pc_11 01 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 1, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being nine in number.
II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
The minutes of the September 20, 1988 meeting were
approved as mailed.
III. Members present: David Jones, Chairman
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Fred Perkins
John McDaniel
Rose Collins
Connie Whitfield
Martha Miller
Walter Riddick, III
Stephen Leek
Members absent: John Schlereth
City Attorney
present: Melinda Smith
November 1, 1988
Item No. A - Z-5056
Owner: Al Porter
Applicant: Al Porter
Location: 2804 Peyton Street
Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-1"
Purpose: Single family and food store
Size: 0.3 acres
Existing Use: Single family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, Zoned "R-3"
South - Single family, Zoned "R-3"
East - Single family, Zoned "R-3"
West - Single family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The owner of 2804 Peyton Street applied for a Privilege
License to operate a small business out of his
residence. The license was denied because of the
residential zoning and the applicant was instructed to
file a commercial rezoning request, "R-3" to "C-1."
The site is approximately 2 1/2 blocks north of Asher
Avenue in an area that is primarily residential in
terms of land use. To the south and southeast, the
zoning is a mix of "O-3," "C-3," and "I-2" with the
commercial and industrial zoning being restricted to
lots between West 29th Street and Asher Avenue. The
nearest nonresidential zoning to the property in
question is the half block north of West 29th and east
of Peyton that is zoned "O-3;" all the "O-3" lots
along West 29th are occupied by residential uses.
North and west of the lot the zoning is "R-3" but there
are some isolated locations zoned for commercial
purposes. Land use around 2804 Peyton is residential
and the nonresidential uses are located closer to Asher
Avenue. The existing "O-3" line north of West 29th has
been in place for many years and has established a
definite zoning boundary between residential and
nonresidential uses.
November 1, 1988
Item No. A - Z-5056 (Continued)
2. The site is an 87' x 150' lot with one single family
residence and an accessory structure on it.
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 of neighborhood position
on the site.
7. As with other commercial rezoning efforts in older
residential neighborhoods, Staff has a number of
concerns with the current request and is opposed to the
proposed "C-1" rezoning. The surrounding neighborhood
appears to be fairly stable and a commercial
reclassification could have a negative impact on the
area and lead to other undesirable rezonings. In this
type of neighborhood, the potential for long -term
damage to the area is too great and outweighs any short
term benefits or justifications for the proposed
rezoning. Finally, the "C-1" rezoning is in conflict
with the adopted Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which
maintains the residential character of the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning request as
filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 9, 1988)
Staff reported that the rezoning request needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the item to the
September 20, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988)
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the
November 1, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
November 1, 1988
Item No. A - Z-5056 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Al Porter, was present. There were no
objectors but Staff reminded the Commission of the letter in
opposition to the request. Mr. Porter discussed the issue
and said he was just trying to help the children of the
neighborhood. Mr. Porter disagreed with the Staff's
position and said the rezoning would not impact the other
properties. Additional comments were made by several
Commissioners and Mr. Porter. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "C-1" zoning. The vote was 1 aye,
9 noes, and 1 absent. The motion failed and the request was
denied.
November 1, 1988
Item No. B - Z-5068
Owner: Tim Dennis
Applicant: Same
Location: 3331 Old South Shackleford Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Storage lot for cars and repair
shop
Size: 0.28 acres
Existing Use: Storage lot for cars
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Office /warehouse, Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This request is before the Planning Commission as a
result of an enforcement action by the City. In
January of 1987, the owner approached the City about
operating a storage lot for autos on the property in
question. An initial inspection was made by an
enforcement officer in January 1987 and at that time
nothing was being stored on the site. It was
determined that the property did not have nonconforming
status and there was no basis for allowing an auto
storage yard. Based on the enforcement file, the
property was fenced in February 1987 and after that
time, the owner started storing cars. Following the
normal enforcement procedure, the owner was directed to
file the appropriate rezoning request or discontinue
the use. After some contact with the Planning office,
the "C-4" application was filed by the owner. The
property is located on Old Shackleford Road and in an
area that has a mixed land use pattern. There are a
number of residential units along Old Shackleford but
there are also some nonresidential uses in the general
vicinity. Directly to the east there is a large
office /warehouse, a nonconforming use, and there is
also a wholesale warehouse operation on the existing
"C-4" tract on Shackleford Road. On the west side of
Old Shackleford,
November 1, 1988
Item No. B - Z-5068 (Continued)
there is an automotive repair business, also a
nonconforming use. Zoning includes "R-2," "MF-12,"
"C-2," "C-3," and "C-4" with the "MF-12," "C-2" and
"C-3" tracts still undeveloped.
2. The site is fenced in and has several vehicles stored
on it. There are no structures on the property.
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. Documented history on the property dates back to
January 1987 when the first inspection was made by the
City's Enforcement office. Staff has received one call
in opposition to the request.
7. In 1987, the I-430 District Plan was amended to show
the area in question as mixed commercial and office
with any land use proposals being submitted as Planned
Unit Developments. This was done to have additional
design control over a project and to encourage uses
that would compliment the proposed Summit development.
Also, PUD's would help discourage a piecemeal
development /zoning pattern in the area. Staff's
position is that the requested "C-4" reclassification
is not compatible with the plan for the area and cannot
support the rezoning. Also, Old Shackleford Road is
only a residential street and the Zoning Ordinance
states that "appropriate locations for this district
(C-4) are along heavily traveled major arterials."
Allowing the "C-4" rezoning could established
undesirable precedent for the area and impact future
development that would be more in keeping with the Land
Use Plan's concept.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning as requested.
November 1, 1988
Item No. B - Z-5068 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988)
The applicant, Tim Dennis, was present. There were two
objectors. Mr. Dennis said that he has used the property
for a number of years and it was being utilized as outside
storage for an auto recovery company. He went on to say
that he plans to purchase additional property for an office
but the site in question was only used for auto storage.
Mr. Dennis mentioned the possibility of adding a small
garage to repair the recovered autos and said that he did
not have a Privilege License.
Jim James, owner of a resident on Old Shackleford Road,
spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. James described
other ownerships and said that the area did not need the
use. He concluded by saying all other members of his family
were opposed to the rezoning.
Roger C. Richards, representing a property owner on the west
side of Old Shackleford Road, voiced his objections to the
"C-4" rezoning and said it would have an impact on the area.
Mr. Dennis then addressed the Commission again and described
the use. There was along discussion about the auto storage
and whether "C-4" was the appropriate district. Several
Commissioners indicated that a more restrictive
classification could probably accommodate the use. After
some additional comments, Staff suggested that the Board of
Adjustment could address the use question. A motion was
made to defer the item to the November 1, 1988 meeting and
to have the Board of Adjustment review the use issue at
their October 17, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Tim Dennis, was present. There was one
interested resident in attendance. Mr. Dennis discussed a
similar use on West 12th Street and said that his plans
included placing a building on the site. He told the
Commission that he needed to continue to operate on the
property and discussed the issue at length.
Mrs. Stanley Gray spoke and said she did not want another
auto repair garage on the street. She went on to describe
the area and said it was residential. Mrs. Gray indicated
that she was not opposed to the storage of autos on the
property.
November 1, 1988
Item No. B - Z-5068 (Continued)
There was a long discussion about the rezoning and the
possibility of submitting the request as a PCD. Mr. Dennis
then showed the Commission a conceptual plan for the
property and said he would like to place a metal building on
it. After some additional comments, a motion was made to
defer the issue to the January 3, 1989 meeting and that it
be resubmitted as a PCD. The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The Planning Commission
waived any additional filing fees but not the notification
requirements.
November 1, 1988
Item No. C - Amendment to the Master Street Plan - West
Little Rock
Applicant: Deltic Farm and Timber by
Manes, Castin, Massie &
McGetrick (MCMM)
Name: Modification of Alignments and
Functional Classifications for
West Little Rock
Location: North of Kanis Road, south of
Cantrell, and west of the
current City limits
STAFF REPORT:
The MCMM request is to eliminate an arterial and alter the
collector pattern in the area north of the Parkway, south of
Cantrell and west of the proposed "West Loop." Concerns
about the slopes (grades) and need for an arterial have been
discussed. In preliminary discussions with Staff, an
alternative alignment was also discussed.
There is a large area of steep slopes in Area #1 (see map)
which should reduce the amount of development and also
prevent connections between the Cantrell area and the Chenal
development. Due to the limited number of connections, each
will act like a funnel (more traffic than would normally be
expected). This concern, together with an attempt to space
arterials at about one mile intervals, the Staff feels
requires an arterial to be built between the "West Loop" and
the arterial to Johnson Ranch PCD. In addition, the 2010
estimate (assuming approximately 30% development) indicates
an ADT of about 4000 for the said road.
After review of the grades for the Taylor Loop connection,
the Staff finds them to be within acceptable range and would
be willing to discuss reduced standards because of the
topography. Though the alignment shown on the Master Street
Plan would provide a better flow, Staff is willing to
discuss alternative alignments.
In the past, Little Rock has reduced the number of arterials
and located them so that traffic flows would be
discontinuous (I-430, West Loop, Cantrell /Markham area).
The result has been that collectors have carried high
traffic volumes and have operated in a dual
collector /arterial function. An example of this dual
function is Shackleford Road. By the year 2010, most of the
November 1, 1988
Item No. C (Continued)
collectors in this area are projected to have 7000 to 11,000
vehicle trips per day (ADT) -- design volume is 5000 ADT for
collectors.
