engineering has provided the following comments:
1. Right -of -way and boundary street improvements are
required.
2. Access drives and parking layout are to be approved by
the Traffic Engineer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" zoning as filed.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" rezoning
as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z -4755
Owner: Noel W. Gattis and Terry R. Jones
Applicant: Terry R. Jones
Location: 12,835 I -30
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2"
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 19.7 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3"
West - Vacant, Zoned "OS" and "C -4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone a large tract of land from "R -2"
to "I -2" along the I -30 corridor. This area between I -30
and Alexander Road has a very mixed land use that includes
residential, commercial and industrial. The zoning is very
similar with "R -2," 12C -3," "C -4," "I -2," and an "OS" piece
for a portion of the established floodway. The Otter Creek
District Plan suggests a mix of commercial and industrial
uses for the location, so the "I -2" rezoning is compatible
with the plan's recommendation.
The most significant issue associated with this request is
the floodway involvement. Out of the 19.7 acres,
approximately 9.3 acres are within the designated floodway.
This leaves the north 9.3 acres and one acre in the
southeast corner out of the floodway. The City's position
is that the floodway be dedicated to the City and rezoned to
"OS."
Engineering recommends that the applicant should obtain the
required flood elevation from the Public Works Department at
the time of any building permit application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "I -2" for that portion of the
property outside the floodway and "OS" for the designated
floodway which is to be dedicated to the City.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended that the item be deferred for thirty (30)
days. A motion was made to defer the request to the
November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 6 - Other Matters - Ordinance Amendments
Request: Planning Commission review for
adoption of the 1986 ordinance
amendment package.
This item is presented for Planning Commission public
hearing on the 60+ items developed over the past seven
months. The Planning staff has mailed copies of the
proposal to the distribution list containing over 40 persons
and organizations. This mailing requested their comments on
Draft No. 3 prior to the hearing in order to determine the
appropriateness of the various proposals. In our cover
letter to the several contacts, we outlined the deletions
and additions since mailing of Draft No. 2. These were:
Deletions:
1. Nonconforming Use - Reconstruction of ordinance
provisions on continuance and /or expansion.
2. Group Homes - Definition and placement within the
various districts.
3. Mobile Homes - Definition, modification and use
group restructure.
Additions:
1. Shopping center /mixed use parking conflicts
(existing centers).
2. Drive -in restaurant noise abatement at menu board
speakers.
3. Accessory floor space reduction in "O -2" District
from 20 percent to 10 percent.
4. Ordinance text correction dealing with
conditional uses.
5. Density restructure of the "R -5" District to
reduce density on small lots.
6. Site plan review variances by Planning Commission.
7. Ordinance text correction dealing with conflicting
definitions.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
8. Providing pyramiding between "C -3" and "C -4"
Districts and the overlapping of "I -1" and "I -2"
Industrial Districts with certain retail uses.
9. Ordinance text correction dealing with a parking
diagram error.
10. Providing for a habitual offender enforcement
penalty.
11. Ordinance text correction dealing with correction
of number of residential listings in the
definitions section.
12. Providing for a broader definition of day camp as
an "OS" District use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval of this package as
drafted and its forwarding to the Board of Directors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
The Planning staff made a presentation of Draft 3 of the
1986 Amendment Proposals. Identified were several areas
added to the Ordinance that were not included in the mailing
for this agenda. These items included specific definitions
of shopping center and a new listing for a parking
requirement for shopping centers. A lengthy discussion of
the proposed amendements followed. During the course of
this discussion several concerns were raised by various
members of the Commission relative to the application of
parking requirements not only to the new definition of
shopping center, but to the current policy of off - street
parking for mixed use commercial developments. The result
of this lengthy discussion was a motion to defer the
amendment package until the Commission meeting on November
25, 1986. The motion included a requirement that Planning
staff contact the several large cities in our region; these
being Dallas, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, and Memphis. This
contact being for purposes of determining how those
municipalities apply parking requirements to shopping
centers. This motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0
noes.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 7 - Unified Ordinance Establishing Filing Fees
Filing fees are intended to cover the costs of providing
information to the public, assisting applicants, processing
applications (including obtaining reports from other
departments), preparing legal ads, conducting field
investigations of applications, performing research,
answering questions about applications, formulating
recommendations, attending Commission and Board meetings,
preparing minutes, and preparing reports to the Board of
Directors.
Increases in certain fees are needed, due to: (a) inflation;
(b) increased complexity of regulations; and (c) the City's
financial situation being very tight. Loss of federal
revenue sharing funds, loss of the use tax, and court
rulings requiring repayment of use taxes previously
collected have all contributed to a need to make land use
regulation more of a self- supporting operation.
