pc_02 23 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
February 23, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being ten in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the January 12, 1988, meeting were
approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: David Jones
Walter Riddick III
Bill Rector
Martha Miller
Stephen Leek
Rose Collins
Jerilyn Nicholson
Richard Massie
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
T. Grace Jones
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
February 23, 1988
Item No. A - Z-4103-A
Owner: University Properties, Inc., and
Bill Lusk
Applicant: John L. Burnett
Location: Broadmoor North Phase II
(Northmoor, Charlotte and Garfield
Drives)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "O-2" to
"O-3"
Purpose: Office
Size: 12.95 acres ±
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Church, Office, and Commercial, Zoned
"R-2, "R-5," and "O-3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Church and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone 10.5 acres (12.9 acres
including the street right -of -way) in the Broadmoor
North Subdivision from "R-2" and "O-2" to "O-3" for
some type of office park development. No specific
plans have been submitted, so it is unknown how the
lots will be developed and/or marketed. Broadmoor
North is located to the southwest of the intersection
of West 12th and University Avenue. There are a total
of 45 lots included in this request, and none of them
have any direct relationship to either West 12th or
University Avenue which is critical to an office area
this size. Without access to a major street and having
to utilize residential streets for traffic circulation,
the proposed "O-3" rezoning is questionable. Also
without the high visibility gained from having some
frontage on a major street, the potential for this type
of land use to work is marginal at best. Another
factor that must be carefully considered when reviewing
this request is the desirability of allowing a
nonresidential rezoning to encroach into an established
single family neighborhood. When selecting
February 23, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
a viable office site, there are some basic criteria
that should be considered, and that does not appear to
be the case with this request.
2. There are 45 lots and two streets, Garfield and
Charlotte Drives, involved with this request. All the
lots are vacant, and the site is relatively flat. The
lots under consideration have frontage on either
Garfield or Charlotte.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. As of this writing, there have been no adverse comments
received from the reviewing agencies.
5. There is an apparent legal issue allied with this
rezoning and that is the Bill of Assurance for
Broadmoor North. The Bill of Assurance.restricts the
land use to detached single family residences so it
appears that the Bill of Assurance will have to be
amended at some point, if the rezoning is granted. To
amend the Bill of Assurance, it takes 70 percent of the
property owners. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires
that the grantor's, Winrock Development Company,
approval must first be obtained before any amendment
can be made as long as the grantor owns any lots or
land in the subdivision. It is the staff's
understanding that Winrock still. owns several lots
within the subdivision.
6. Originally, the area under consideration was part of
the University Park Urban Renewal Plan which was in
effect from 1964 to 1984 and expired in June 1984. The
Urban Renewal Plan also restricted use of the land to
detached single family units. The lots are now a part
of the Broadmoor North Subdivision which was approved
in the late 1970's. In October 1983, a rezoning
request from "R-2" and "C-3" to "MF-12," "O-2," and
"O-3" was filed for basically the same tract of land.
The first application included approximately 12 acres
and properties that have frontage on both West 12th and
University Avenue. The issue was deferred several
times, and the request which had been amended to "O-2"
for all the lots was finally heard by the Planning
Commission in May and June of 1984. At each of the
hearings, there were objectors from the area who
expressed concerns with traffic, property values, and
impacts on the residential neighborhood. After much
debate a modified proposal was approved for 5.2 acres
of "O-2," the existing zoning pattern. Winrock
February 23, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
Development Company was opposed to the 1984 rezoning
request.
7. Staff's position is that the proposed "O-3"
reclassification is inappropriate for the location and
does not support the request. Some of the major issues
have been presented in other sections, but there are a
number of other concerns.
- The appropriateness of filing an application for
nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted
to detached single family use.
- The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle
Park Plan which shows single family residential
for the lots.
- The possible encroachment of nonresidential uses
into a viable single family neighborhood.
- The request appears to be speculative in nature.
- Access is totally inadequate for the proposed
rezoning, and the use of residential streets is
undesirable.