The Staff has requested that a traffic impact analysis be
done by Deltic on their North Slope rezoning request which
covers this Master Street Plan area.
We anticipate that the preliminary numbers will be available
by this meeting for review. These numbers will assist in
determining whether the Taylor Loop connection should be an
arterial or a collector. (There is also the possibility for
a reduced arterial standard for the alignment due to
topography and limited access.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral for two weeks to review traffic study information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 18, 1988)
Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff informed the Commission
that Staff has asked for a two -week deferral in order to get
the results of a traffic study. Mr. Lawson said Staff and a
Deltic representative would like to present information to
the Commission today. Mr. Castin, representing Deltic
Timber, reviewed the Deltic holdings. He continued the
presentation showing the proposed open space and public use
areas within the Deltic holdings. He proceeded to discuss
the arterial system for the area. Mr. Castin presented both
the Deltic proposal and the current Master Street Plan
alignment. Due to concern about how the arterial alignment
off of the west leg of Taylor Loop occurred, Mr. Malone of
the Planning Commission went over what was shown on the
pre -1988 Master Street Plan and ET Study. On both of these
plans, three breaks in the ridge were shown; two were
arterial and one a collector. Staff felt that all three
should be arterial due to the spacing of one and one -half to
two miles and only three possible connections through the
ridge. Mr. Shultz, representing Johnson Ranch, expressed
concern about the notice on Master Street Plan changes. Mr.
Shultz also expressed some confusion about the status of
Taylor Loop and when, or if, Taylor Loop was proposed to be
downgraded from arterial status. He also said that the
Taylor Loop /Hinson Road (east /west) connection was logical
and should be made more direct. Mr. Jones expressed some
concern about adequate notice being given to property
November 1, 1988
Item No. C (Continued)
owners, particularly large ones, for both Master Street Plan
or Master Parks Plans changes. Mr. Greeson stated that
notice had been given to both Deltic Timber and Glenn
Johnson Ranch developers prior to the current Master Street
Plan being adopted.
A motion was made to defer the issue to the November 1, 1988
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed by unanimous
voice vote (10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
Gary Greeson, Planning Director, informed the Planning
Commission that City staff and Deltic Timber representatives
met several times to review the traffic study data. Based
on the results of the traffic study (conducted for Deltic
Timber by Peters & Associates), all parties have come to
general agreement on an amended street pattern for the area.
The collector pattern requested by Deltic Farm and Timber,
with an arterial from Taylor Loop West to intersect the
Parkway north of the golf course as the Street Plan
indicates, is the recommendation of Staff. This amendment
includes:
1. A modified standard for the arterial consisting of
70 feet of right -of -way, 45 feet of paving from
back of curb to back of curb and 12 percent grade
(collector standard), due to topography and the
land use pattern proposed. In addition, two 12
foot traveling lanes (with 8 foot shoulders) are
to be provided in OS areas, with a 70 foot right -
of -way. Construction staging requires widening of
the 45 foot section to full width when the traffic
volume reaches 12,000 vehicles per day. Further,
no parking or direct access by single family
residential is to be allowed; nonresidential and
multifamily areas have curb cuts spaced at
300 foot intervals; and intersections must be
flared with additional right -of -way provided.
2_ Downgrade of Master Street Plan proposed arterial
to a collector from the Parkway to Denny Road.
However, no parking shall be allowed, driveways
are to be spaced at 200 foot intervals; and the
developer is to work to minimize driveways.
The intersection with Chenal Parkway must be
flared in the same manner as the east side of the
Parkway where the arterial intersects.
November 1, 1988
Item No. C (Continued)
3. In the southern part of the Deltic property, all
collectors that will have over 5,000 ADT shall
have 200 foot spacing of driveways (except in
hardship cases and unique situations), no parking,
flared intersections. Curb cuts for driveways are
to be minimized. Driveway requirements will be
subject to review during the platting stage of
development. (See attached letter from Charles
Nickerson to Mr. Monzingo dated October 31.)
Some clarification was requested concerning a short
collector which goes off the north -south arterial south
of Glenn Johnson Ranch. Mr. Jack Castin of MCMM,
representing Deltic Farm and Timber, agreed to remove
the collector in question. Mr. Castin quickly reviewed
the traffic study numbers and standards for some of the
roads.
Mr. Ed Willis, representing Johnson Ranch Development,
expressed some concern about the exact location of the
north -south arterial to the Johnson Ranch Development
at Highway 10. He also wanted to know if the east -west
portion of Taylor Loop would be downgraded to a
collector. Staff said that based on the Deltic Timber
traffic study, the classification would not be changed.
Mr. Bill Meeks, representing Mrs. Johnson (a landowner
on the east side of the Deltic property at Highway 10
where the north -south arterial at Johnson Ranch is
proposed to go) stated that Mrs. Johnson wanted the
road on her west property line as shown on an earlier
plan (Highway 10 Plan).
A letter from Mr. Karam expressing his desire that the
road be on his east line and that he have access to it
was read into the record. (His property is on the west
boundary of Deltic property where the north-south
arterial going to Johnson Ranch is proposed to be
located.)
Jerry Gardner of the Engineering Staff stated that the
Master Street Plan was not intended to be site specific
and that at this time the Engineering Department did
not have an opinion as to where the exact location
should be (whether on the east or west property line of
Deltic, a difference of some 300 feet).
Mr. Ed Willis, developer of the Glenn Johnson Ranch
property, stated that the road was always to have been
on Deltic land (the east side) and was to be built by
November 1, 1988
Item No. C (Continued)
Deltic. The road (on the east) lines up with a major
entrance to the Glenn Johnson Ranch development. Staff
stated that the Glenn Johnson Ranch development had not
been platted, and the City does not know where specific
entrances will be.
Mr. Monzingo of Deltic Farm and Timber stated that
Deltic was not requesting a change in the Master Street
Plan for this arterial and they wanted the road on
their west property line. Staff agreed that the north-
south arterial to the Johnson Ranch development was not
a change since the Master Street Plan shows an arterial
along this general alignment, and the specific location
would be determined when zoning along the road took
place.
Mr. Gary Greeson again stated that the Master Street
Plan is not site specific. Chairman Jones and the
Commission asked that all parties get together and in
thirty days come forward with a specific alignment for
the north-south arterial at the Glenn Johnson Ranch
development.
A motion was then made by Stephen Leek to approve the
amendment to the Master Street Plan as agreed upon by
the City and Deltic Farm and Timber. It was noted that
this action did not affect the arterial extending north
to Glenn Johnson Ranch.. The motion passed by a voice
vote (10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent).
November 1, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-3986-A
Owner: LAACO, Inc.
Applicant: William B. Putnam
Location: I-430 and Rodney Parham Road
Request:
Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 1.28 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
South - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
East - I-430 right -of -way, Zoned "R-2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4"
(The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that
the item be withdrawn from consideration. The site is
zoned "C-3" and the applicant feels the current zoning
will accommodate any future development.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
At the request of the applicant, a motion was made to
withdraw the issue from consideration. The motion was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4933-A
Owner: E. M. Pfeifer, III
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Kanis Road and Rock Creek Parkway
Request: Rezone from unclassified to "C-3"
and "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 8.85 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and church, Zoned "O-2" and "O-3"
South - Single family, unclassified
East - Office and storage, unclassified
West Vacant and single family, unclassified
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request before the Commission is to rezone 8.85
acres from unclassified to "C-3" and "C-4." The
property is located at the intersection of Kanis Road
and the Rock Creek Parkway and is currently outside the
City limits; the site does abut the City limits along
the north property line. The proposal is to split the
tract between the two proposed commercial
classifications for unspecified commercial uses. Land
use in the immediate vicinity includes single family,
church, an office for a construction company with some
storage of equipment and a house moving company. Both
of the construction related uses are nonconforming. In
addition to the existing uses, a high percentage of
land is still vacant including large parcels on the
north side of the Parkway and back to the southeast
along Kanis Road. Zoning in the area is "R-2,"
"MF-18," "O-2," "O-3," and "C-2" with all the
nonresidential tracts still undeveloped. Recent zoning
activity has involved land on the north side of the
Rock Creek Parkway and south of the Parkway. The
rezonings were to "O-2" and "C-2" Site Plan Review
districts.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4933-A (Continued)
2. The site is wooded and vacant.
3. Dedication of additional right-of-way for the Rock
Creek Parkway will be required for a total right-of-way
of 120 feet. The future north /south arterial along the
eastern boundary of the site under consideration and
the necessary dedication will be handled through a
special arrangement between the City and the property
owner. Kanis Road will require an additional
dedication of 10 feet because the current right-of-way
is only 40 feet.
4. Engineering Comments:
Kanis Road from the eastern boundary of the
property to the Rock Creek Parkway will be down-
graded to a local street. This will require a
Master Street Plan amendment.
No median cut at Kanis Road and the Rock Creek
Parkway.
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Kanis
Road and the Rock Creek Parkway.
For the future north /south arterial, the property
owner will be responsible for one-half of the
street improvements and dedication of one-half of
the required right-of-way.
No other comments have been received as of this
writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. History on the site dates back to December 1987 when a
"C-3" request was filed for the entire 8.85 acres.
After being on the agenda for several months, the item
was withdrawn from consideration at the request of the
applicant. Staff has received one call expressing some
concern with the proposed "C-4" reclassification.