A study of costs of various application activities was
conducted over the period July, 1985 through May, 1986. The
study indicated that fee increases were needed for these
applications: planned unit development, Board of Adjustment,
subdivision site plan review, annexation, right -of -way
abandonment, and improvement district establishment. No fee
increases were found to be needed for subdivisions,
rezonings, conditional use permits, and zoning site plan
reviews.
The study was based upon staff salaries and applicable
indirect costs. A copy of the study is attached for your
review. The costs indicated for site plan review matters
are primarily for subdivision site plan reviews as opposed
to zoning site plan reviews.
A summary of the recommended increases is presented below:
• Planned Unit Developments from the current fee
of $125.00 each to the sliding scale now used
for subdivisions (see scale attached to the
fees study)
• Board of Adjustment applications from $51.00 +
$1.00 per lot or acre currently to a flat fee
of $125.00 each.
• Subdivision Site Plan Reviews from $125.00 each to
$200.00 each.
• Annexation applications from no fee presently
to $250.00 each.
Right -of -way Abandonment and Improvement District
applications from no fee presently to $125.00 each.
Special Use Permit applications from $25.00
presently to $125.00 each. The present fee is too
low, and the processing costs are comparable to
a Board of Adjustment application.
The estimated annual revenues that would be generated by the
fee increases are about $23,360.
It should be noted that the annexation fee would include the
costs of providing information to citizens, providing
technical assistance to applicants, obtaining information
from other City departments, attending any meetings in the
area proposed for annexation, conducting an analysis of each
annexation request, preparing a report and recommendation to
the Pulaski County Judge, attending the court hearing, and
submitting the report to the Board of Directors.
The actual ordinance that would adopt the proposed fee
changes is attached.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (October 28, 1986)
Staff outlined the proposed fee increases to the Commission.
David Jones argued that the increases represented tax
increases. John Schlereth indicated that they were like
user fees. As requested by David Jones, staff agreed that
the Fees Ordinance could be deferred 30 days, pending
distribution of the fees proposal to the same distribution
list used for the zoning /subdivision ordinance amendments
package. On motion duly seconded, the matter was deferred
to the November 25, 1986 meeting of the Commission by a
unanimous vote.
Type of Application
P.U.D.
Total Number (1)
Bd. of Adjustment 88
Site Plan Review
Annexation
34
2
"
FILING FEE REVIEW JULY, 1985 -MAY, 1986
Expenditures Total ( 2)
$12,318
$ 9,930
$ 6,545
$ 485
Average Cost
$307.95
$112.84
$192.50
$242.50
Current Fee And Recommendation
$125.00 per each. This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend the sliding scale now used for subdivisions (see attachment).
Estimated Additional
Revenues
$8,000
$51.00 plus $1.00 $6,160 multiplier. This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend a flat fee of $125.00 each.
$125.00 per each. $2,550 This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend a flat fee of $200.00
No fee required at this time. A fee of $250.00 is recommended.
$ 500
Street Closures and Others
Subdivision
Zoning
Conditional Use
TOTALS
41
62
102
51
420
$ 6,071 $148007
$ 26,873 $433.34
$ 26,112 . $256.00
$ 5,596 $109.73
$ 93,930 $223.64
No fee required for $ 6,150 abandonment at this time.
A fee of $150.00 is recommended.
$ variable 100 to 1200. $358-is fair average/no increase. --
$ variable 75 to 500. $256.00 is fair average/no increase.
$125.00 per each. $109.73 is fair average/no increase is needed.
0
0
0
$23,360
( 1)This number represents the single items filed for hearing and does not includedeferral recount. This total is of cases filed and does not include approximately 20%additional cases that do not make it to public hearing. These include administrativeapprovals and cases withdrawn prior to hearing.
( 2)This number represents the cost of all staff involved in each activity. Dollar costsare based on salaries and applicable indirect costs..,
CURRENT SUBDIVISION FEES
Preliminary ana Final Plat Fees Each Subdivision:
Plats of: 0 to 10 Acres = $100.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater ..
Plats of: 10 to 20 Acres = $200. 00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater.
Plats of: 20 to 40 Acres = $300.00 + $2. 00 per lot or· acre whichever is greater.
