Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 04 1993I LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD MAY 4,1993 12:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the March 23,1993 meeting were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam Jim VonTungeln Emmett Willis,Jr. Brad Walker (arrived after the roll call) Members Absent:Joe Selz Ronald woods City Attorney:Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA MAY 4,1993 REZONING ITEM 1.Z-4524-C Highway 10 at Sam Peck Road MF-12 to 0-2 2.Z-5552-A Mabelvale west Road at Nash Lane R-2 to C-3I-2 and OS 3.Z-5601-A 2924 Longcoy R-3 to R-7A 4.Z-5671 6000,6024 and 6101 Stagecoach Road R-2 to C-4 5.z-5676 2923 west 12th Street R-3 to C-1 6.Z-5677 6600 Woodson R-2 to 0-3 7.U.S.Depot,Inc.Alley Right-of-Way Abandonment (G-23-187) May 4,1993 ITEM :1 Z 4 24 C Owner:Resolution Trust Corporation Applicant:Grace Community Church Location:Highway 10 at Sam Peck Road Request:Rezone from MF-12 to 0-2 Purpose:Office Size:7.0 acres Existing Use:vacant SURR UNDING D USE D ZO IN North —Vacant,zoned MF-12 South —Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Vacant,zoned MF-12 West —Park Land,zoned R-2 STA F ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone approximately 7 acres on Highway 10 from MF-12 to 0-2.The site is situated northwest of where Sam peck Road intersects Highway 10.The acreage is part of a larger tract, 22 acres,and the proposal is to subdivide the 7 acres into three lots for future development.The remaining 15 acres are to be developed for a church and related facilities.(A conditional use permit has been filed for the church and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the April 20,1993 meeting.)The property is vacant and wooded. Zoning in the area is R-2,MF-12,0-2 and PRD,with the site abutting R-2 and MF-12.The existing 0-2 is located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Sam Peck Road.Land use includes single family,multifamily,a tennis and athletic club,a YMCA facility and a cemetery.To the west is River Mountain Park,and throughout the area there are undeveloped tracts of land. In 1985,a PRD was approved for a multifamily development, 264 units,on the entire 22 acres,A time extension was granted in 1986,however,no final plan was ever submitted and the pRD expired.The property was rezoned to MF-12 in 1992 and a site plan was approved for multifamily project on a portion of the site. May 4,1993 ITEM ~1 Z-4 2—n An office reclassification of the 7 acres is a reasonable option for the location,and staff supports the 0-2 rezoning.At this time,the adopted plan recognizes the existing zoning and shows the site as part of a multifamily area.Other land use designations in the immediate vicinity are office or transition zone.Therefore,it appears that rezoning property to an office district is compatible with the area and should not have an impact on the nearby properties.0-2 is a site plan review district,so there will be additional review of any development plan prior to the necessary permits being issued.Also,0-2 has a minimum lot area of two acres.Staff is recommending a plan amendment to transition zone for the site. L USE PLAN ELEME T The plan recommends multifamily for this location.The surrounding area is generally Office or Transition Zone. Since the plan was approved largely based on the existing zoning,it is appropriate to review the plan for alternative designations.Either a lower density multifamily or office use would be consistent with the recommended future development.To this end a plan amendment to transition zone would be appropriate. INEERI OMME T There are none to be reported. FF RE MME DATI Staff recommends approval of the 0-2 rezoning as reguested. P ING COMMI I N ACTION:(MAY 4,1993) The application was represented by Olan Asbury.There was one objector in attendance, Staff briefed the Commission on a notice issue and reportedthatthenoticesweresenttwotimesbecauseofachangein the hearing date.The second set was mailed less than the bylaw reguirement of fifteen days for the May 4,1993 meeting.Staff felt that sufficient notification had been given and supported a waiver of the bylaws. A motion was made to waive the bylaw provision for 15 daywrittennotice.The motion passed by a vote of 8 eyes, 0 nays,2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson). 