The proposal is contrary to good land use and planning
because of various factors, and the "O-3"
reclassification could have a very adverse impact on
the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87)
The applicant was represented by Pete Hornibrook. There was
one objector in attendance. Staff reported to the
Commission that the applicant submitted a written request
for deferral, but it was received after the five working
days as required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. There
was some discussion about the request and the objector said
that he was not opposed to deferring the rezoning. A motion
was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0
noes and 0 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written
request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item
to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88)
The applicant, John Burnett, was present. There were no
objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, addressed the
Commission and said that "O-2" would be more desirable for
the "R-2" property north of the existing "O-2" and that the
lots to the south should remain "R-2." Mr. Burnett then
discussed the rezoning proposal on the property. He told
the Commission that one reason for not wanting an "O-2"
reclassification was the various utility easements and the
inability to construct over them. Mr. Burnett said that
"O-3" was more suitable for the proposed type of development
and suggested that some type of condition restricting lot
size could be made a part of the rezoning approval. The
proposed condition would require the acreage in question to
be replatted into 14,000 square foot lots the minimum site
area for the "O-3" District. Mr. Burnett then went on to
say that he had met with the one objector who attended the
first public hearing and the resident indicated that the
neighborhood was no longer concerned with an "O-3"
development but rather with small housing units. There was
some discussion about the traffic concerns, and Mr. Burnett
said that he would be willinq to cul-de-sac Garfield Drive
at the end of the proposed office lots. Mike Batie of the
Engineering staff said that a cul-de-sac was a reasonable
solution to the problem. Mr. Burnett told the Commission
that the area was a viable location for a small garden
office park and there was a demand for one level office
buildings in Little Rock. Additional comments were made
about the differences in the "O-2" and "O-3" Districts
including the permitted heights in the two zoning
classifications. Stephens Giles of the City Attorney's
Office said that requiring 14,000 square foot lots was a
reasonable condition to attach to the rezoning approval.
There was some discussion about the final plat and other
issues. A motion was then offered which recommended
approval of the "O-3" rezoning with the condition that a
preliminary plat be filed with 14,000 square foot lots as
the minimum lot size and then a final plat be filed for the
area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a
cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the
office development. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
1 no, and 0 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. B - Z-4470-A
Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: Rock Creek Parkway
Request: Rezone from "MF-18" and "O-3"
to "O-3" and "C-3"
Purpose: Mixed Use
Size: 19.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Unclassified, Zoned "MF-18"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "MF-18" and PRD
West - Vacant, Zoned "O-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site under consideration is at the west end of the Rock
Creek Parkway and involves approximately 19 acres. The
request is to rezone the property from "MF-18" and "O-3" to
"O-3" and "C-3." The proposal will add some commercial
zoning, increase the amount of office land, and decrease the
multifamily area. How the property will be developed or
subdivided is unknown because only a rezoning concept is
shown on the survey. In addition to the use areas, two
proposed streets are also identified on the survey with one
road being a north/south arterial as shown on the new
Extraterritorial Land Use Plan/Upper Rock Creek District
Plan.
The entire site, a total of 40 acres, was originally rezoned
to "MF-18" and "O-3" in 1985. (At the time of filing the
first rezoning action, the land was outside the City and was
annexed during the rezoning process.) The previous rezoning
was delayed on several occasions to allow for additional
study of the area because the Suburban Development Plan
showed a single family residential development pattern. It
was finally determined that a zoning configuration as
proposed was a reasonable option for the 40-acre tract.
The Upper Rock Creek District Plan recommends a mix of
multifamily, office, and commercial uses for the site, so
the proposal basically follows the plan's concept. There
are two discrepancies between the plan and the proposed
rezonings. On the plan, commercial property is shown
February 23, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
on both sides of the proposed arterial. With this request,
the commercial area is all east of the north/south arterial,
and staff feels that is a reasonable variation from the
plan. The other difference involves the proposed office
area between the commercial and multifamily tracts. There
is a major drainage /utility easement through the property,
and the plan shows the easement functioning as the break
between the residential and nonresidential uses. In this
area, the plan should be maintained and that would result in
only a minor increase in the office land.
