pc_06 28 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 28, 1888
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being six in number.
II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
The minutes of the May 17, 1888 were approved as
mailed.
III. Members present: David Jones
Walter Riddick, III
Jer,�Iyn Nicholson
Richard Massie
Martha Miller
Bill Rector
Stephen Leek (arrived at
1:30p.m.)
Members absent: John Schlereth
T. Grace Jones
Rose Collins
Fred Perkins
City Attorney
Present: Stephen Giles
June 28, 1988
Item No. A - Z-4998
Owner: Winrock Development Co.
West Little Rock Partnership
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Bowman Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "MF-18"
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 16.8 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 16.8 acres from "R-2" to
"MF-18" for a multifamily development. The property is
located on the west side of Bowman Road and in an area
that is still underdeveloped for the most part. In the
immediate vicinity, land use on the developed parcels
is primarily single family zoned "R-2." To the north,
there is a nonconforming use on the east side of Bowman
Road and at the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads,
there are several nonresidential uses. In addition to
the "R-2," other zoning found in the area includes
"MF-12," "MF-18," and "OS." All the property that
abuts the site in question is undeveloped and zoned
"R-2." The existing "MF" tracts are vacant including
the large "MF-12" area across Bowman Road to the east.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The land
increases in elevation from east to west especially
directly adjacent to Bowman Road.
3. Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial so
dedication of additional right-of-way will be required.
4. Engineering Comments
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Bowman
Road.
June 28, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
The future alignment of Bowman Road will basically
remain in the same location.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The land under consideration is part of the I-430
District Plan which recommends single family use for
the property. The multifamily areas are shown adjacent
to this site on the north and on the east side of
Bowman Road, but the plan does not recognize the
existing "MF" area directly to the east. When the
"MF-12" was reclassified as part of the larger rezoning
action, the I-430 Plan was never amended to reflect the
change in land use. (The Planning Commission has
endorsed an "MF" rezoning for some land to the north,
but no action has been taken by the Board of
Directors.) After reviewing the proposal, staff feels
that the "MF" use is a legitimate option for the
property, but at a density of 12 units per acre and not
the "MF-18" as requested. This would provide for a
good transition from the proposed commercial at Kanis
and the single family to the south. Also, "MF-12"
would maintain the density established by the rezoning
action to the east. It is envisioned that the same
type of development pattern will take place on the west
side of Bowman Road as is occurring on the east side.
A single family plat has been approved for the land
south of the "OS" strip. Because of the area's
emerging development pattern, a mix of multifamily and
single family, a reclassification to "MF-12" would not
change the direction of this trend. One issue that
needs to be addressed by the owners is access to the
entire site. It appears that a collector through the
property would benefit a multifamily development and
should be given some serious consideration during a
later review process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" and not "MF-18" as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988)
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988,
meeting as requested by the applicant. The motion was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988)
The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Tyne said that there were some unresolved
issues between the two property owners and requested a
deferral. There was a brief discussion and then a motion
was made to defer the issue to the June 28, 1988, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. It was
reported to the Commission that the applicant had submitted
a written request for a deferral to the July 12, 1988
meeting. A motion was made to defer the item to the
July 12th, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. B - Z- 4470-A
Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: Rock Creek Parkway
Request: Rezone from "MF-18" and "O-3"
to "O-3" and "C-3"
Purpose: Mixed Use
Size: 19.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Unclassified, Zoned "MF-18"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "MF-18" and PRD
West - Vacant, Zoned "O-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site under consideration is at the west end of the Rock
Creek Parkway and involves approximately 19 acres. The
request is to rezone the property from "MF-18" and "O-3" to
"O-3" and "C-3." The proposal will add some commercial
zoning, increase the amount of office land, and decrease the
multifamily area. How the property will be developed or
subdivided is unknown because only a rezoning concept is
shown on the survey. In addition to the use areas, two
proposed streets are also identified on the survey with one
road being a north /south arterial as shown on the new
Extraterritorial Land Use Plan /Upper Rock Creek District
Plan.
The entire site, a total of 40 acres, was originally rezoned
to "MF-18" and "O-3" in 1985. (At the time of filing the
first rezoning action, the land was outside the City and was
annexed during the rezoning process.) The previous rezoning
was delayed on several occasions to allow for additional
study of the area because the Suburban Development Plan
showed a single family residential development pattern. It
was finally determined that a zoning configuration as
proposed was a reasonable option for the 40-acre tract.