7. The Upper Rock Creek District Plan identifies the site
as "general commercial" but does not specify a
particular zoning district. To be consistent with
recent rezonings in the area, Staff's position is that
"C-2," a Site Plan Review District, is more appropriate
November 1, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4933-A (Continued)
for the property and does not support the "C-3" and
"C-4." "C-2" will give the site additional review
prior to any development occurring and the "C-2" bulk
and area requirements are compatible with a parkway
environment. The location can be viewed as being
somewhat sensitive and the "C-2" Site Plan Review will
help ensure a quality development with adequate
landscaping and setbacks. Because the property has
frontage on two other streets, Staff also recommends a
25 foot landscaped area for Kanis Road and the future
north /south arterial. This will help maintain high
development standards which are needed for the site.
One final plan element that needs to be mentioned is
the Master Parks Plan. Some of the land in question is
identified as "priority two proposed open space." The
open space priority system refers to the need for
acquisition relative to other streams throughout the
City. At some point, all the waterways in West Little
Rock will have to be categorized as priority one
because of the rapid rate of development.
STAFF RE COMMENDATON:
Staff recommends denial of both the "C-3" and "C-4"
rezonings and supports a "C-2" reclassification for the
property in question.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Eugene Pfeifer, was present. There were two
objectors in attendance. Mr. Pfeifer told the Commission
that he wanted to locate his business, Mechanics Lumber, on
a portion of the property in question and "C-4" was the
necessary zoning for a lumber yard. Mr. Pfeifer said he
needed to be on the Parkway because of the visibility and it
was a good location to serve the building community. There
was some discussion about the storage of materials, and Mr.
Pfeifer said he could possibly screen some of the lumber but
there would be problems.
Kurt Boggan, pastor of the Highland Valley Methodist Church,
voiced some opposition to "C-3" and "C-4" rezonings but
indicated support for "C-2" because of the site plan review.
Mr. Boggan said the site needed special consideration
because of being at a major intersection and the area should
have quality development.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4933-A (Continued)
Jacque Alexander spoke in opposition to the rezoning
request. Ms. Alexander reminded the Commission of her
letter submitted prior to the meeting and then presented a
petition with 150 names opposed to the commercial rezoning.
She said the people have depended on plans and the site was
inappropriate for "C-4" uses. She went on to say that
single family residential was the primary use and the
rezoning would not benefit other property owners in the
area. Ms. Alexander stressed that the property was outside
the City and the Excavation Ordinance would not apply. She
said there was a need for high quality development and
objected to any commercial development or zoning at the
location. Ms. Alexander concluded by reviewing the District
Plan's objectives and said that traffic would be a problem.
Mr. Pfeifer spoke again and said the property was a
reasonable site for the proposed use. He described the area
and other uses. Mr. Pfeifer said he did not object to a PCD
or "C-2" and amended the request to "C-2" for the entire
8.8 acres. He also agreed to consider the annexation of the
property.
A motion was then offered to recommend approval of "C-2" as
amended. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5079
Owner: Van Melson
Applicant: Same
Location: West 34th Street and John Barrow
Road (southeast corner)
Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 0.41 acres
Existing Use: Vacant and single family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, Zoned "R-3"
South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
East - Single family, Zoned "R-3"
West - Vacant and church, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone three lots at the southeast
corner of John Barrow Road and West 34th Street from
"R-3" to "C-3" for a future commercial development.
The property abuts "C-3" on the south and "R-3" on the
east with "R-3" across both West 34th and John Barrow
Road. Other zoning found in the general area is "R-3,"
"C-1," and "C-3." The existing "C-3" at West 36th
Street and John Barrow Road has been zoned since 1965
and there is only one commercial use at the southeast
corner of John Barrow Road and West 36th Street. The
other lots within the large "C-3" area are either
vacant or occupied by single family residences. The
commercial zoning at West 33rd and John Barrow Road
also has been in place for a number of years. The one-
half block of "C-3" between West 32nd and West 33rd has
several commercial uses on it as does the "C-1" at the
southwest corner of West 33rd and John Barrow Road.
The existing "C-1" at the southeast corner of John
Barrow Road and West 33rd is a single family residence
and a vacant lot. Land use on the other blocks is
primarily single family with a number of vacant
parcels.
2. The site is two vacant lots with a single family
residence on the third lot.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5079 (Continued)
3. There are no Master Street Plan issues or right-of-way
requirements associated with this request.
4. Engineering reports that West 34th Street will need
street improvements and possible dedication of
additional right-of-way.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. Because of the large "C -3" area concentrated at the
intersection of West 36th and John Barrow Road which
has been zoned for over twenty years and the majority
is still vacant, Staff has not endorsed adding to the
inventory of commercial land by not supporting
commercial rezonings between West 32nd and West 34th
Streets. Staff's position still remains the same and
opposes the current "C-3" request at West 34th and John
Barrow Road. There is more than adequate acreage
available for a commercial development and the need for
additional "C-3" land does not exist at this time.
Other reasons for the Staff's negative recommendation
are: the rezoning is contrary to the Boyle Park
District Plan which identifies the site for multifamily
use; the approval of "C-3" would lead to a strip
zoning pattern from West 32nd to south of West 36th;
and the "C-3" reclassification could have an adverse
impact on the nearby residential uses. The adopted
land use plan for the Boyle Park District shows
commercial nodes at the intersections of West 33rd and
West 36th Streets with John Barrow Road and multifamily
uses between the two nodes to avoid a stripping out of
John Barrow Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request.
PLANNING COMM.ISS.ION, ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
When the item was first called, the applicant was not
present and the issue was deferred to the end of the agenda.
Nancy Davis, an adjacent property owner, was in attendance.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5079 (Continued)
The applicant was still not present the second time the
request was reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Davis made some
comments and said that the entire block should be rezoned to
commercial. After some additional discussion, a motion was
made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion
was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5082
Owner: Dexter and Angela Doyne
Applicant: Dexter Doyne
Location: 4416 Frazier Pike
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "R-4"
Purpose: Duplex
Size: 0.16 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Office, Zoned "R-2"
West - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The owner, Dexter Doyne, contacted the City about
constructing a duplex in the College Station area and was
informed that the lot in question was within the City limits
of Little Rock. Mr. Doyne was instructed that a "R-4"
reclassification was necessary to allow a duplex and after
that Mr. Doyne filed the appropriate rezoning application.
The lot is located on Frazier Pike and is vacant. The
surrounding land use is somewhat mixed with single family
being the predominate use. Other land uses are commercial,
churches, a public school and a Head Start Center. The
property across Frazier Pike is undeveloped and there are
vacant lots throughout the neighborhood. All the land that
is within the Little Rock City limits is zoned "R-2."
Staff's position is that a duplex is a reasonable use of the
site and supports the "R-4" reclassification. The approval
of "R-4" will create a spot zoning but two units on one lot
should not have an impact on the area. Rezoning the lot
will allow new development in the College Station area and
should be encouraged by the City of Little Rock.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5082 (Continued)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Possible right-of-way dedication and street improvements for
Frazier Pike in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-4" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "R-4" rezoning
as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-5084
Owner: Robert and Sandra Vowell
Applicant: Robert Vowell
Location: 9724 I-30
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 0.77 acres
Existing Use: Single family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C-4"
East - Single family, Zoned "I-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "C-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone a tract of land at the end of what
is know as "Warehouse Road" from "R-2" to "C-4." No
specific use has been identified other than some type of
commercial use, probably with outside display. Warehouse
Road is a dead -end street and is located several hundred
feet west of McDaniel Drive. Currently the tract of land is
occupied by a single family residence.
Zoning in the area is "R-2," "C-3," "C-4," "I-2" and PCD.
The property in question abuts "C-4" on the south, "I-2" on
the east and "R-2" on the north. To the west, across
Warehouse Road, the land is zoned "C-4." Land use is made
up of single family, commercial and industrial with several
tracts still undeveloped. The commercial uses include
retail, service commercial and auto sales lots. The
established residential area is situated some distance from
the site under consideration and will not be affected by any
proposed rezoning change.
Because of the existing zoning and land use pattern, Staff
feels that the request is a reasonable option for the
property and supports the "C-4" reclassification. The
rezoning is compatible with the area and will not have any
impacts on the surrounding properties.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-5084 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C -4" rezoning
as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-5086
Owner: Systematics, Inc.
Applicant: L. Dickson Flake
Location: Pleasant Valley Farm Road (I-430
and Highway 10)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-2"
Purpose: Office use and development
Size: 12.12 acres
Existing Use: Single family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Office, Zoned "O-2"
South - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant and single family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Office, Zoned "O-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone approximately 12 acres from "R-2"
to "O-2" for office use and future development. The
property is situated southwest of the I-430 /Highway 10
interchange and directly east of the Systematics office
development. The site under consideration has a large
single family residence with several accessory structures on
the north half and the southern portion is undeveloped. The
existing house will be maintained and utilized by
Systematics for various uses. Specific long -term plans for
the site are unknown at this time.
Land use in the general vicinity includes single family,
churches, a private school and several office buildings.
Two other significant uses are the Little Rock Water Works
facility to the south and the I-430 /Highway 10 interchange.
Zoning is "R-2," "O-2," "O-3" and PCD with the property
under consideration abutting "R-2" and "O-2." The adjoining
"R-2" land on the east and south side is platted into single
family lots, so it appears that some zoning provisions
should be made to reduce the potential for any impact on the
lots.
The site is part of the Highway 10 Plan area and the adopted
land use plan shows office use for the property in question.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-5086 (Continued)
Staff's position is that the proposed rezoning is compatible
with the plan and supports the "O-2" reclassification.