As has been previously mentioned, there is a proposed
north/south arterial shown on the plan that impacts the
property. (This arterial is not identified on the current
Master Street Plan, but it is included in the revised street
plan that is currently being reviewed.) On the survey, the
western boundary of the "C-3" tract is also alignment for
the north /south road which staff is assuming is the new
arterial. At this time, the City has not determined the
exact location for the arterial and feels that cannot be
done until a thorough traffic impact study is undertaken for
the area. City staff feels that a comprehensive study is
needed because of potential problems, and until one is
completed, action on the rezoning request should be delayed.
A study is needed because of the arterial and potential
changes in traffic movement due to the proposed
reclassifications. It is possible that the study could
recommend a different location for the arterial and that
would affect the requested rezonings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends an indefinite deferral until the traffic
impact study is completed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87)
Staff reported that the applicant agreed with deferring the
item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January
12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved. The vote - 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all
parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was
made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 23, 1988)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was
made to defer the issue to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. C - Z-4933
Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: Kanis Road at Rock Creek Parkway
Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 8.85 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Church, Zoned "O-1" and "O-3"
South - Single Family, Unclassified
East - Office and Industrial, Unclassified
West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The rezoning request is to rezone property to "C-3" for an
unspecified commercial use. The site is currently outside
the City limits so it is unclassified; the property abuts
the City limits on the north side. The land is vacant and
located at the southeast corner of where Kanis Road
intersects the Rock Creek Parkway.
The site under consideration is part of the Upper Rock Creek
District Plan area which recommends the location for
commercial development. With this type of land use
designation, the proposed "C-3" reclassification is
appropriate, but staff feels that the rezoning action should
be deferred for several reasons.
The first and primary concern is the location of an arterial
which the land use plan places along the east boundary of
the tract. As with Item No. 2, Z-4470-A, this alignment has
not been finalized and needs to be looked at in the
recommended traffic impact study for the area. Also with
the pending reclassifications, review of the entire street
network should be part of the study to avoid any circulation
problems in the future. The other issue has to do with the
annexation of the property. In the past, the policy has
been that the annexation petition must be filed with the
County before the Planning Commission can act on the
February 23, 1988
Item No. C - Continued
request. Staff has not received any documentation to this
effect, and the issue should be deferred until the proper
filing is completed.
One final plan element that needs to be mentioned is the
Master Parks Plan. Some of the land in question is
identified on the plan as Priority 2 Proposed Open Space.
The priority system refers to the need for acquisition
relative to other streams throughout the City. Because of
the current rate of development in this part of Little Rock,
all the waterways in West Little Rock could be categorized
as Priority I. Another Parks Plan issue that could affect
this property is the recommended open space acquisition
width for Rock Creek. The plan suggests a minimum
acquisition width of 350 feet for Rock Creek, and it is
possible that could include some of this site. The
Engineering staff is in the process of reviewing what is
needed for this area in terms of acquisition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the request be deferred until the
traffic study is completed and the annexation issue is
addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87)
Staff reported that the applicant was in agreement with
deferring the item. A motion was made to defer the request
to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88)
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed
to be deferred and the applicant agreed to deferring the
issue. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written
request for another deferral. A motion was made to defer
the item to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The motion passed
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. D - Z-4945-A
Owner: Unity Missionary Baptist Church
Applicant: Mark S. Guinee
Location: 1223 South Garfield
Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "R -5" to "O-3"
Purpose: Church - Future Expansion
Size: 2.8 acres
Existing Use: Vacant and Church
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-5" and
" C-3 "
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "O-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal before the Commission is to rezone two
tracts to "O-3" for an existing church to accommodate
future expansion plans. The church facility is located
on the South Garfield site and the property that fronts
West 12th is currently vacant, but the church does use
it for parking. An "O-3" request was filed because a
church is permitted by right in this office district,
and the church does not want to put itself in a
position of applying for a Conditional Use Permit
every time any new construction is proposed. Zoning in
the area includes "R-2," "R-4," "O-2," "O-3" and "C-3"
with the two parcels abutting "R-2," "O-3" and "C-3."