2 May 4,1993 ITEM .1 Z-4 24-on Staff also reported that the request had been modified by shifting the proposed 0-2 area from the west side (7 acres& to 6 acres along the entire Highway 10 frontage.Staff informed the Commission that they could act on the new 0-2 area because proper notification had been given. Olan Asbury spoke and described the site and the surrounding area.Mr.Asbury said that the proposed 0-2 rezoning was for 6 acres,and the remaining 16 acres would be left MF-12. He told the Commission that a conditional use permit was on the tune 1,1993 agenda for review and a plat had also been filed for the same meeting.Mr.Asbury said that the 0-2 lots would conform to the Highway 10 Overlay requirement and would go through site plan review. Don Holeman,a resident in the Piedmont Subdivision, addressed the Planning Commission.Mr.Holeman presented some background on Highway 10 and said he was not interested in changing the plan.Mr.Holeman said that he did not want more non-residential zoning along Highway 10,and he was opposed to 0-2 as were other residences in Piedmont Subdivision.He requested no more changes to the present zoning pattern.Mr.Holeman then told the Commission that he would prefer multifamily zoning to office zoning.He described other properties along Highway 10 and said a change to 0-2 would lead to other rezonings.Mr.Holeman said that he did not have anything in writing from the other families in Piedmont and concluded by saying that he was trying to slow down the nonresidential growth on Highway 10. Comments were offered by several commissioners. Olan Asbury spoke and said the proposal was a good plan,and the 0-2 lots would be sold.Mr.Asbury then asked the Commission to support the 0-2 rezoning. A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-2 request. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,3 nays and 2 absent. 3 May 4,1993 ITEM 'Z-5552-A Owner:Thompson Electric Applicant:Joe D.White Location:Mabelvale West Road at Nash Lane Reguest:Rezone from R-2 to C-3,I-2 and OS Purpose:Commercial and Industrial Size:9.92 acres Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDI USE D Z I G North —Vacant,Single-Family and Church,zoned R-2 and 0-3 South —Railroad Tracks,zoned R-2 East —Vacant and Industrial,zoned I-2 west —Vacant,zoned OS and I-2 TAFF LYSI The re@nest is to rezone a 9.9 acre site from R-2 to C-3 (2.29 acres),I-2 (4.76 acres)and OS (2.87 acres).The land is located south of where Nash Lane intersects Mabelvale West Road and just west of the area that isreferredtoasthetownofMabelvale.Several hundred feettothewestisthelocationofthefutureSouthLoop,and beyond the South Loop alignment is Mabelvale Junior High. The entire site is vacant and a substantial portion of the property is in the floodway,the proposed OS area.Along the southern boundary of the site is a 100 foot railroadright-of-way. Zoning in the area is R-2,0-3,C-2,C-3,I-2 and OS,with the site abutting I-2 and OS land.Other nearbynonresidentialzoningis0-3 and C-3.One of the mostrecentrezoningsintheneighborhoodinvolvedpropertylocateddirectlytothewestandthelandwasreclassifiedto0-3,C-3,I-2 and OS.Land use is made up of single family,a church,commercial and industrial.Much of the immediate vicinity is still undeveloped,including some ofthe0-3,C-3 and 1-2 parcels. In 1992,a rezoning application for the same property wasfiledandthere&Zuest was to C-3 and I-2.(During thehearingprocess,the request was amended to include os May 4,1993 ITEM 2 2-5 2-A n zoning for the floodway.)The proposed rezoning was supported by the staff and endorsed by the Planning Commission.The rezoning proposal was then withdrawn prior to the Board of Directors acting on the request. On the Geyer Springs West Plan,the property under consideration is recommended for "mixed office and commercial"uses.Therefore,the proposed C-3 area does not raise any plan concerns.After careful review of the requested I-2,staff feels that industrial reclassification is reasonable and should not have an impact on the surrounding property.This is reinforced by the fact that some of the abutting land is zoned I-2 and the site borders the railroad tracks.Also,the proposed rezonings continue the zoning pattern that has been established over the last several years.(Originally,the Otter Creek Plan identified the property as part of light industrial area.) LAND USE PLAN EL ME T The plan calls for Mixed Office and Commercial for the site in question.The intent is to keep the industrial uses off of Mabelvale West.The proposed uses north of Mabelvale West Road are office,thus a small scale industrial use might be appropriate south of Mabelvale west Road.However, any development should be of an office/warehouse or showroom type. Currently to the east is a small scaled industrial development.This development along with the eastern portion of the subject property should be changed to Mixed Office and Industrial. E INEERING MME 1.Dedication of the established floodway. 2.Mabelvale West is classified as a minor arterial and the existing right-of-way is deficient.The Master Street Plan requires a right-of-way of 45 feet from the centerline for minor arterial. TAFF RE MMENDATIO Staff recommends approval of the C-3,I-2 and OS as requested. 2 I May 4,1993 ITEM 2 Z-2-A n P I MMI A TI (MAY 4,1993) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a request for a withdrawal without prejudice.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn without prejudice.