The Upper Rock Creek District Plan recommends a mix of
multifamily, office, and commercial uses for the site, so
the proposal basically follows the plan's concept. There
are two discrepancies between the plan and the proposed
rezonings. On the plan, commercial property is shown
June 28, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
on both sides of the proposed arterial. With this request,
the commercial area is all east of the north /south arterial,
and staff feels that is a reasonable variation from the
plan. The other difference involves the proposed office
area between the commercial and multifamily tracts. There
is a major drainage /utility easement through the property,
and the plan shows the easement functioning as the break
between the residential and nonresidential uses. In this
area, the plan should be maintained and that would result in
only a minor increase in the office land.
As has been previously mentioned, there is a proposed
north /south arterial shown on the plan that impacts the
property. (This arterial is not identified on the current
Master Street Plan, but it is included in the revised street
plan that is currently being reviewed.) On the survey, the
western boundary of the "C-3" tract is also alignment for
the north /south road which staff is assuming is the new
arterial. At this time, the City has not determined the
exact location for the arterial and feels that cannot be
done until a thorough traffic impact study is undertaken for
the area. City staff feels that a comprehensive study is
needed because of potential problems, and until one is
completed, action on the rezoning request should be delayed.
A study is needed because of the arterial and potential
changes in traffic movement due to the proposed
reclassifications. It is possible that the study could
recommend a different location for the arterial and that
would affect the requested rezonings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends an indefinite deferral until the traffic
impact study is completed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12 -1 -87)
Staff reported that the applicant agreed with deferring the
item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January
12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved. The vote - 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 12 -88)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all
parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was
made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 23, 1988)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was
made to defer the issue to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(April 5, 1988)
Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the request
needed to be deferred again and that all parties agreed to a
deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
May 17, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
NOTE: Prior to the May 17, 1988, meeting J.E. Hathaway, the
applicant, submitted a modified rezoning configuration for
the property in question. The amended request increased the
amount of "C -3" land to 15 acres and made some other minor
changes. The following is a breakdown of the proposed
reclassifications:
"O-3" - 13.25 acres
"MF-18" - 11.26 acres
"C-3" - 15.76 acres
Because of the revised request, additional notification of
the property owners was completed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff addressed the amended request as submitted
by Mr. Hathaway prior to the meeting and recommended that
the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be maintained which shows
commercial areas to be located on both sides of the proposed
north /south arterial and to be approximately 10 to 12 acres
in size. (Mr. Hathaway's proposal designates a 15 -acre
tract on the east side of the future arterial as a
commercial tract with a nine acre office parcel on the west
side). Also, staff suggested that the land be reclassified
to "C-2" and "O-2" and not "C-3" and "O-3" as proposed by
Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Hathaway then spoke and said he was
representing the owners of the 40 -acre tract. He went on to
discuss the amount of time that had been involved with the
rezoning and a traffic impact study that had been requested
by the City staff. Mr. Hathaway then reviewed the
configuration of the amended request and said it was
providing adequate buffers for the retirement community to
June 28, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
the east and a church situated to the west. He also
discussed the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and told the
Commission that the staff had indicated to him in a previous
meeting that locating a commercial area on the east side of
the arterial appeared to be a reasonable option.
Mr. Hathaway then said the church was comfortable with the
existing "O-3" and that there was no public opposition.
There was a long discussion about the site and trying to
develop it. Mr. Hathaway said there were some problems
because of the existing easements and the proposed arterial.
He reviewed certain development standards and said that he
was trying to have one major retail site, 15 acres, and this
represented good planning. He also said this was only a
five -acre difference from what was recommended on the plan.
Mr. Hathaway said the proposed rezoning was basically in
conformance with the adopted plan.
Some questions were then asked about the traffic study and
the construction of the proposed intersection. Jim Lawson
of the Planning staff responded to several of the questions
and said some of the construction could be through a
private /public arrangement.
Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said the
proposal made good planning sense because of being located
at a key intersection with the parkway. He also said
removing the commercial area from the west side as shown on
the plan was desirable because of the future street system.
Greg Simmons of the Mehlburger Firm reviewed the traffic
study. He discussed specific numbers in detail and what
improvements would be needed to make the intersection work.