Plats of: 40 Acres & Up = $400.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 4 -105 OF CHAPTER
43 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BEING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FEE PROVISIONS, AND ESTABLISHING FEES
FOR VARIOUS REQUESTS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the Office of Comprehensive Planning receives
numerous requests for approval of site plans, requests for
changes in zoning requirements, or requests for adjustments to
existing zoning laws, and
WHEREAS, there is enormous cost involved in the evaluation
of these requests, publishing necessary notices, and making
sufficient copies for the public and the relevant commission and
staff, and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive fee ordinance for land use requests
is necessary to conveniently catalogue all of these fee
requirements,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK:
Section 1. The filing fees for submitting to the Office of
Comprehensive Planning rezoning applications shall be as follows:
PARCEL SIZE Over Over Over Over Over
(Acres) 0 -1/2 1/2 -1 1 -5 5 -10 10 -20 22 -40 Over 40
ZONING DIST.
IR1,R2,R3
R4,R5,MF6,
MF12,MF18,
MF24,R6,R7
$75 $75 $100 $100
$100
O1,O2,O3 $100
C1,C2,C3,C4 $100
I1,I2,I3,M $100
$100
$100
$150
$125
$150
$200
$125
$150
$200
$150
$200
$250
$125 $125 $200
$200 $250 $300
$250 $300 $350
$300 $400 $500
$300 $400 $500
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
FP,AF,OS (No fee)
Fees for rezoning applications involving multiple parcels and
mixed rezonings shall be determined by totaling up charges for
individual parcels according to the above schedule.
Section 2. The filing fees for submitting subdivision
applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as
follows:
PLAT SIZE
(Acres) 0 to 10 Over 10 to 20 Over 20 to 40 Over 40
$100 $200 $300 $400
plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00
per acre per acre per acre per acre
Section 3. The filing fees for submitting site plan
applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as
follows:
(a) Subdivision Site Plan: $200.00 for all sites.
(b) Zoning Site Plan:
(i) Up to 10 acres: $125.00
(ii) Over 10 to 160 acres: $175.00
(iii) Over 160 acres: $250.00
(c) Conditional Use Permit: $125.00 for all sites.
(d) Board of Adjustment: $125.00
(e) Special Use Permit: $125.00 for all sites.
Section 4. The filing fees for submitting planned unit
development applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning
shall be as follows:
SITE SIZE
(Acres) 0 to 10
$100
plus $2.00
per acre
Over 10 to 20
$200
plus $2.00
per acre
Over 20 to 40
$300
plus $2.00
per acre
Over 40
$400
plus $2.00
per acre
1 Section 5. The filing fee for submitting right -of -way
2 abandonment and improvement district applications to the Office
3 of Comprehensive Planning shall be $125.00 for each application.
4
5 Section 6. The filing fee for submitting annexation requests
6 to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be $250.00 for each
7 application.
8
9 Section 7. The following provisions shall apply to all
10 applications submitted to the Office of Comprehensive Planning:
11
12 (a) Amounts to be refunded for applications
13 withdrawn prior to Planning Commission action
14 shall be as follows:
15
16 (i) Seventy -five (75) percent of the fee
17 paid if the application is withdrawn during
18 the first week after docket closing;
19
20 (ii) Fifty (50) percent of the fee paid if
21 the application is withdrawn during the
22 second week after docket closing;
23
24 (iii) Twenty -five (25) percent of the fee
25 paid if the application is withdrawn during
26 the third week after docket closing;
27
28 (b) Date of receipt of written notice of
29 withdrawal of the application shall be the
30 date used to determine refund.
31
32 (c) There shall be no refunds of any portion of
33 the fees paid if an application is amended
34 during, or denied in, the review process.
35
36 (d) Refiling of the same, an amended or a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
completely different application on the same,
or any portion of the same property, after
previous action or withdrawal, shall be
considered a completely new application and
new fees shall be charged accordingly.
Section 8. Section 4 -105 of Chapter 43 of the Code of
ordinances, being the Zoning Ordinance fee provisions, is hereby
repealed.
Section 9. All ordinances or parts of ordinances dealing with
ees for matters coming before the Office of Comprehensive
lanning, which are inconsistent with this ordinance, are hereby
epealed to the extent of their inconsistency.
Section 10. The costs of processing, publishing, and evaluating
he matters covered herein is expensive. In order to assure that
all notices required under Arkansas law are properly published
and these matters are properly reviewed, and that there are
sufficient funds to publish these notices and conduct the
reviews, it is necessary that these fees be collected at the time
these matters are filed with the Office of Comprehensive Planning.
Without the passage of this ordinance, and the collection of
these amounts, it is unclear that these requirements can be
properly met. Failure to meet these notice and review
requirements can delay the development of areas within the City,
and thereby adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of
the citizens. An emergency is, thereby, declared to exist and
this fee ordinance will become effective on the date of passage.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE:
Mayor
October 28, 1986
Item No. 8 - Other Matters - Discussion and /or Adoption of
the 1987 Calendar of Meeting Dates
The staff has prepared the standard 23- meeting calendar for
1987 and an alternate proposal for a calendar providing the
following:
1. Nine subdivision hearing cycles.
2. Nine planning hearing cycles.
3. 14ine zoning hearing cycles.