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 3 MaY 4,1993 ITEM :3 Z-1-A Owner:Ann Gipson Applicant:Ann Gipson Location:2924 Longcoy Request:Rezone from R-3 to R-7A and Site Plan Review Purpose:Mobile Home Size;0.45 acres Existing Use:Single-FamilY SURR I D SE AND ZONING North —Vacant,zoned R-3 South —Single-Family,zoned R-3 East —Vacant,zoned R-3 West —Single-FamilY,zoned R-3 F ANALYSI In 1992,a conditional use permit was approved for the placement of a multisectional manufactured home at 2924 Longcoy.The owner has now decided that she needs toscaledownthesizeoftheunitandwouldliketoplacea single-wide mobile home on the propertY.To allow a 16 X 80footunit,the site must be reclassified to R-7A,which isalsoasiteplanreviewdistrict.Therefore,the Commission must also approve a site plan for the property. Zoning in the general area is R-3,MF-24,C-1 and C-3.The land use is primarily single family residences or vacantlots.There are two nonconforming uses at West 28th and John Barrow Road. Staff feels that rezoning the location to R-7A for the proposed unit is appropriate and supports the request.Thereclassificationshouldnothaveanyeffectonthenearbypropertiesandthenewmobilehomewillreplacea substandard dwelling unit.Staff also endorses the submitted site plan for the lot. (The applicant/owner has requested a waiver of the filingfeeandthemailednoticerequirement.Staff feels that the waivers are reasonable and supports them.) May 4,1993 NO.:Z-1-A n L E P ELEME T The plan recommends single family development.The requestisinconformancewiththeplan. E QINEERI MME T There are none to be reported. REC MME ATIO Staff recommends approval of the R-7A rezoning subject to the owner conforming to the design standards for the unit. 1.A pitched roof of 3 in 12 or 14 degrees or greater. 2.Removal of all transport features 3.Permit foundation 4.Exterior wall finish in a manner compatible with neighborhood 5.Underpinning with permanent materials 6.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. 7.Off-street parking per single family dwelling standards PL I MMI I A TI (MAY 4,1993) The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the R-7A rezoning and approve the site plan.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.(The Commission also waived the filing fee and written notification of the property owners.) 2 MaY 4,1993 ITEM Z-5671 Owner:Goes Enterprises,Inc. Applicant:Charles Goes Location:6000,6024 and 6101 Stagecoach Road Request:RezOne from R-2 to C-4 Purpose:Commercial Size:4.11 acres Existing Use:Commercial (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND E NI North —Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2 South —Single-Family,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family,zoned R-2 West —Vacant,zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The propertY in question is located at Stagecoach Road (Highway No.5)and Lanehart Road,and the request is to rezone the land from R-2 to C-4.There are two different parcels involved with requests.a 3.7 acre tract on the north side of Stagecoach and a .41 acre piece on the southside,at the corner of Lanehart and Stagecoach.At this time,the property is occupied by a laundromat,gas pumps,acarwash,small food store,mini-storage buildings and anoffice.The storage units and the office are located on the smaller tract and all of the other commercial uses are onthe3.7 acre site.The larger parcel is two platted lots and there is a single family residence on one of the lots. Zoning in the area is primarily R-2 and the sites are surrounded by R-2 zoning.At the intersection of Stagecoach Road and Shackleford Road,there is a tract zoned C-l,whichisundeveloped.Land use includes single family,smallscaledcommercialandsalvageyard.The existing commercial and industrial uses are all nonconforming.There are also some vacant tracts found throughout the area. The 3.7 acres on the north side of Stagecoach Road areidentifiedonthe65thStreetWestPlanasneighborhood commercial.Normally,C-1 is the district most commonlyassociatedwithneighborhoodcommercial.Since the property May 4,1993 IT ~4 Z-71 C n is situated on a principal arterial,a more intense commercial classification does appear to be reasonable. Because of the location and the plan's recommended land use,staff feels that a C-3 reclassification will maintain the direction of a plan and is more neighborhood oriented than the requested C-4,which is in conflict with the plan's intent for the area.The small parcel is shown as single family and should be left R-2 because it is not a viable commercial site.Rezoning the corner of Stagecoach and Lanehart could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, especially on Lanehart and lead to an undesirable zoning pattern. LAND USE P ELEME T The adopted plan recognizes the existing (nonconforming) uses on the north side of Stagecoach Road with a Neighborhood Commercial designation.Ideally,the property north of Stagecoach Road should be zoned