Mr. Simmons said the findings of the report indicated that
off -site improvements would be appropriate and the new
arterial should be a standard five -lane section. There was
a long discussion about the proposed improvements.
L.K. Moore then spoke and said he was representing Darbe
Development and Melvyn Bell. He said the two property
owners were involved with land to the north and were
proposing some major developments in the area. Mr. Moore
expressed some concerns about future improvements and that a
general improvement district was trying to be formed. He
said that land use did not appear to be the major issue and
informed the Commission that Mr. Bell's attorney had been
unable to meet with Mr. Hathaway to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Hathaway then responded to Mr. Moore's comments about
trying to set up a meeting.
June 28, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
Staff made some comments about the north /south arterial and
several questions were asked about the alignment.
Mr. Hathaway said there was very little flexibility in the
alignment because of some design problems created by
property ownerships. Mr. Moore said there should be more
discussion between the property owners about the arterial
and other improvements. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission
that land use was the issue and he was willing to meet with
the interested parties to work out the alignment of the
arterial. Additional comments were offered by various
individuals, including several Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Hathaway then stated for the record that the current
owners, CCMN Joint Venture II, will not request commercial
rezoning for the area on the west side of the proposed
arterial. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks
to the May 31, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard
Massie).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-31-88)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all
interested parties were in agreement with the deferral. A
motion was made to defer the request to the June 28, 1988,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
A noes, and 2 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were
several interested persons in attendance. Staff reviewed
the new proposal and recommended "O-2" for the proposed
"O-3" on the east side of the future arterial, and "C-2" for
the commercial tract with the size of 7 acres and not "C-3"
for 15 acres as submitted by Mr. Hathaway. Gary Greeson,
Planning Director, indicated that the 7 acres was more
consistent with the adopted plan and said that the City was
satisfied with the new alignment for the north /south
arterial. Mr. Hathaway then addressed the Planning
Commission and said he was representing the current owners,
CCNMN Joint Venture. He reviewed the history of the case
and discussed a meeting that was held with various property
owners in the area. Mr. Hathaway then discussed the road
alignment issue and presented a hand -out. He also reviewed
some graphics and the traffic impact study that was
requested by the City after the rezoning request was filed.
Mr. Hathaway said that a reasonable commercial tract needs
12 -15 acres and that a two - anchor center requires 15 acres
to work properly. He then said that he had estimated the
Upper Rock Creek District Plan showed a commercial area of
at least 12 acres at the location in question. Mr. Hathaway
told the Commission that a commercial use was suitable for
the site because of the plan and the location which will be
a major intersection in the future.
There were additional comments about the proposed arterial
and the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said the new arterial will
be approximately 590 feet from the northwest corner of the
property and the City Staff supports the proposed alignment.
Mr. Hathaway then discussed the rezoning issue and said
15 acres was appropriate because of certain constraints. He
also indicated that the current owners would never ask for a
rezoning change for the existing "O-3" to the west and had
no objections to amending the Upper Rock Creek Plan to show
office west of the proposed arterial. Mr. Hathaway then
asked for a vote on the rezoning request and said there was
no opposition to the reclassifications. He also pointed out
that the arterial alignment appeared to be resolved.
Several questions were asked and there was a long discussion
about Improvement Districts.
At this time, Commissioner David Jones asked for comments
from other interested parties and read a statement from
Ralph Cloar who was not present. Mr. Cloar was representing
Darbe Development Corporation and expressed Darbe's
opposition to the request.
June 28, 1988
Item B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
Wingfield Martin, representing the Shackleford property,
discussed the proposed arterial and was concerned about
other zonings in the area. Mr. Martin said that the
Shackleford ownership was not opposed to the Hathaway
rezoning but the area needs a comprehensive approach.
Tom Overby spoke and informed the Commission that Darbe
Development wanted a deferral. Joe White, representing
Deltic Farm and Timber, also said that a deferral would be
proper because of the corridor and the need to study it.
Mr. White told the Commission that there was a plan, but a
lot of changes were being proposed that needed to be
carefully reviewed. Ralph Cloar reinforced Mr. White's
comments and said the entire corridor should be studied.
Mr. Overby said that the Shackleford ownership would be
requesting some new commercial zoning. Mr. Hathaway made
some additional comments, and again requested a vote on the
rezoning proposal.