Systematics existing office complex is of the highest
quality and Staff is confident that any new development on
the acreage being considered for rezoning will maintain the
same excellence. "O-2" is a Site Plan Review District so
prior to any construction occurring on the property, the
Planning Commission will have to endorse the necessary site
plan and development concept. Because of the adjacent
residential lots, Staff recommends an "OS" Open Space
classification for the east and south 50 feet of the
property.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Pleasant Valley Farm Road needs to be terminated (with a
cul-de-sac) before it intersects Rodney Parham Road. The
cul-de-sacing of Pleasant Valley Farm Road has been
discussed and identified by the City in the past through the
review of other land use proposals for the general area.
Primary access for the property should be through the
Systematics development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "O-2" with a 50 foot "OS" strip
on the east and south sides.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Dickson Flake, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Flake spoke and said that he did not object
to the fifty (50) foot OS area but thought that the
undergrounding of utility lines could create a potential
problem. There was some discussion about utility lines in
OS Open Space District. Mr. Flake then agreed to a
condition that would place some restrictions on the 50 foot
area along the east and south sides of the site. A motion
was made to recommend approval of the "O-2" rezoning for the
entire acreage with the condition that the east and south
50 feet be an undisturbed buffer area except for utilities
with a specific utility layout presented at the time of Site
Plan Review. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5087
Owner: William A. Stafford
Applicant: Same
Location: Alexander Road at Crooked Creek
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 23.66 acres
Existing Use: Industrial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and industrial, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, single family and industrial, Zoned
"R-2," "R-7A," and City of Alexander
East - Vacant and single family, Zoned "R-2" and
"R-7A"
West - Industrial, City of Alexander
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue before the Commission is to rezone 23.66
acres from "R-2" to "I-2" for existing industrial uses.
The property is located in the southwest corner of
Little Rock and adjacent to the Alexander City limits
on one side. The site also abuts the Missouri Pacific
Railroad tracks on the south and the Crooked Creek
floodway /floodplain on the north. The surrounding land
uses are single family and industrial with vacant land
throughout the vicinity. Zoning is "R-2," "R-7A" and
"C-4." (Staff is uncertain of what the zoning is in
the part of Alexander that abuts the property under
consideration.) Directly to the north and across
Crooked Creek, there is a tract of land (12.5 acres)
that is zoned "R-2" and has a heavy industrial use on
it. An "I-3" rezoning for the property was recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission in January
1988. The Board of Directors has not acted on the
request because Crooked Creek was relocated and the
necessary floodway adjustments must be approved by the
Army Corp of Engineers. Relocation of the creek was
done to remove several structures from the current
floodway on the north side. Most of the necessary
engineering work has been completed and the next step
November 1, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5087 (Continued)
will be the review by both the City of Little Rock and
the Corp of Engineers. The relocation of the creek
affects the 23 acres in question so it appears that
this rezoning will not be forwarded to the Board of
Directors until the creek and floodway modifications
have received the Corp's approval.
2. The property has some industrial storage on it and a
portion of it is vacant. Approximately 250 feet
adjacent to the creek is in the existing floodway and a
large portion of the land is in the floodplain.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. Engineering reports that the dedication of the
established floodway will be required. Also, before
any changes can be made to the floodway maps, the
engineering work has to be submitted to the City and
endorsed by the Corp of Engineers. The necessary
documents have been given to the City but the
information has not been acted on by the Corp of
Engineers.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received several informational calls about
the request. There is no documented history on the
site.
7. The land is part of the Otter Creek District Plan area
and the adopted land use plan recommends a mobile
home /manufactured residential development for the
property. After reviewing the proposal and the land
use plan, Staff is of the opinion that an industrial
classification is a reasonable option for this site.
The land is adjacent to industrial uses on two sides
and railroad tracks on a third side so it does not
appear that "I-2" rezoning will have an effect on the
surrounding properties. The existing "R-7A"
development is separated from the property by the
railroad tracks which does create somewhat of a buffer
even though the tracks are probably having an impact on
the residences.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5087 (Continued).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "I-2" and "OS" for the
established floodway which will need to be dedicated to the
City of Little Rock.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, William A. Stafford, was present. There were
no objectors. Mr. Stafford spoke briefly and said he had no
problems with the recommended OS Open Space area. Jerry
Gardner of the City Engineering Staff said the floodway
recommendation from the Corps of Engineers should be made by
December 1, 1988. A motion was made to recommend approval
of "I-2” and "OS" for the established floodway. The motion
was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
(The item will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors
until the floodway remapping is approved by the Corps of
Engineers.)
November 1, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-5090
Owner: Ernest Biehslich
Applicant: Rollin Caristianos
Location: 6123 South University
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 14.07 acres
Existing Use: Single family and vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2"
South - Vacant and railroad tracks, Zoned "I-2"
East - Single family and commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property in question is one of the few remaining "R-2"
tracts with frontage along South University and the request
is to rezone it to "C-4" for a commercial development. A
majority of the 14 acres is currently undeveloped. There is
a single family residence along the South University side.
The land also has frontage along Geyer Springs Road and is
adjacent to the railroad tracks on the southeast side.
Zoning in the general vicinity is very fragmented and
includes "R-2," "C-3," "C-4," "I-2" and PRD. The site abuts
"I-2" on the south and "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" to the north.
Across Geyer Springs Road is a "C-3" tract and on the west
side of South University the zoning is "C-3" and "I-2."
Land use tends to conform to the zoning with a mixed
commercial pattern for the properties fronting South
University. A majority of the uses on South University are
auto oriented or require "Open Display." The "I-2" tract to
the south is vacant as are several commercial parcels along
Geyer Springs Road to the north.
Staff's position is that the proposed "C-4" rezoning is
compatible with the area and supports the request. The
reclassification will not have any impact on the surrounding
properties.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-5090 (Continued)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Engineering is concerned about access problems in the area,
and a traffic study will be needed prior to subdivision of
the property.
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Geyer Springs Road
will be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4” rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION. ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-4" rezoning
as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z-5092
Owner: Cantrell Loop Partnership II
Applicant: Tom Cole
Location: 14800 Cantrell Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 1.84 acres
Existing Use: Single family
SURROUNDING -LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant and commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Single family, Zoned "C-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone 1.8 acres on Highway 10 from "R-2"
to "C-3" for future commercial development. The property is
currently occupied by two single family residences and is
located on the north side of Highway 10 and immediately west
of where the eastern end of Taylor Loop Road intersects
Highway 10. The site abuts "C-3" zoning on two sides with a
small commercial center located to the east. In addition to
the "C-3" rezoning, the balance of the area is zoned "R-2."
Land use is a mix of single family, commercial and a church
with several nonconforming uses.
The Highway 10 Plan shows a commercial node at the
Highway 10 /Taylor Loop intersection and the property in
question falls within the defined commercial area; it is one
of the few remaining tracts within the node that has not
been rezoned to "C-3." Staff's position is that the "C-3"
reclassification conforms to the adopted plan and supports
the requested rezoning. There are no other plan issues
associated with this application.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z-5092 (Continued)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 will be
required for a total right-of-way of 110 feet, or 55 feet
from the center line on each side.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as
requested.
PLANNI[11G COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the
December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill
Rector).
November 1, 1988
Item No. 10 - Z-5093
Owner: Robert M. Goff & Associates
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Shackleford Road and I-430 (at
I-630)
Request: Rezone from "O-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 2.05 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned PCD
South - Interstate right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
East - 1 -430 right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue before the Commission involves two acres
located directly south of the Holiday Inn on
Shackleford Road and the request is to rezone the tract
from "O-2" to "C-3." The site is Lot 1 of the Robert
M. Goff Subdivision and it is the only undeveloped
parcel remaining on the piece of land between
Shackleford Road and I-430, south of West Markham.
Other developments on the larger site include a small
commercial center, a fast food restaurant and the
Holiday Inn complex. On the west side of Shackleford
Road the land use can best be described as a commercial
strip with the uses ranging from a furniture store to a
service station. North of West Markham, the commercial
or non - residential pattern continues for a distance,
especially on the east side of the street. Zoning in
the general area includes "R-2," "O-2," "C-3," "C-4"
and PCD with "C-3" directly across Shackleford Road.
2. The site is flat and vacant with some floodplain
involvement.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 10 - Z -5093 (Continued)
4. Engineering is very concerned with access and feels
that it should be provided through the Holiday Inn
site. There are too many problems along this portion
of Shackleford Road for a separate access point south
of the Holiday Inn entrance. When the Holiday Inn PCD
was being reviewed, Engineering stressed that there
only needed to be one access point on Shackleford Road
with the other lots utilizing a common access easement.
The City Engineer pointed out that access to and from
the site will be extremely difficult during peak hours.
Documentation of the access easement is found in the
various Holiday Inn files.
There are no legal issues.
6. History on the site dates back several years to the
1970's when the land was rezoned to "O-3." In 1980,
the balance of the property was rezoned to "C-2" for a
proposed hotel development. Over the years there have
been other actions including rezoning the lot to "O-2"
and Board of Adjustment variances.
7. During the review of the Holiday Inn PCD, some of the
discussion centered on the property in question and its
future use. At that time, the direction was toward a
low- intensity use, an office, and it was the City's
understanding that all parties involved agreed to an
office use and the site should not be used for a
commercial development. One of the site plans for the
Holiday Inn development identifies the lot in question
for "future office" use. Based on the history of the
property and its location, an intense commercial use
for the lot is undesirable and Staff opposes the
requested "C-3" rezoning. The I-430 District Plan does
show the site as "neighborhood convenience center" or
commercial but Staff strongly believes that creating
another commercial lot with separate access onto
Shackleford Road would compound the existing problems
and have an adverse impact on the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning as requested.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 10 - Z-5093 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Joe White, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. White described the area and said there was
commercial zoning on both sides of Shackleford Road. He
went on to say that there was some floodplain involvement
and the property was an excellent commercial site. Mr.