The West 12th and University intersection is heavily
built up with office and commercial development.
Directly to the south and east is the Broadmoor North
Subdivision, with the lots closest to the sites under
consideration vacant. The developed lots in Broadmoor
North are located along Cleveland and at the southern
ends of Charlotte and South Garfield. To the north,
there is a well established single family neighborhood
that is almost completely developed. Another
significant land use in the immediate vicinity is a
major recreation complex located to the west of
Cleveland Street. This area includes a public park and
several quasi-public facilities.
February 23, 1988
Item No. D - Continued
2. The site on West 12th is vacant and the property on
South Garfield is the location of the existing church
facility.
3. Based on the current Master Street Plan, there are no
right-of-way requirements or plan issues.
4. Engineering has requested that there be only one access
point on West 12th. Also, Engineering has indicated
that possible right-of-way dedication and street
improvements will be necessary because of the proposed
University Avenue project which is still being
designed.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. Both parcels were involved with previous
rezoning and Board of Adjustment actions a number of
years ago.
7. This area is part of the Boyle Park District Plan which
recommends a nonresidential pattern for properties
along West 12th and University with single family
residential uses to the south and west. Based on this
land use concept, staff supports the "O-3"
reclassification for the site on West 12th, but not for
the church property on South Garfield. This position
is consistent with other rezoning proposals in the area
including Item B, Z-4103-A, on this agenda. Staff
feels that the "R-2" zoning within the Broadmoor North
Subdivision needs to be maintained to protect the
existing developed residential lots. The existing
"O-2" zoning within the subdivision is totally
inappropriate and should have never been granted. An
"O-3" reclassification is not necessary for the church
to expand because that can be accomplished through the
Conditional Use Permit process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "O-3" for the property with
frontage on West 12th and denial of "O-3" for the tract on
South Garfield.
February 23, 1988
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88)
The applicant, Mark Guinee, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Guinee described the property and said the
"0 -3" request was filed because the church wants a
classification that allows a church by right. He also said
the church felt it would not be beneficial to go through the
Conditional Use Permit process each time an expansion was
proposed. At this point, Mr. Guinee read a prepared
statement that explained the church's position in detail.
There was a long discussion about various issues. David
Ward, Minister of the church, addressed the Commission and
said the church has been at its current location since 1954,
and there were no plans to move. Mr. Ward said one of the
primary reasons for the rezoning request was to simplify the
process for future development. Additional comments were
then offered by both Mr. Guinee and Mr. Ward. There was
some discussion about the possibility of acting on the West
12th Street site and deferring action on the South Garfield
property. Mr. Ward then agreed to split the request by
deferring the South Garfield site. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "O-3" rezoning for the property on
West 12th Street and defer the "O-3" request for the tract
of land on South Garfield to the February 23, 1988, hearing.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88)
The applicant, Mark Guinee, was present. There were no
objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, modified the
staff's position and recommended approval of the "O-3"
request because of the Planning Commission's action on the
"O-3" rezoning request for Item A, Z-4103-A. A motion was
made to recommend approval of the "O-3" rezoning as filed.
The motion was approved. The vote: 10 ayes, 1 no, and
0 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-506-A
Owner: Don Kirkpatrick
Applicant: David P. Henry
Location: Asher Avenue and Mary Street
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "I-2"
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 0.32 acres ±
Existing Use: Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "I-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "I-2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "I-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Commission is to rezone the southeast
corner of Asher Avenue and Mary Street from "C-3" to "I-2"
for an unspecified industrial use. The site, two 50-foot
lots, is currently occupied by a single building on the
north two - thirds and the remaining area is covered by
concrete. There is also a paved area in front of the
building that is used for parking.