Mr. Greeson then discussed the Staff's position and
recommendation. Mr. Greeson said that the plan did not
identify the location as a major commercial site,but more of
a neighborhood convenience center. He made other comments
and said there would be continued pressures for additional
rezonings in the area.
Mr. Hathaway said he was willing to amend the "C-3" to "C-2"
but wanted the "O-3" as proposed. He told the Commission
that the "O-3" tract would be subdivided and it was too
small for "O-2." Mr. Hathaway said he would submit a
written commitment stating that the present ownership would
not request a commercial or industrial zoning for the
existing "O-3" parcel to the west. He also restated that
the plan should be amended to show office west of the
arterial.
There was a long discussion about various issues, and
comments were made about an existing 100 foot easement along
the north property line. Several Commissioners felt that an
"O-S" area was needed for the proposed "O-3" tract adjacent
to a Single Family area.
A motion was made which recommended approval of "C-2" as
amended for 15.4 acres and "O-3" (3.88 acres) with a 50 foot
OS strip adjacent to the north property boundary of the
office tract subject to Engineering's approval of the
June 28, 1988
Item B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
north /south arterial alignment. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard
Massie).
A second motion was then offered which recommended that the
Upper Rock Creek District Plan be changed on the west side
of the proposed arterial from a commercial designation to
office. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
June 28, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z- 4305 -B
Owner: Marion Burton, Agent
Applicant: Robert East
Location: Cottondale Lane
Request: Rezone from "O-2" to "O-1"
Purpose: Office
Size: 1.6 acres
Existing Use: Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Arkansas River, Zoned "O-2"
South - Vacant and Office, Zoned "O-2" and "O-3"
East - Arkansas River, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "O-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site under consideration is located in the Riverdale
area, and the request is to rezone the property from "O-2"
to "O-1." The primary reason for the rezoning action is a
platting issue which involves this parcel and the land
directly to the north. Currently, the entire site is 3.85
acres, and the proposal is to replat the property into two
tracts. The reclassification is necessary for one of the
parcels because it will be less than two acres, the minimum
site area for "O-2," after the replatting is completed.
Within the Riverdale area, the existing zoning includes most
of the nonresidential districts so the proposed rezoning
will not have any effect on the area or alter the direction
of future development. There are no outstanding issues, and
staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "O-1" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of "O-1" as requested.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z- 4930 -A
Owner: Arkansas National Life Insurance
Company
Applicant: Eugene Lewis, Jr.
Location: Flintridge Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3" and
"I -1"
Purpose: Office Park and Office Warehouse
Size: 32.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and
"C-4"
East - I -430 Right-of-way, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a 32 acre site from "R-2" to
"O-3" and "I-1" for future development. The proposal
is to subdivide the tract into a total of 13 lots for
office and office warehouse uses. If approved, the
rezoning request will create two large "I -1" lots and
11 "O-3" parcels. Flintridge Road is located west of
the I-430 /Stagecoach Road interchange and Flintridge
Road intersects Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) just
west of the southbound ramp. Flintridge Road is a
substandard residential street and terminates at the
western boundary of the 32 acres. Zoning in the area
includes "R-2," "C-1 " "C-2 " "C-4 " and "PCD. "
Several of the nonresidential tracts are undeveloped
including the "C-3" on the south side of Stagecoach
Road and the "C-2" site east of I-430. The land use
tends to be a conglomeration of both residential and
nonresidential uses especially property fronting
Stagecoach Road. Along Flintridge, there are single
family residences, a light industrial use, and a
church.
2. The site is heavily wooded and increases in elevation
from 285 to 355 along the west property line. The
grade differences between I-430 and Flintridge Road are
fairly substantial.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. Engineering has indicated that access is inadequate for
the proposed development and have also expressed
concerns with the topography and potential grading.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In December of 1987, a "C-4" request was filed for the
entire site, 32.0 acres. At the Planning Commission
public hearing, residents from Flintridge Road spoke
against and in support of the rezoning. Some residents
voiced concerns about access, grading, and how the
residential uses would be protected. One property
owner said a quality office park was desirable and
spoke for the rezoning. After a lengthy discussion,
the "C-4" request was withdrawn without prejudice.
Staff recommended denial of the "C-4" rezoning.