White felt that completion of the Parkway Extension should
eliminate some of the traffic problems on Shackleford Road.
Mr. White pointed out that the median on Shackleford was
removed and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department has issued the necessary permits for a third
driveway on Shackleford Road. He also said that there were
crossover easements to West Markham for the property in
question.
There was some discussion about utilizing a PCD for the site
and Mr. White said that a "C-2" rezoning would be an
acceptable option. There were some comments made about the
City Engineering Staff needing to look at the site plan for
the development because of the location. Mr. White then
presented some traffic counts for I-630 and Shackleford
Road.
Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering office then addressed
the Commission. He said that the property should not have a
separate driveway and asked that a curb cut prohibition be a
condition of the rezoning. Mr. Gardner said that the
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department did not have
the authority to deny the driveway permit. He made some
additional comments about traffic and said the site under
consideration should utilize the main entrance for the
Holiday Inn.
Mr. White spoke again and said there would be 350 feet
between an existing driveway and the proposed curb cut. Mr.
White made some additional comments and amended the request
to "C-2." A motion was made to recommend approval of the
"C-2" rezoning as amended. The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 11 - Z -5094
Owner: Richardson Investments
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Taylor Loop Road and Hinson Road
(extension)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3" and
" C-3 "
Purpose: Office and commercial
Size: 12.91 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant and single family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant and single family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant and single family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 12.9 acres from "R-2" to "O-3"
and "C-3" for a mix of office and commercial uses. If
approved, the acreage breakdown would be 3.7 acres of
"C-3" and 9.2 acres zoned "O-3." The property is
situated along Taylor Loop Road just west of where
Grishman Road, or the future extension of Hinson Road,
intersects Taylor Loop. Also, Chenal Valley Drive is
planned to tie into Taylor Loop Road at this location.
The proposed alignment of the street is the rezoning
line that separates the western "O-3" tract from the
"C-3" and larger "O-3" parcel. Zoning in the area is
entirely "R-2" with the exception of a PRD located to
the south. Land use is single family residences and
vacant land.
2. The site is vacant and wooded.
3. There are significant requirements and floodway issues.
Right -of -ways for the Hinson Road extension, Taylor
Loop Road and floodway dedication for Taylor Loop Creek
are needed.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 11- Z-5094 (Continued)
4. Julius Breckling, Director of the Department of Parks
and Recreation, has informed the Staff through a
memorandum that the application includes land acquired
by the City for Taylor Loop Park. He has also
indicated that the City has not negotiated for the sale
of this land, nor has the Parks Department completed
the final plans for the park. It is Mr. Breckling's
recommendation that the rezoning be denied.
Engineering feels that there are too many issues and
the request is premature.
5. A potential legal issue is the validity of the request
since a portion of the land under consideration is
owned by the City and the application does not list the
City as an owner or an applicant.
6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has
received several inquiries about the proposal.
7. In addition to the appropriateness of the application
because of the City's ownership, there are several
other significant issues that make the request very
questionable. The adopted Highway 10 Land Use Plan
identifies all the land south of Taylor Loop Road for
single family residential development with the
commercial area located at the intersection of Taylor
Loop Road and Highway 10. Also, the Plan shows the
property north of Taylor Loop Road as existing park
land. The proposed rezoning is contrary to the adopted
land use plan, would create a large spot of non-
residential zoning and have an adverse impact on the
area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" and "C-3" rezonings.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Joe White, was present and the owner was
represented by Bill Terry, an attorney. There were a number
of objectors in attendance. Mr. Terry said the property was
part of a total ownership of 20 acres and went on to
describe the area. He told the Commission that the roads
and creeks would be changed and have an impact on the
property. Joe White reviewed a map and discussed future
November 1, 1988
Item No. 11 - Z-5094 (Continued)
improvements in the area. Mr. White also said that the City
has made some right -of -way requests to the owner, Bob
Richardson. He then presented projected traffic counts for
various roadways in the vicinity including Highway 10. Mr.
Terry spoke again and said the land was located at the
intersection of two future major streets that would be
heavily traveled. He went on to say that the property would
be impacted by the roadways and some light commercial or
office was a reasonable use. Mr. Terry suggested that the
Highway 10 Plan needed flexibility and that the site in
question was a proper place to change the plan. He went on
to say that the owner would dedicate the necessary right-of-
way and floodway area and then questioned Julius Breckling's
written statement about the City's ownership in the area.
Mr. Terry concluded by saying that the proposed commercial
site was adequately buffered from the residential
development and setbacks would protect the property owners.
Wendell Griffen spoke against the rezoning and said the
Highway 10 District Plan should be maintained. Mr. Griffen
said the area was residential and that approval would create
a spot zone -- an inappropriate, nonresidential island. He
told the Commission that Highway 10 was planned for
commercial uses and the area in question needed to remain
residential.
Tom Holmes and Clint Boshears, developers of subdivisions in
the area, both opposed the rezoning request. Mr. Boshears
said the rezoning would impact lots in the Hickory Creek
development to the south.
Ron Fuller, State Representative, said the site was in his
district and the request was totally out of context with the
area. Mr. Fuller told the Commission the rezoning would
ruin the residential quality of the neighborhood and the
residents were opposed to the proposed change. He then
asked that the rezoning request be denied.
Bill Terry addressed the Commission again and said the
property could not be used for residential development and
the neighborhood would be protected. Mr. Terry then
discussed some possible zoning options for the site.
Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering staff reviewed the
history of Hinson Road and said there were no funds
available for the Outer Loop. He said once all the street
improvements were made, traffic movements would change in
the area.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 11 - Z-5094 (Continued)
Additional comments were offered by Mr. Fuller and Mr.
Boshears. Mr. Terry then asked that the item be withdrawn
from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the "O-3"
and "C-3" rezoning as requested. The motion was approved by
a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David
Jones).
November 1, 1988
Item No. 12 - Z-5095
Owner: Jimmy Heavrin
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: 9511 I-30
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 1.14 acres
Existing Use: Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - I-30 right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
East - Industrial, Zoned "R-2"
West - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site in question is located along the I-30 frontage road
west of Chicot Road and in the Distribution /Production
Drives area (Triangle Properties Industrial District). The
property is being used for outside storage and the request
is to rezone the parcel from "R-2" to "C-4." The only
structural involvement on the site is a metal building
situated at the rear of the property.
The majority of the tracts within the Triangle Properties
are zoned for commercial and industrial uses with "R-2,"
"C-3" and "I-2" being the current zoning. The property
abuts "I-2" on the south and west side with one of the few
remaining "R-2" parcels along the east boundary. The land
use is a mix of commercial and industrial with some of the
land still undeveloped. The proposed rezoning is compatible
with the existing zoning pattern found in the area and Staff
supports the "C-4" request. There are no unresolved issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning as filed.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 12 - Z-5095 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-4" rezoning
as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 13 - Z-5096
Owner: Elgor Properties, Inc.
Applicant: John A. Castin
Location: Kanis Road at Cooper Orbit Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "MF-18," "O-2"
and "C-2"
Purpose: Multifamily, office and commercial
Size: 13.54 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant and single family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant and single family, unclassified
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 13.5 acres for a mix of
office, multifamily and commercial uses. The proposed
classifications and acreage are:
"O-2" - 1.5 acres
"C-2" - 2.3 acres
"MF-18" - 9.6 acres
(Both the "O-2" and "C-2" districts have site area
requirements unless the land is a platted lot. "O-2"
requires 2 acres and "C-2" has a 5 acre minimum.)
The property is located on the south side of Kanis Road
and at the point where both Cooper Orbit and Kirby
Roads intersect at Kanis Road. Asbury Road along the
eastern boundary of the property is just a platted
street and is not open. Abutting the site on the west
are the City limits which extend to the north and south
of Kanis Road. "R-2" is the zoning in the area and
single family residential is the predominant land use.
To the east on Kanis, there is a nonconforming use, and
west on Kanis there is a commercial establishment. A
significant portion of the land is still undeveloped.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 13 - Z-5096 (Continued)
2. The site is vacant and wooded. It appears that some of
the property has some floodplain involvement.
3. Kanis Road is classified as a minor arterial so
dedication of additional right-of-way will probably be
required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received several informational calls
concerning the rezoning requests. There is no
documented history on the site.
7. The land in question falls within the scope of the
Upper Rock Creek District Plan area and the adopted
land use plan shows the property to be in the
transition zone. For a two-mile segment of Kanis Road
the plan shows both sides of Kanis to be in the
transition zone, from about Gamble Road to Baker
School. The plan limits the uses in the transition
zone to office, office warehouse, and multifamily
development and requires a PUD submission for any land
use proposal. Also, the plan lists specific
development criteria for the transition zone which
includes an office floor ration area of 0.2, a density
of 10 units per acre, and building setback of 125 feet
from the center line of Kanis Road. The plan also
identifies the southern portion of the property to be
in the floodplain and /or part of a large pond area.