Zoning along this segment of Asher Avenue is a mix of "C-3"
and "I-2" with a majority of the area south of Asher Avenue
zoned "I-2." To the southwest of the property in question,
there is some existing "R-3" zoning; this area has been
impacted by previous actions and the proposed rezoning will
not have any effect on the "R-3" lots. The land use pattern
includes residential, commercial, and industrial which is
very similar to the existing zoning. In addition to the
developed lots, there are also some vacant parcels. It
appears that the proposed rezoning is reasonable and
compatible with the Asher Avenue Corridor to the east of
Fair Park Boulevard/Mabelvale Pike.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Additional right-of-way dedication for Asher Avenue -
50-foot from the centerline.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
2. Mary Street needs a right-of-way of 30 feet from the
centerline so if the existing right-of-way is deficient
additional dedication will be required.
3. With the issuance of the next building permit, street
improvements for Asher Avenue and Mary Street will be
required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning
subject to additional right -of -way for Asher Avenue being
dedicated. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-3645-B
Owner: Charles and Elizabeth Menard
Applicant: Phillip E. Kaplan
Location: Rodney Parham and Green Mountain
Drive
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-2"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 1.0 acres ±
Existing Use: Commercial (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-24"
East - Cemetery, Zoned "R-2"
West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property under consideration is located at the
southeast corner of Rodney Parham and Green Mountain
Drive, and the request is to rezone it from "R-2" to
"C-2." The property is occupied by a small commercial
center which is a nonconforming use. Zoning in the
area includes "R-2," "MF-24," "R -5," "O-3," "C-3," and
"C-4" with the existing commercial zoning found to the
east of Green Mountain Drive. The land use pattern is
very diverse with a mix of multifamily, office and
commercial. Other uses in the immediate vicinity are a
cemetery to the east and single family residences to
the northwest. The property in question abuts "MF-24"
on the south and "R-2" on the east with "R-5" across
Green Mountain Drive and "R-2" to the north.
2. The site is 1.0 acres in size, and the existing
structure is L-shaped with approximately 8,880 square
feet and has a number of different uses. There is a
pump island in the parking lot and a paved ditch along
the north boundary of the property.
3. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required
for both Rodney Parham and Green Mountain Drive.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
4. Engineering Comments:
Rodney Parham requires a right-of-way of 50 feet from
the centerline.
Green Mountain Drive requires a right-of-way of 40
feet from the centerline.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. History on this site dates back to 1976, at which time
the first commercial rezoning application was made.
The request was approved by the Planning Commission but
denied by the Board of Directors. Again in 1981 and
1982, two more requests were filed for commercial
reclassifications. Each time the requests were
supported by the Planning Commission but denied by the
Board of Directors. Prior to the 1981 application, the
existing center was constructed while outside the City
limits and then it was annexed. With the previous
rezoning request, there was some opposition expressed
by the residential neighborhood to the northwest. The
earlier rezoning requests were in conflict with the
Suburban Development Plan which covered the area at
that time.
7. In July 1987, the City adopted the Pleasant Valley
District Plan which includes the location in question.
The plan recognizes the existing use and identifies the
site for commercial land use. Because of the plan
element, staff's position is that the proposed "C-2"
reclassification is reasonable and supports the
request. It appears that the development has not
impacted the area and "C-2" will not change that.
"C-2" is a site plan review district and its minimum
site area is five acres, but the parcel is a lot of
record so the five-acre requirement does not apply to
this situation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-2" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Phillip Kaplan, was present. There were no
objectors. There was some discussion about the right-of-way
dedication, and Mr. Kaplan said that the owners will work
with the City because of some concerns with the Green
Mountain-Drive right-of-way dedication. A motion was made
to recommend approval of the "C-2" request subject to
February 23, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
dedication of additional right-of-way for Rodney Parham and
Green Mountain Drive. The motion passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-4963
Owner: North Star Holding Co., Inc.