7. As with the previous rezoning attempt, staff has
problems with the current request and does not support
the "O-3" and "I-1" reclassifications. The adopted
Otter Creek District Plan does not recognize the
property for nonresidential uses, and staff feels that
there is no justification for changing the direction of
the plan at this time. Another factor in opposing the
request is access, which is inadequate for
nonresidential development. The street system is also
substandard and does not provide the needed traffic
circulation /movement to make the site a viable office
location. Others concerns include the existing
topography and grading of the land.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" and "I-1" rezoning
request.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant, Gene Lewis, was present. There were several
interested residents in attendance. Mr. Lewis requested
that the item be deferred to the July 12th meeting because
of a potential problem with the Commission and a quorum.
The item was placed on the consent Agenda and deferred to
the July 12, 1988 meeting. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 5
absent, and one abstention (Bill Rector).
June 28, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5025
Owner: Lusk Properties, Inc.
Applicant: Bill Lusk
Location: 924 Rushing Circle
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Plumbing Shop
Size: 0.64 acres
Existing Use: Plumbing shop
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
West - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone one
lot in the Rushing Circle /Rodney Parham area from "C-3" to
"C-4" to allow an existing plumbing shop to expand. In the
"C-3" District, plumbing shops are not permitted so prior to
any expansion or new construction taking place, a rezoning
to "C-4" must be approved. With this request, an existing
building will be removed and replaced with a larger
structure.
Zoning in the immediate vicinity is "R-2," "C-3," and "I-2"
with the property in question abutting "C-3" and "I-2." Land
use conforms to the zoning for the most part with a mix of
commercial and industrial uses south of Rodney Parham Road.
Also, some of the "C-3" and "I-2" sites are undeveloped, and
on the north side of Rodney Parham a substantial amount of
land is utilized for the I -630 right -of -way. A major public
facility is located to the west and that is Kanis Park.
Because of the existing zoning and uses, "C-4" is
appropriate, and staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning as
requested.
June 28, 1988
Z-5025 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of "C-4." The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5027
Owner: City of Little Rock
Applicant: Elvin Shuffield
Location: East Roosevelt Road and
Confederate Boulevard
Request: Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Shopping Center
Size: 3.97 acres
Existing Use: Shopping center
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Cemetery, Zoned "R-3"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
East - Cemetery and Commercial, Zoned "R-3"
and "I -2"
West - Cemetery and School, Zoned "R-3" and "R-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone 3.97 acres on East Roosevelt Road
from "I-2" to "C-3." The site is occupied by a small -scale
shopping center with two major tenants, and the proposal is
to make an addition to one of the buildings. To accomplish
the expansion, either a rezoning or a conditional use permit
must be approved because in the "I-2" District most retail
uses are listed as conditional use. In this particular
case, the applicant elected to file for a rezoning change
because "C-3" is more compatible with the existing
development and the surrounding area. (A variance request
has also been filed with the Board of Adjustment to permit
the proposed addition to encroach into a setback area.)
Land use is a mix of residential and nonresidential with
several major public facilities, a school and cemeteries.
The property in question abuts the school and a cemetery on
the west side with another cemetery located across
Confederate Boulevard. The one residential pocket is south
of East Roosevelt Road, and the area is zoned "I-2." Other
zoning found in the area is "R-3," "R-4," and "C-3."
Staff views the proposed "C-3" reclassification as
appropriate and supports the rezoning. There are no
outstanding issues associated with this request.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(June 28, 1988
The applicant, Elvin Shuffield, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Shuffield spoke briefly and answered several
questions. A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-3"
as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, and 5 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-5030
Owner: Bishop Estate
Applicant: McKay Properties, Inc.
By: John P. McKay, Jr.
Location: North of Labette Manor Drive
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3"
Purpose: Office
Size: 10.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
South - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "MF-12"
East - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a ten acre site located to the
southwest of the Barrow / Kanis intersection from "R-2"
to "O-3" for future development. The property is
situated directly north of Labette Manor Drive and
adjacent to the Twin Lake Subdivision, approximately
600 feet west of Barrow Road and 700 feet south of
Kanis Road. If the "O-3" request is granted, the
applicant has indicated that the 10 acres will probably
be platted into lots and be an extension of the "C-3"
area to the north. A preliminary plat for a
commercial /office subdivision has been approved for the
"C-3" land which has two streets serving the "C-3" lots
one from Kanis and the other from Barrow. To provide
access to the ten acres under consideration, the plan
is to extend the proposed north /south street from Kanis
into this site. On the east, west, and south sides,
the property abuts residential zoning, "R-2," "MF-12,"
and "R-5." Other zoning in the general area includes
"MF-18," "O-3," and "C-4." Land use is a mix of single
family, multifamily, and nonresidential uses with some
of the land still undeveloped.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues. Dedication of any streets will be provided
by the plat.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the property.