The proposed request does not conform to the adopted
plan and Staff cannot support the rezonings. Adequate
areas for commercial development are shown on the plan
and no justification has been provided to establish a
new commercial spot zone. The "MF-18" exceeds the
density for the transition zone and without a site
plan, it is unknown whether other development criteria
are being followed. If a real project exists, a PUD
needs to be submitted for proper review and a detailed
plan should be done for the entire ownership.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "MF-18," "O-2" and "C-2"
rezonings as requested.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 13 - Z-5096 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were several
objectors in attendance. Mr. Castin requested that the item
be deferred until the December 13, 1988 meeting. After a
brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the issue to
the December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill
Rector).
November 1, 1988
Item No. 14 - Z-5097
Owner: Deltic Farm and Timber, Inc.
Applicant: John A. Castin
Location: Deltic's north slope area
Request: Rezone from unclassified to "MF-6,"
"MF-12," "MF-18 ." "O-2," "C-2" and
"C-3 . "
Purpose: Mixed development
Size: 204.12 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, unclassified and zoned "O-2"
South - Vacant, unclassified
East - Vacant and single family, unclassified
West - Vacant and single family, unclassified
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone five areas in what is referred to
as Deltic's north slope area, lands between Highway 10 and
the 2300 acres that were rezoned in 1987. The total acreage
involved is 204.12 acres and the requested districts are
"MF-6," "MF-12," "MF-18," "O-2," "C-2" and "C-3." The
proposed districts and acreage are:
"MF-6" - 107.1 acres
"MF-12" - 14.1 acres
"MF -18" - 11.4 acres
"O-2" - 13.0 acres
"C-2" - 31.1 acres
"C-3" - 27.4 acres
The land in question is beyond the City limits so it is
unclassified and the balance will remain unclassified until
the City exercises its Extraterritorial zoning authority or
the area is annexed. At that time, the land that has not
been rezoned for this action will be "R-2."
A majority of the area is currently outside the City so it
is unclassified. To the east, where the City limits begin,
there is some zoning other than "R-2" in place that includes
November 1, 1988
Item No. 14 - Z-5097 (Continued)
"O-2," "C-2," "MF-12" and "MF-18" which is part of the
Johnson Ranch development. Land use is still somewhat
fragmented with single family residential being the primary
use. In both directions on Highway 10, there are
nonresidential uses with the ones in the City being
nonconforming. A large percentage of the land on both sides
of Highway 10 is still undeveloped.
Staff has carefully reviewed the proposed reclassifications
and, generally, supports the overall concept of the request.
For the most part, the rezonings conform to the adopted
plans for the area and should help achieve a quality
development pattern along both Highway 10 and the Chenal
Mountain Parkway. The rezoning should have little impact on
the existing built -up areas and will assist in providing
needed services for the residents in the future. The major
roadways that will intersect Highway 10 are shown to be
commercial nodes and the proposed commercial rezonings are
within the established areas.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
A traffic impact study is needed.
Dedication of 120 foot right-of-way for Chenal Parkway and
written commitment to dedicate rights-of-way for other
arterials, collectors and residential streets at the time of
platting. Dedication of additional right-of-way for
Highway 10 for a total of 110 feet will be required.
The design of the Highway 10 /Chenal Parkway intersection
could have an impact on the proposed 19.5 acre "C-3" site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved pending review of traffic and other information.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 14 - Z-5097 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(A graphic will be presented at the Public Hearing
identifying the individual sites.)
Sites No. 102 and 103, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Site No. 105, approval of "C-2" as requested. (The land was
rezoned to "OS" in 1987.)
Site No. 116, approval of "O-2" with a 40 foot landscaped
strip along the Parkway.
Site No. 117, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Site No. 119, approval of "MF-12" as requested.
Site No. 120, approval of "C-2" as requested.
Sites No. 121, 122 and 123, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Sites No. 132 and 133, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Site No. 134, approval of "O-2" as requested.
Site No. 135, approval of "C-2" as requested. (The parcel
needs to meet the minimum site area unless it is an existing
platted tract.)
Site No. 140, denial of "C-2" and approval of "O-2."
Site No. 141, approval of "O-2" as requested.
Site No. 142, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2."
Site No. 143, approval of "MF-18" as requested.
Site No. 144, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2."
November 1, 1988
Item No. 14 - Z-5097 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The first issue that was discussed was Item C, a proposed
amendment to the Master Street Plan. Gary Greeson, Planning
Director, presented the Staff's recommendation and then
addressed the various agreements made between the City and
Deltic Farm and Timber. Mr. Greeson reviewed the letters of
agreement and discussed all the specifics in detail. A
number of individuals spoke about the issue and there was a
lengthy discussion. A motion was made to recommend approval
of the Master Street Plan Amendment with the exception of
the eastern north -south arterial. The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (See Item C for a
complete and detailed minute record.)
The Planning Commission then discussed the rezoning issue.
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were several
interested individuals in attendance, including some
objectors. Staff then presented the list of recommendations
for each of the individual sites.
Sites 102 and 103, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Site 105, approval of "C-2" as requested.
Site 116, approval of "O-2" with a 40 foot landscape
strip along the parkway.
Site 117, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Site 119, approval of "MF-12" as requested.
Site 120, approval of "C-2" as requested.
Sites 121, 122 and 123, approval of "MF-6" as
requested.
Sites 132 and 133, approval of "MF-6" as requested.
Site 134, approval of "O-2" as requested.
Site 135, approval of "C-2" as requested.
Site 140, denial of "C-2" and approval of "O-2."
Site 141, approval of "O-2" as requested.
Site 142, denial of "C-3" and approval of "C-2."
November 1, 1988
Item No. 14.- Z -5097 (Continued
Site 143, approval of "MF-18" as requested.
Site 144, denial of "C-3" and approval of "O-2."
Jack Castin addressed the Commission and said he was
surprised with some of the Staff's recommendations. Mr.
Castin expressed some concerns with several of the sites,
especially No. 140. He went on to discuss other issues and
problems with the recommendations.
Gene Pfeifer said he has been working with Deltic on the
configuration of the Highway 10 /Chenal Parkway intersection
and he was not aware of any specific proposal, especially an
elevated ramp. Mr. Pfeifer said he was opposed to Deltic's
rezoning because of the proposed design of the new
intersection. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering Staff
addressed the proposed intersection and the design program
for the future. Mr. Gardner also made some comments about
right -of -way requirements and future alignments. Joe White
said that he had submitted intersection plans in November of
1987 and received approval from the City. Mr. White gave
some history on the issue and said that Mr. Pfeifer had not
agreed to anything. Mr. Pfeifer spoke again and said that
he doubted that there was a need for an elevated roadway at
the Highway 10 and Parkway intersection.
Bill Meeks representing Mrs. Glenn Johnson addressed the
Commission and said that Mrs. Johnson's property was
adjacent to Sites #132, 133, 134 and 135. Mr. Meeks
described the neighborhood as a quality residential area and
said there were problems with the proposed "C-2" rezoning
for Site #135 because of being directly west of Mrs.
Johnson's residence.
Brian Morrison made some comments about the homes in the
area and said the land was currently outside the City. Mr.
Morrison said he was not opposed to development of the area
but questioned the need for zoning the land at this time.
He said his lot was adjacent to Sites #121, 122 and 123 and
he was opposed to the proposed "MF-6" reclassification. Mr.
Morrison asked why "MF-6" was necessary and requested that
the "MF-6" rezoning be denied. He ended his presentation by
saying that the residents have had no input or discussions
with Deltic Farm and Timber.
Ed Willis said that a decision should be made on the roads
before any action was taken on the rezoning of certain
sites.
November 1, 1988
.Item No. 14 - Z-5097 (Continued)
Jack Castin said that access to Sites #121, 122 and 123
would be from a proposed arterial and asked that the item
not be deferred. Mr. Castin said that Deltic wanted "C-2"
for Site #140 and Site #144 provided the necessary right-of-
way for the Highway 10 /Parkway intersection.
Additional comments were made by various individuals and
Commissioner David Jones suggested that the request be
deferred. There was some discussion about a number of the
issues and then a motion was made to recommend approval of
Sites 9102, 103, 105, 116, 117, 119, 120, 141 and 143 as
requested. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. A second motion was made to recommend
approval of "MF-6" for Sites #121, 122 and 123 but was
withdrawn. A final motion was offered to defer the balance
of the sites to the December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion
was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
(At the end of the hearing, Deltic Farm and Timber withdrew
their letter of agreement dated November 1, 1988.)
November 1, 1988
Item No. 15 - Z-5098
Owner: FGS Properties
Applicant: Ronald E. Tabor
Location: Cantrell Road (Highway 10) and
Riverside Avenue
Request: Rezone from "R-5," "O-3," "C-3" and
"I-2" to "O-2."
Purpose: Office development
Size: 17.5 acres
Existing Use: Residential and non-residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Arkansas River
South Vacant, office and residential, Zoned "O-3" and
"I -3"
East - Multifamily, Zoned "O-3"
West - Industrial, Zoned "I-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a five block area adjacent to
the Arkansas River from various districts to "O-2" for
a major office development. The proposal is to clear
the land and construct a single office building with
the necessary parking. (The site plan will be
presented for review to the Planning Commission at the
November 15, 1988 Public Hearing.) The site is located
west of the old Riverside Hospital and directly across
Cantrell Road from the vacant Missouri Pacific property
(the former Wrape Product site). Land use includes
single family, multifamily, office, auto repair and
industrial. There are also several large unoccupied
structures in the immediate area. Zoning is a mix of
"R-5," "O-3," "O-1," "C-3," "I-2" and "I-3" with the
site under consideration currently zoned "R-5," "O-3,"
"C-3" and "I-2." The "I-3" land on the south side of
Cantrell is vacant and adjacent to the property on the
north is the Arkansas River.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 15 - Z-5098
2. The site comprises a total of five city blocks or 17.5
acres. Most of the lots are occupied by residential
units, both single family and multifamily. Along
Cantrell Road, there are several non-residential
buildings and an abandoned gas station site. Based on
a windshield survey of the area, it appears that a
majority of the residences are still occupied.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues at this time.