The standard calendar reflects business as usual with one
zoning and one subdivision hearing per month, except for
December which is a combined meeting month. There are no
changes proposed in meeting times or days of month. The
annual Planning Commission retreats would remain at one in
the spring and one in the fall.
The alternate calendar represents a totally new direction
for the Planning Commission in that it offers the potential
for a third hearing date every five or six weeks for purely
planning purposes. The zoning and subdivision hearing
schedule will be reduced by five meetings from a total of 23
currently to 18. The two retreats can be scheduled to
utilize two of the planning hearing dates, therefore,
maintaining a maximum 27 meetings per year whereas we
presently conduct 25.
The alternative calendar has received favorable comment from
several City departments and utilities. These agencies and
their staffs consistently have difficulty in reviewing and
responding to all of the many development issues thrust into
their hands every two weeks. As you are aware, there are an
increasing number of legal issues arising on the technically
involved proposals now presented. The City Attorney's staff
reports the added time frame and opportunity to deal with
these matters is paramount. Their feeling is litigation
which now develops quite frequently could be better dealt
with or avoided.
The Planning staff feels that it can perform a more
professional job, give greater attention to detail and be
more responsive to the issues if we are not under a constant
time crunch. The Little Rock Planning Commission and staff
have offered the community the briefest possible review
period for the 30 or more years that Planning has existing
in this community. That brief review period was established
at 30 days when Little Rock was a significantly smaller
City. We have reached that point where the product of our
actions is significant and important enough to justify a
longer review period.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86)
The Planning staff presented the two proposals for a
calendar for 1987. An overview of the alternative calendar
was presented. The kinds of changes and effects to be
expected were presented. A lengthy discussion followed at
the end of which a motion was made to adopt the alternative
calendar for 1987 as presented by the staff except for one
modification, that being the elimination of the Planning
hearing during the last week of December 1987. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent.
October 28, 1986
Item No. 9 - Proposed By-Law Changes Dealing with
Reapplications and Roll Call
Two by -law changes are being distributed to the Commission
today for action at a subsequent meeting. The first
proposed change is one recommended by the City Attorney's
Office to prevent reapplications within a year if they have
been turned down by Board of Directors. The other by -law
amendment is one authorized as part of the Streamlining
Report. It would eliminate roll calls at the beginning of
Planning Commission meetings. The proposed amendment also
adds listings of the consent agenda and deferred items which
are normal parts of Planning Commission agendas.
The specific amendments proposed are as follows:
Amend Article V, Section E, Paragraph 7c. to read
(new wording underlined):
"Except for cause and with the unanimous
consent of all members present at a regular
meeting, no application for rezoning of a
property shall be considered if a former
application embracing the same property or
a portion thereof has been denied by the
Commission or_ the Board.of_Directors within
a period of 12 months preceding the
application. If the Commission decides to
rehear a case, it will require new fee,
legal add, notice to owners, etc., as
required for a new application."
Amend Article V, Section A to read (new wording under-
lined, roll call has been deleted):
"A. Order of Agenda
All meetings shall be conducted in accordance
with the agenda which shall enumerate the
topics and cases in the following sequence:
1. Finding of a Quorum
2. Approval of Previous Minutes as Mailed
3. Consent Agenda
4. Old Business or Deferred Items
5. New Business
6. Adjournment"
DATE D;J-. zg, 1qe0 •
--
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER A 13 r 1) F \ z_ 3 4 6 (o 1 e
W.Riddick, III ✓✓ / , / /,./ .✓ / / / / /
J.Schlereth v V ✓,/ I ✓ I ,// / /j :; •
R.Massie ,/ v I / ✓I ✓✓ / / j I /
B.Sipes V ✓ / / /✓/ / I, / I / ,I /
J.Nicholson ,/ ,/ / /I I I, I ✓ /v / 1/
w.Rector ✓✓ / ✓ I ✓ I I / / ✓ / /
w.!<etcher I / ✓ j I I ✓✓ / J·/· I /
✓/ I ✓ / ✓ / I / // D.Arnett j I
D.J. Jones ✓I I ✓ ( / ✓✓ ✓,/ I / •
I.Boles v' I I ✓I ✓ I I ✓ v I ✓�
F.Perkins I V / / I /I ✓✓ / f I I
✓AYE � NAYE A ABSENT ':e_ABSTAIN
I
October 28, 1986
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date