Applicant: Same
By: Bill Bruton
Location: 10601 I -30
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Purpose: Truck terminal
Size: 1.84 acres ±
Existing Use: Truck terminal
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - I -30 right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
West - Industrial, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of
an enforcement action by the City. The existing use, a
truck terminal, was established on "R-2" land, and the owner
was instructed to file the appropriate application or
discontinue the operation. The request is to rezone the
property from "R-2" to "I-2" to allow the use to continue.
Along this portion of I-30, the City has endorsed a mixed
development concept by supporting both commercial and
industrial rezonings. A good example of this can be found
on the north side of I-30, directly to the north of this
site, where the existing zoning is "C-3," "C-4," and "I-2."
The proposed "I-2" rezoning is compatible with the existing
land use pattern, and staff feels that the request is
appropriate for the location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning request as
filed.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 3 - 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 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-4973
Owner: Consolidated Leasing, Inc.
Applicant: Grady L. Wahlquist
Location: 3021 Cantrell Road
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Auto leasing with storage
Size: 0.89 acres
Existing Use: Speciality auto leasing
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "O-2" and "I-2"
South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone 3021 Cantrell Road from "C-3" to
"C-4" to permit auto leasing with outside storage/display.
Over the years, the property has been utilized primarily for
auto related uses including a service station and a
speciality auto service, the most recent use. The site has
one building on it and is currently unoccupied. Even though
the property has had a variety of similar uses to the one
being proposed, the lot does not have nonconforming status
for outside display according to the City's Zoning
Enforcement Office.
Zoning in the area is a mix of residential and
nonresidential with the site in question abutting "R-2" and
"C-3." Across Cantrell Road, the current zoning is "O-2"
and "I-2." The existing land use includes single family,
multifamily, office, and commercial uses ranging from eating
places to a tire service center. To the west, there is an
established single family neighborhood, but the proposed
reclassification will not impact it because there is a grade
difference and the prior auto uses did not create any
problems.
The Heights/Hillcrest District Plan recommends a commercial
pattern for this portion of Cantrell Road but does not
suggest that it be restricted to any particular commercial
classification. Considering the location and the existing
development, staff views the "C-4" request as being a
reasonable option.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Access points to be reviewed by the City Engineering
staff .
2. A right-of-way of 50 feet from the centerline for
Cantrell Road. This will require dedication of
additional right-of-way because the survey reflects
existing right-of-way of 60 feet, 30 feet from the
centerline.
3. A 20 to 25-foot drainage easement adjacent to the west
property line is needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88)
The applicant was represented by Henry Osterloh, an
attorney. David McCreery, an adjacent property owner, was
present and expressed an interest in the case. Mr. Osterloh
spoke briefly and said there were no problems with the
dedication of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road.
Mr. McCreery said he was not necessarily opposed to the use
but did have some concerns about development specifics such
as lighting. There were a number of comments made by the
Planning Commission and staff responded to several concerns.
Mr. McCreery spoke again and said he was concerned with the
rezoning because of not restricting the use and then went on
to discuss the PUD process. There was a long discussion
about "C-4," and Mr. Osterloh tried to answer some
questions. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement staff
responded to a comment about the site's nonconforming
status. The Planning Commission then discussed the
possibility of deferring the item, and Mr. Osterloh agreed
to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
March 8, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-4974
Owner: APAC -AR- KANSAS, Inc.
Applicant: E. Louis Schuette
Location: Mabelvale Pike and Baseline Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 2.0 acres
Existing Use: Concrete Block Manufacturing
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Public and Industrial, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-4"
East - Vacant, Commercial, and Industrial, Zoned
"R-2" and "C-4"
West - Public, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone two lots from "R-2" to "C-3" for
an unspecified commercial use. The property currently has a
nonconforming industrial use on it, and it is the staff's
understanding that the existing use will be relocated in the
near future. The site has several structures on it that are
used for the manufacture of concrete blocks, and a large
portion of the property is paved for storage purposes.
Most of the immediate area is zoned "R-2" because of being
annexed to the City several years ago. Because of the
"R-2" zoning, a high percentage of the existing uses are
nonconforming and include both commercial and industrial.