4. Engineering has indicated that the issue of additional
right-of-way will be addressed at the time of the site
plan review or at a later date.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received several calls from concerned
residents of the area wanting information about the
rezoning. There is no documented history on the site.
7. A quality office development along the Arkansas River,
in close proximity to the downtown area, is critical to
the future stability of the City's central core.
Therefore, Staff supports the requested "O-2" rezoning.
The Planning Staff has always viewed the south bank of
the Arkansas River, from Riverfront Park to the
location in question, as an area of mixed uses with the
potential for some desirable comprehensive
redevelopment. The proposed rezoning and subsequent
development should set the standard for other infill
projects along the river bank and also reinforce the
idea that the Arkansas River can be an asset to the
City. Land use and zoning do not appear to be the most
significant issues but rather the development of the
site and access which will be addressed through the
necessary site plan review for the "O-2" district. The
only potential drawback to the project is the loss of
affordable housing units and the displacement of a
number of residents. Hopefully, the owner or owners of
the property will make provisions for the transition
period to be as smooth as possible for all parties
involved.
November 1, 1988
Item No,. 15 - Z-5098
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "O-2" rezoning as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Ron Tabor, was present. There were a number
of persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the
case. (The registration cards indicated 9 objectors to the
request and 4 supporters of the rezoning.) Mr. Tabor said
he was representing the property owner, FGS Properties, and
made a brief presentation. He discussed the request before
the Planning Commission and the proposed office development.
The Planning Commission then heard from the residents
opposed to the "O-2" rezoning.
Carol McCorkle said she was representing Jim Taylor and read
a statement from Mr. Taylor. The letter described the area
in question and Mr. Taylor requested that the issue be
deferred.
Delbert O. Lewis addressed the Commission and said the
proposed rezoning would remove about 20 units of accessible
housing and force out disabled persons. Mr. Lewis went on
to present some statistics and pointed out that
approximately 66 percent of disabled people were unemployed.
He also asked the Commission to consider deferring the
request.
Joe Lynch said the area provided needed housing and the
existing problems were created by the landlords. Mr. Lynch
told the Commission the neighborhood was safe and it should
not be rezoned for office development.
Gail Donhom said the City needed affordable housing and an
existing neighborhood would be demolished if the rezoning
was granted. She said the area was an established artistic
community and then read a statement.
Phillip McCorkle, a resident on Riverside Avenue for
17 1/2 years spoke against the "O-2" rezoning. Mr. McCorkle
said the area provided affordable housing and the need for
more office space did not exist.
Betsy Fields, representing the "Friends of Riverside" - a
grass roots movement, presented a petition with 250 names in
November 1, 1988
Item No. 15 - Z-5098 (Continued)
support of the "Friends of Riverside" and then addressed
Planning Commission. She said that at least 100 people
would be displaced and existing neighborhoods needed to
preserved. Ms. Fields then asked for additional time to
allow the residents to research the possible historic
aspects of the area and other potential issues. She
concluded by saying that the homes were worth saving and
probably would have been preserved if owned by the
residents.
the
be
Barbara Davenport spoke against the request and said the
neighborhood was being impacted by the landlord. She said
that more office space was not needed and traffic was a
problem. Ms. Davenport told the Commission that she had
made improvements to her house and she was willing to buy
it.
Jim Lendall asked that the issue be delayed or that the
Commission deny the rezoning request. He said many issues
had been overlooked and the impact of destroying a
neighborhood needed to be considered.
Jack Turner, Nolan Fleming and Frank B. Whitbeck all spoke
in support of the rezoning. Mr. Turner said that the
development was critical and necessary for the central core.
Mr. Fleming presented Dillard's employment figures and said
Dillard needed their own office space. Mr. Whitbeck
described the project as an economic necessity.
Webb Hubbel, representing FGS Properties, informed the
Commission that Mr. Dillard did not own the property. He
also said that the owners would try to comply with the
Staff's concern to work with the residents and make the
transition period as smooth as possible.
Ron Tabor spoke again and presented letters in support of
the request from Frank Whitbeck and Dickson Flake. He said
Dillard was a potential user and the development would be a
real plus for the City.
Additional comments were offered by several Commissioners.
A motion was them made to recommend approval of the "O-2"
request as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Connie Whitfield).
November 1, 1988
Item No. 16 - Z-5099
Owner: E. M. Pfeifer, III
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: North side of Highway 10 east of
Highway 300
Request: Rezone from unclassified to "O-3"
and "C-3"
Purpose: Office and commercial
Size: 31.23 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, unclassified
South - Vacant and single family, unclassified
East - Vacant and industrial, unclassified
West - Vacant and single family, unclassified
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposed rezoning involves approximately 31 acres
located on the north side of Highway 10 east of Highway 300
and the request is for 10.2 acres of "O-3" and 21.1 acres of
"C-3." The location is outside the City limits so it is
unclassified at this time. The property is situated at what
will be the future extension of the Chenal Parkway from
Highway 10 north to Highway 300.
The general vicinity is entirely outside the City limits so
there is no zoning in place. The nearest non-residential
zoning is approximately one-half mile to the east on the
north side of Highway 10, part of the proposed Johnson Ranch
development. Land use in the immediate area is primarily
single family with some minor commercial uses and a church
at the intersection of Highway 10 and Highway 300. Another
use is an electrical substation located to the east of the
property in question.
This request is very similar to the proposed Deltic rezoning
which is located directly to the south. Both proposals
involve commercial reclassifications along the Highway 10
frontage with an office area to the rear. As with the
Deltic request, the land area under consideration falls
November 1, 1988
Item No. 16 - Z-5099 (Continued)
within the commercial node shown on both the Highway 10 Plan
and the Extraterritorial Plan.
Rezoning to a mix of commercial and office uses does not
appear to be the primary issue but rather what type of
districts are compatible with the future development of the
Highway 10 corridor. To be consistent with other proposed
changes and existing zoning patterns, Staff recommends a "C-
2" reclassification for the 16.4 acre tract. This will
mirror the recommended "C-2" tract at the southwest corner
of the future intersection of Highway 10 and the Chenal
Parkway. For the smaller "C-3" tract, a 40 foot landscaped
area along Highway 10 is suggested and Staff supports the
"O-3" as requested.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Because of the proposed design of the new intersection,
access to the commercial tracts will need to be reviewed.
Ninety feet of right-of-way is required for the new roadway.
In the future, additional right-of-way will be required for
Highway 10.
Zoning action does not recognize the location of the
proposed street to the northeast.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "C-2" for the larger commercial
tract, "C-3" with a 40 foot landscaped area along Highway 10
for the 4.7 acre site, and "O-3" for 10.2 acres as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Gene Pfeifer, was present and requested that
the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the item
to the December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 17 - Z -5088
Owner: Larry and Peggy Houser
Applicant: Larry Houser
Location: 8801 Fairhaven Road
Request: Special Use Permit for a daycare
family home
Purpose: Daycare family home and single
family
Size: 0.27 acres
Existing Use: Single family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Public school, Zoned "R-2"
West - Single family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This issue is before the Commission as the result of an
enforcement action by the City and the request is to grant a
Special Use Permit for a daycare family home. The Zoning
Ordinance defines a daycare family home as:
Any facility which provides family-like childcare in
the caregiver's own family residence in accordance with
provision of licensing procedures established by the
State of Arkansas and which serves no more than ten
children including the caregiver's own children. Said
facility must obtain a Special Use Permit in all zoning
districts where daycare centers are not allowed by
right
The Planning Commission shall have final authority over a
Special Use Permit except that appeals from the action of
the Planning Commission may be filed with the Little Rock
Board of Directors. No development criteria are listed for
a daycare family home in the Zoning Ordinance.
The lot is part of an established subdivision, Pennbrook,
and by being on a corner lot, only abuts two other lots.
Across John Barrow Road is Henderson Junior High and at the
November 1, 1988
Item No. 17 - Z-5088
intersection of West Markham and John Barrow Road there is
some "C -3" land. All the lots within the Pennbrook Addition
are occupied by single family residences. (The Pennbrook
Bill of Assurance states "no lot shall be used except for
residential purposes. ")
Staff's position is that a daycare family home is a
relatively unobtrusive use and supports the necessary
Special Use Permit. Being situated at the entrance to the
neighborhood should reduce the potential for any impact on
the residences in the area. Traffic should not be a major
problem because of the number of children allowed in a
daycare family home. There is adequate yard area and a
driveway that can be utilized as the drop off and pick up
point.
In addition to the City's approval, the owner will also have
to be licensed by the State Social Services and meet all
their requirements. Usually, because of the space
limitations and other factors, the most children the State
permits is six or seven in similar situations. Five
children or less would be considered baby sitting and not
require any type of approval by the City.
A petition with ninety-five (95) signatures opposed to the
daycare operation has been submitted to the Staff. It will
be presented to the Planning Commission at the Public
Hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for 8801
Fairhaven Road.