7. The site is located in the Boyle Park District Plan
area, and the Land Use Plan suggests a low density
residential pattern for the property. The current land
use designation was part of a larger plan amendment
which occurred several years ago and involved a number
of sites in the vicinity of the Kanis /Barrow
intersection. The plan change increased the amount of
land recommended for both residential and
nonresidential uses throughout the area. It appears
that the emerging trend is a mix of residential and
nonresidential development with a major concentration
of office and medical related uses because of the
Baptist Hospital Campus. In the area, a high
percentage of the land is still vacant, both
residential and nonresidential, so it seems that any
type of reclassification would be adding to existing
surplus of properties available for development. While
reviewing the request, staff debated at length the
merits of adding to the office land and decided that an
"O-3" rezoning is a reasonable option for the property.
The primary reason for this position is the proposal to
combine the ten acres under consideration with the
"C-3" area to the north and develop a quality office
subdivision. Also an office classification provides a
good transition from the "C-3" development to the
north and the residential areas located to the south
and west. To reduce any potential impacts on the
existing residential areas, staff recommends that the
west and south 50 feet be rezoned to "OS" for a buffer
and to prohibit access into the ten acres from Cerelle
and Labette Manor Drives.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "O-3" rezoning with a
50-foot "OS" strip on the west and south sides.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: June 28, 1988
The applicant, John McKay, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. McKay started to address the
Commission but had to stop because of quorum problems. (The
item was brought back up at 2:35 p.m. and the discussion
continued.) Mr. McKay told the Commission that he had some
problems with the recommended open space area on the south
side because of the topography and the existing multifamily
zoning to the south. He said the 50 foot OS strip on the
west side was reasonable and then proceeded to describe the
proposed layout /development of the site. Mr. McKay went on
to elaborate on his concerns with the open space along the
south property line. He said that there was no need to
buffer a multifamily area and there would be problems with
the drainage and water retention requirements if a 50 foot
open space area was required. There was a long discussion
about the open space area and staff indicated that the
primary concern was access from the residential areas.
Mr. McKay informed the Commission that he had complete
support of the surrounding property owners and submitted a
petition to that effect. Additional comments were made
about access to the south and the open space area. A motion
was made to recommend approval of O-3 with a 50 foot OS area
on the west side and with the condition that the northern 20
feet of Labette Manor Drive be closed. After some
discussion about the motion, an amended motion was then
offered which recommended approval of "O-3" with a 50 foot
"OS" strip on the west side and a 50 foot "OS" area along
the south property line from the southwest corner of the
site extending to the east right -of -way line of Labette
Manor Drive. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
4 absent and 1 abstention (Walter Riddick III).
June 28, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-5032
Owner: Jim Rhodes, Dean Roberts and
Gary Lee
Applicant: Andrew Hicks
Location: Sibley Hole Road (north of
Baseline Road)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Purpose: Office and warehouse
Size: 0.27 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Dept. Facility, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A "R-2" to "I-2" rezoning change has been requested for the
small parcel of land, 0.27 acres on Sibley Hole Road for the
purposes of providing access to the larger "I-2" tract
located to the southwest. The access is proposed to be a
public street constructed across the property from Sibley
Hole to the "I-2" land. Since filing the application, a
slight modification has been made which involves deleting a
portion of the property to the south and adding some land to
the west. All this does is change the configuration of the
site. It will still be used to provide access.
Several years ago, the Otter Creek District Plan was amended
to identify the area in question for industrial use so the
"I-2" rezoning conforms to the adopted plan. The plan
change was the result of the "I-2" reclassification located
to the southwest.