The property abuts "R-2" and "C-4," the most recent rezoning
change in the area. The land to the north is also a
nonconforming industrial operation. In addition to the
commercial and industrial uses, the Arkansas State Highway
and Transportion Department is located directly across from
Mabelvale Pike.
Staff believes that the area will continue to develop with a
mix of commercial and industrial uses with a "C-3," "C-4"
and "I-2" zoning pattern. In this particular situation, a
"C-3" classification is probably the most appropriate
because of the site's location and its visibility.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Access needs to be reviewed by the Engineering staff.
2. A right-of-way of 40 feet from the centerline is
required for Mabelvale Pike.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning
subject to dedication of additional right-of -way for
Mabelvale Pike. The motion was approved by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-4975
Owner: Real Properties
Applicant: C. Ray Gash
Location: Mann Road Area /MoPac Railroad
Tracks
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Purpose: Concrete Block Manufacturing
Size: 13.5 acres
Existing Use: Concrete Block Manufacturing
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R 2" and "I-2"
South - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2"
East - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Currently, the site is a nonconforming use, a concrete block
manufacturing plant, and the issue is to rezone the 13.5
acres from "R-2" to "I-2." The request is being made to
allow future expansion of the existing facility and to
facilitate the sale of the property.
The site abuts railroads tracks on the south and "I-2" on
the west with "R-2" and "I-2" zoning adjacent to the north
property line. The "I -2" parcels to the west and north are
vacant, and the "R-2" property is a nonconforming industrial
use. Across Mann Road to the south, there is some "I-2"
land, and it is all occupied by various industrial uses. To
the northeast, there is an established single family area
zoned "R-2." The neighborhood has very little direct
relationship to the property in question, and the "I-2"
rezoning should only have a minimal impact, if any, on the
development. The existing industrial uses appear to have
not created any problems for the area. Being adjacent to
the railroad tracks limits the potential use of land, and
the "I-2" reclassification is a reasonable proposal for the
site.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Engineering has expressed some concerns about the access
because of the railroad crossing that is utilized by this
property. Discussion with the Engineering Office should be
initiated as soon as possible, because it appears that the
crossing will need to be improved prior to any additional
development occurring on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "I-2" rezoning
as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 absent.
February 23, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-4976
Owner: M.D. Nash
Applicant: Same
Location: 10325 I-30
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Service Station
Size: 0.70 acres
Existing Use: Service Station
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - I -30 right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property in question is occupied by a service station
that does some vehicle repair. The proposal is to expand
the facility and to accomplish this the property has to be
rezoned from "C-3" to "C-4." In the "C-3" District,
"service stations with limited motor vehicle repair" are
only conditional uses while the "C-4" District allows them
by right. Because of the site's location, the owner feels
that the rezoning approach is reasonable and nothing would
be gained by a site plan review through the conditional use
permit process.
The proposed rezoning conforms to the Otter Creek District
Plan, and there are no outstanding issues. Staff feels that
a "C-4" reclassifcation is the appropriate option and
supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-4" request.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
oATe,;/4s/tf
ZONING
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Sch le re th
R.Massie
M.Miller
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
S._Leek. T-. Grace Jones
O. J. Jones
R.Collins
f.Perk ins
✓AYE @NAYE
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION fr e C: D I ;2_ 3 (/
V V V V V V V V
J/ V V V V v V v--
V V V v V V V l,,,-
v V' v v ✓ l/ V ,_,
t,/ l,./' V v V v V 1,/
v' V v J/ V V V V
V I 1...-"'V V V V V V
V ft ff V IJ 6) A v
v' V v V V V V V .0 V V 0 V V V v
✓V V v' V v v V--�;.; A--p -f"A_+ADSENT _t:l.ABSTAIN
,,s-to 7
V V V
V V Jr
V V V
v V I/' ...
v V I,/
V V
V J/ v fl /-l A
V v t/
v V V
v V . , -
"'"'
,.. '
I I I
t
February 23, 1988
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2 p.m.
Date
Chairman Secretary