PLANNING.-COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
The applicant, Peggy Houser, was present. There were two
objectors in attendance. Mrs. Houser said that the special
use permit was for ten children or less and she could
probably only keep seven children because of State
regulations.
Floyd Miller, a resident across Fairhaven, objected to the
request and said the lot was not a good location for a
daycare operation. Mr. Miller also said he was opposed to a
business being in the neighborhood and presented additional
November 1, 1988
Item No. 17 - Z-5088
signatures against the special use permit. The petition
that was submitted prior to the hearing was read and several
comments were made. A neighbor directly to the west of the
Houser's lot spoke in support of the requested special use
permit. A motion was then made to approve the special use
permit as filed for the daycare family home. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 18 - Resolution Expressing Intent to Zone in the
Extraterritorial Area
Name:
Resolution Expressing Intent to
Zone in the Planning Area
Location: The area outside the City limits
to the planning boundary,
generally a distance of some
three miles.
STAFF REPORT:
There have been discussions about zoning the planning area
for about a year. Now the City Staff is starting the Land
Use Plans to guide the zoning decisions and several property
owners have requested their property outside the City limits
be zoned. As a first step, the City has in the past issued
a statement of intent before actually zoning any property
outside the City limits. Thus, the resolution is presented
for consideration today. The resolution and notice have
been done to cover all areas which will be considered for
zoning in the future, not just those in west Little Rock.
The resolution is the first step to be followed by a Land
Use Plan for each area; next are the public meetings and
then zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 1, 1988)
Due to confusion over whether or not a Public Hearing would
be held on November 1st or November 29, 1988, the Staff
recommended that the Commission defer the Public Hearing to
November 29, 1988. There was objection from those in
attendance and, after some discussion about whether to have
the Public Hearing or defer it to November 29th, the
Commission decided to hear those people who were present for
the item.
Mr. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff reviewed the process.
He explained that today's issue was simply a declaration of
intent to zone, and not zoning itself. He explained that
the extraterritorial area had been divided into several
planning districts. A plan would be prepared for each and
November 1, 1988
Item No. 18 (Continued)
then zoning would occur. The City would zone the majority
of the property "R-2" but would take rezoning requests at no
charge for those properties which complied with the Plan.
The property owner would have to submit a current survey.
Mrs. McCaleb of the Pulaski County Homeowners Association
stated her objection to Act 156 and said that zoning was a
taking. The legislation was a special legislation, and thus
illegal. She also stated zoning property would run up the
land costs. In order to make the area prosper, regulations
and rules should be reduced. By increasing regulation
zoning, power is taken from the people and given to a few
and - creates monopolies. All people are not treated the
same by zoning. Mrs. McCaleb requested that the City leave
the development pattern up to free enterprise.
Mr. McCaleb, the second objector to speak, stated that this
was really an economic issue - zoning increases costs and
the area loses jobs and income (we are using too many young
people already). Zoning means no growth and no jobs. In
response to a question, Mr. McCaleb stated that the City
limit has moved very slowly in the southeast (unlike the
west); thus, the controls were not needed. Further, zoning
would not be necessary since the Land Use Pattern will be
determined before annexation. The zoning will make the land
useless. The big guy will purchase the property at a low
cost since the little guy could not get zoning. Then the
big guy will get the zoning and get the rewards which should
have gone to the person who used to own the property.
The next speaker, Mr. David Leman, stated that he used to
live in the City and he was considering purchasing land from
his father in the county. He had received fines due to
subdivision actions. Mr. Leman was advised to meet with
Staff about the location of his property (his question was
whether or not his property was actually within three miles
of the City limits) and subdivision properties.
Ms. Jane Edwards asked how could the City zone the area if
they could not even get the meeting date straight.
Mr. Strayhorn stated he had purchased some land and received
a notice about creating an illegal subdivision. He wants to
have a mixed commercial and residential use on his property.
However, his property is in the Arch Street Plan of which
most is shown as mining or residential (a problem with land
use). Mr. Strayhorn was advised to get with Staff about the
land use issue.
November 1, 1988
Item No. 18 (Continued)
Ms. Bobbie Rynda stated her land was in Saline County and it
was news to her that Little Rock could tell them what they
could do or couldn't do with land in Saline County.
Ms. Jean New stated she hoped the map showing the planning
boundary would be present at the November 29th meeting. She
stated she owned a farm inside the City (southwest Little
Rock) which was forced into the City by referendum and she
was having to pay high taxes for the Sewer District which
she was also forced into. She has since bought property in
Saline County to get away from Little Rock and now the City
is "coming to get her."
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to defer the issue
to November 29, 1988.
ITEM 18 - Extraterritorial Rezoning - Intent to Zone
Act 134 of 1965 as amended by Act 56 of 1987 states that cities of the
first class along a navigable stream can zone up to three (3) miles from
their city limits.
In the past, when the City has used their river zoning extraterritorial
jurisdiction, an intent to zone resolution has first been passed.
RECOMMENDATION
To defer this resolution to the November 29, 1988 meeting to be heard with
the Northwest Territorial Land Use Plan,
ACT 56 1987
State of Arkansas
76th General Assembly A Bill
Regular Session, 1987 HOUSE BILL
By: Representatives McCuiston, Jones,
Purdom and McJunkin
For An Act To Be Entitled
I "AN ACT TO AMEND SUBSECTION (e) OF SECTION 1 OF ACT 134 OF
2 1965 (ARK. STAT. 19- 2829(e)); TO PROTECT THE OUALITY OF LIFE
3 OF THE STATE'S CITIZENS BY EXTENDING THE LAND USE AUTHORITY
4 OF CITIES WITH 8,000 OR MORE POPULATION LOCATED ON NAVIGABLE
5 STREAMS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
6
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
6
9 SECTION 1. Subsection (e) of Section 1 of Act 134 of 1965, the same
10 being Arkansas Statute 19- 2829(e) is hereby amended to read as follows:
11 "(e) Control of land along navigable streams. Cities now having 8,000
12 population or more and situated on navigable streams shall have the authority
13 to administer and enforce Planning and Zoning ordinances outside their cor-
14 porate limits as follows:
15 The jurisdictional area for cities with 8,000 to 50,000 population will
16 be one mile beyond the corporate limits; for cities of 50,000 to 150,000
17 population.will be two miles beyond the corporate limits; and for cities
18 of 150,000 and over population will be three miles beyond the corporate
19 limits.
20
21 The city populations will be based on the latest available U.S. Census
22 data."
23
24 SECTION 2. Act 379 of 1969, the same being Arkansas Statutes 19-2804:
25 19-2804.3, is hereby repealed.
26
27 SECTION 3. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are
28 hereby repealed.
29
30 SECTION 4. The provisions of this Act shall not restrict the powers of
mhf037
H. B.
1 any city currently exercising the authority authorized under paragraph (e) of
2 Act 134 of 1965, the same being Arkansas Statutes Annotated 19- 2829(e).
3
4 SECTION 5. It is hereby found and determined by the General Assemhlv
5 that Arkansas cities of 8,000 or more population along navigable streams must
6 have the authority to plan and control for orderly growth outside their cor-
7 oorate limits to preserve the quality of life for all citizens. Therefore, an
8 emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act shall be in full force on
9 the date of enactment.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 APPROVED BY
33 GOVERNOR
34
35
36
mhf037
Resolution
TO EXPRESS THE INTENT TO ZONE IN THE
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock as authority to zone
property within 3 miles of the City Limits, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock wishes to have orderly and
compatible growth within areas adjacent to the City which
could become part of Little Rock, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock has several requests by
private property owners to rezone their property within the
planning area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISS-ION;
SECTION 1: That the City of Little Rock intends to exercise
the Little Rock zoning ordinance within the boundaries of
the Little Rock Planning area.
PASSED
Chairman Secretary
I '--
DATE (}�1,1rrl >
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
·ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER II 8 L, I :2. J i/--,<
W.Riddick, III C)V V v V v v V
J.Schlereth -A 11 A A A Ii fl f,
;J. McDaniel 0 v' V ✓ V v' ✓ v
.
M.Miller ✓✓ ✓ ,/ V v' ,,) v
J.Nicholson 0 ,/ ,/ v v J/,/ v'
w.Rector 0 ✓ / ,/ V t/ v V
S._Leek 0 1v' ✓ ✓ v v V v
C.Whitfield 0 v ✓ v v v' v v
D.J. Jones b ✓✓ J/ // v1 v ,_,,).
R.Collins 0 v ✓ ✓ v ,,/ ✓,/
J/ ,/ , JF.Perkins 6 v v ,) ;/
✓AYE @ NAYE A ADSENT ':e_ABSTJ\IN
4 ? <l
I,," v-V
A 11 f1
v y I/
v' V J/
✓V v'
V V V'
.. y V ✓
V V v
v ✓V
,/ A I/
i/ v v'
q /0
v V
II A
V v
V v ... ✓i/
fJB v
y J/
V v
{.,,/ V
V V
I/ J
//
v
fl
0
v
V
v
0
v
IJJ3
V
�
J
JJ_ /..3 llf t IS 1,17 l;r 1
v' V t-0 V 0 I,,--
fl fl IJ A II A
V V V v' V v v'
V V V v V V V
V .v ✓V I/ v I.,.,"
v' f}I<, v v v V v
V ·v v V V A v
V v ✓IJB v v v-'
V V V ,._.,.., I/ 0 v
v.V t/ v1 V 0 v
V /V // V ,_,..,,,
November 1, 1988
There being no further business before the Commission, the
hearing was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
PASSED:
Secretary Chairman