The "I-2" rezoning is a minor change and staff supports the
request. The only issue of any significance is a platting
matter. A plat has been filed for review but will have to
modified because of the new land area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning request.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
Staff reported to the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the
August 9, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5033
Owner: H. Maurice Mitchell, Trustee
Applicant: J. Creed
Location: 5703 Baseline Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Sales and service of cycles
Size: 0.35 acres
Existing Use: Auto parts and body shop
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
South - Multifamily, Zoned "R-2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposed use of 5703 Baseline Road is the sales and
service of four wheel cycles with outside display and a
"C-4" reclassification is necessary. There will also be the
sale of various cycle parts. Currently, the lot is being
used for auto repair and the sale of auto parts, both are
nonconforming uses. By adding the outside display, the
nonconforming status is not applicable, and the "C-4"
rezoning must be granted.
This segment of Baseline Road is a mix of residential and
nonresidential uses with a high percentage being
nonconforming. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is either
"R-2" or "C-3" with the property in question abutting "R-2"
zoning on all sides. Several of the "C-3" parcels are
vacant including the one adjacent to Lew Drive. Most of the
area was developed prior to being annexed into the City.
The Geyer Springs East District Plan shows a commercial
pattern for the south side of Baseline Road between Geyer
Springs and Lew Drive. Because of the site being located on
an arterial, staff feels that either "C-3" or "C-4" would be
an appropriate rezoning and still maintain the plan's
concept.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Baseline Road will
be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The Applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-4." The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-5037
Owner: Estate of Amelia Metrailer
Applicant: J.C. Whisnant
Location: Fair Park Boulevard and Maryland
Street - SW Corner
Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3"
Purpose: Retail or Office
Size: 0.45 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-6"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned PCD
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The matter before the Planning Commission is to rezone
three lots at the southwest corner of Maryland and Fair
Park Boulevard from "R-3" to "C-3." The applicant has
provided no specific development proposal other than
the property will be used for either an office or
retail use. The site is located in an area that has
been impacted by I -630 and previous zoning actions
which have created an undesirable zoning pattern.
Zoning in the immediate vicinity includes "R-3," "R-4,"
"R-6," "O-3," "C-3," "C-4," "I-2," and "PCD." Land use
is just as varied as the zoning with a mix of
residential, office, commercial, and industrial. The
residential use is primarily single family, including
the existing "R-6" area to the north. For the most
part, the single family areas including the pocket west
of Fair Park and north of West 10th have not fallen
into a state of disrepair. The most significant
development found in the area is the PCD property
(Z-3143 -A) which is a motel and eating establishment in
a separate building. Approximately the southern
one -third of the PCD parcel is still vacant, but the
City has approved some commercial uses for it. When
the original PCD plan was approved, the southern
portion of the property was identified for future
office use. Other vacant tracts of land are located
east and west of Fair Park Boulevard, including two
lots situated at the northwest corner of West 10th and
Fair Park. Based on the existing patterns, it
June 28, 1988
Item No. 8 - Continued
appears that little thought has been to the area in the
past, and this should be avoided by discouraging a
piece-meal approach to rezoning or developing the
properties.
2. The site is three residential lots that are all vacant.
3. Fair Park Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial
on the Master Street Plan so additional dedication will
be required because the existing right-of-way is
deficient.
4. Engineering reports that dedication of additional
right -of -way is needed for an arterial standard. No
other comments have been received as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. Staff is concerned with lot by lot rezonings to permit
nonresidential development in the neighborhood and
feels a comprehensive approach is more desirable which
should be encouraged by denying the "C-3" rezoning.
This is consistent with the staff's positions on other
rezoning proposals along Fair Park Boulevard. To
properly develop tracts with frontage on Fair Park
Boulevard, it should be done with a minimum of one-half
block to ensure a more workable design and to avoid a
commercial strip between I-630 and West 12th.
Continuing to rezone in a piece -meal fashion will
create problems and adversely effect the existing
residential uses. The Oak Forest Plan identifies the
area in question as mixed use, and in a conceptual
design plan, shows the three lots as part of a larger
multifamily development. Commercial and office areas
are designated for the blocks to the west and north.
For this part of the Oak Forest neighborhood, one of
the primary goals of the plan is to discourage
fragmented rezonings and to support well - planned
developments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request as
filed.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 8 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
The applicant, J. C. Whisnant, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Whisnant described the area and said the
character had changed because of I-630 and the Fair Park
interchange. (A recess was called at 1:20 p.m.)
Mr. Whisnant continued to discuss the area and said the
property was inappropriate for Single Family use. He
reviewed the Staff's report and said the owners did not have
the choice of adding additional lots or land. There was
some discussion by the Commission about various issues.
Mr. Whisnant did not disagree with the comprehensive
approach as suggested by Staff, but that it could not be
done with the site in question. He also said there was a
contract to purchase and the prospective buyer would develop
the property. There were comments made about other options
and "O-1" was suggested as a possibility. Mr. Whisnant
agreed to "O-1" and a one -lot replat for the site. A motion
was made to recommend approval of "O-1" as amended subject
to replatting the three lots into one lot. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1
abstention (David Jones).
June 28, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z-5038
Owner: Bill Mathis
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Highway No. 10 (East of Bella Rosa
Drive)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" and
"OS"
Purpose: Commercial and Open Space
Size: 18.25 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Single Family, and Commercial,
Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue is to rezone approximately 18.2 acres on
Highway 10 from "R-2" to "C-3" and "OS." The property
is located east of Bella Rose Drive, and the land is
situated on both sides of Highway 10 with 95 percent of
the property in question being south of the highway.
On the north side, there is a small strip approximately
one -half acre in size and the proposed rezoning is
"OS." The acreage breakdown for the land is 7.55 acres
for "C-3" and 10.13 acres of additional "OS" with a
floodway line being the boundary between the two
requested zoning districts. Existing zoning is
primarily "R-2" with the exception of an "AF" tract to
the east that is currently occupied by a plant nursery.
Other land uses found in the vicinity are single family
residences, a day care center, a church and several
nonconforming uses along Highway 10. The property
abuts "R-2" zoning on all sides and either single
family residences or vacant land.
2. The site is vacant and Taylor Loop Creek bisects the
land so there is floodplain and floodway involvement.
Due to the recent rechannelization of Taylor Loop
Creek, the floodplain and floodway alignments may have
changed. Official revision of the floodplain and
floodway will have to be accomplished through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
June 28, 1988
Item No. 9 - Continued
3. Highway 10 is classified as a principal arterial which
has a recommended right-of-way standard of 100 feet.
The survey reflects an existing right-of-way of 80 feet
so some dedication of additional right-of-way will be
required. Because of being a State Highway project and
close to an intersection, more right-of-way than the
standard could be needed.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues. Staff has received several
informational calls concerning the request.
6. There is documented history on the site.
7. The most significant issue influencing the potential
rezoning of this property is how the request conforms
to the adopted Highway 10 Plan. The land use plan
identifies the site as floodplain and floodway land so
the proposed "C-3" reclassification is totally
inconsistent with the direction of the plan. Even if
the property is out of the floodway and floodplain due
to rechannelization, the plan would not call for
commercial development. At most, a transition zone
would be the appropriate land use. Staff strongly
believes that the plan needs to be maintained and
cannot offer a positive recommendation for the proposed
rezoning. Other concerns identified by the staff are
the possible adverse impact on surrounding residential
uses, and the potential for a strip development pattern
being established should the "C-3" request be granted:
Since the adoption of the Highway 10 Plan, the City has
not deviated from the Land Use Plan, and there is no
reason to make an exception for the site in question.
Commercial nodes are shown on the plan at the
appropriate locations and sufficient land area is
provided to accommodate commercial growth for the next
several years. In addition, the proposed rezoning
would be spot zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request as filed.
June 28, 1988
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
submitted a written request for a deferral to the August 9,
1988 meeting. A motion was made to deter the Item to
August 9, 1988 and it was approved by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 5 absent, and 1 abstention (David Jones).
DATE�o{�(W
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_,,,,
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
M.Miller
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
S._Leek
T-. Grace Jones
D.J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
It 1$. I � 3 tf s--� 1 3'
v v V v' V V flf> I/ v'l,/
A A I} -II fJ fj I} 11 ..fl A
v At3 V V V V V V' V' J/
v v V V V V V V v V
� c./ I/ I/ v v' v I.,/ V V
V . K3 V V V V V V V y
,4 V ,4 It A -,4 v 11-A-v·
fJ-f} ,4-ft It fJ.A-,4 ,4 ,4
✓ v v v V V v V V AB . A fl � It fl /i >4 fr A-,4-
If A-A-,4 It A-/}-r1-If A----· -. . ✓AYE @ NAYE ,¾ A'"
AD�EN� ':i,AB�Tl'\�N \
�-�, )
Cf
U/
V
I/
V
V
A
fl
ltB
A
��-
I I
June 28, 1988
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Date:
Chairman Secretary