to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial;however,as long as the uses are neighborhood oriented,higher zonings could be appropriate. The requested zoning is too intensive for a "Neighborhood Commercial"area. In the past several years,the surrounding residential owners have repeatedly made it clear to the City that this area is a viable,stable single family neighborhood.In order to protect the existing residential,no zoning should be approved which would encourage either strip zoning or uses designed to meet more than the neighborhood needs (no regional commercial or large service area commercial). ENGINEERI G COMMENT 1.The existing right-of-way for Stagecoach is deficient and dedication of additional right-of-way is needed. The Master Street Plan requirement for a principalarterialis55feetfromthecenterline. 2.Lanehart Road is classified as collector and the existing right-of-way is substandard.The acceptedright-of-way for a collector is 60 feet or 30 feet from the centerline. STAFF REC MME ATION Staff recommends approval of C-3,not C-4,for the largertractandthesmallerparcelnotberezonedtoacommercialdistrict. 2 May 4,1993 ITEM 'Z-7 n PL I MMI I TI N:(MAY 4,1993) The applicant,Charles Goes,was present.There were noobjectorsinattendance.Mr.Goes agreed with the C-3 forthelargertractandaskedtheCommissiontodeferaction onthesmallerparcel. Commissioner John McDaniel spoke and said that a separatevoteappearedtobeappropriate. Charles Goes then withdrew the request for the smaller tract and made some additional comments. There was a long discussion about various aspects of theproposal. A motion was made to recommend approval of C-3 for3.7 acres and to withdraw the smaller tract withoutprejudice. Additional comments were made before the vote and Charles Goes amended the request to C-3 for 3.7 acre site. The Planning Commission then voted on the motion.The vote was 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent to approve the motion. 3 May 4,1993 ITEM NO Z-56 6 Owner:Delanor Berry Applicant:Robert L.Nooner Iocation:2923 West 12th Request:Rezone from R-3 to C-1 Purpose:Beauty Shop and Single-Family Size:0.13 acres Existing Use:Single-Family URRO DI LAND USE AND ZO I North —Single-Family,zoned R-3 South —Single-Family,zoned R-4 East —Single-Family,zoned R-3 West —Single-Family,zoned R-3 STAFF ANAL I 2923 West 12th is currently zoned R-3,and the request is to rezone the lot to C-1 for a beauty shop.At this time,the property is occupied by a single family residence and a detached carport.The proposal is to convert the garage structure into a commercial operation,the beauty shop.The site is a conventional 50 foot lot and is located at the southeast corner of Booker and West 12th. Zoning found in the neighborhood is R-3,R-4,R-5,0-3,C-l, C-3 and I-2.The property in question abuts a R-3 lot to the west and R-4 on the south.Across both West 12th and Booker,the zoning is R-3.The commercial and industrial properties are located to the east of the adjacent R-3 lot. There are several 0-3 lots at the intersection of West 12th and Johnson,one block to the west of Booker.The land use is similar to the existing zoning and includes single family,churches,various types of commercial establishments and some industrial.Currently,the existing commercial uses and zoning are located on properties that have some frontage on Woodrow or are to the east of woodrow, In 1989,two lots to the east were rezoned to C-3 (Z-5218) for an auto part store on a total of four lots.Staff had a number of concerns with increasing the number of commercial lots in the block,and did not support the request.The two lots were rezoned with several conditions,including a May 4,1993 30 foot planted buffer along the west side of the commex'cial development.The buffex was established to cx'sate a definite bxcak between the commercial use and the residences to the west.Another unigue feature of t3xe buffer is thatitistobe3.eft at its natural grade. As with the pxevious x'ezoning,staff is very concerned with 'this reguest and does not suppox't the C-1 xec3.assi.ficstion, The yxoyosed rezoning does not conform to the adopted plan and allowing additional commexcial zoning in the block could have a negative effect on the area.A conzciouS effOxt must be made to protect and stabilize oldex neighbox'hoods and one method is to maintain the adopted land use concept and not to allow continued nonresidential encroachment. one final item is yaxking,Gn a 50 foot 3.ct it is usually diffxcult to provide the necessary parking fox a commercial use.The parking requirement fox a beauty shop is one syace yex.200 square feet of floox area.For the lot in guestion, furnishing the necessary parking may proved,to be somewhatdifficultbecauseoftheareaneededformaneuvering. The plan was just amended in this 3ocation fxom Single Family 'to Low Density Multifamily as part of the 12th Stx'eet Study.Further,at the time of the auto paxts stox'e rezoning a "gxeen"'xes was left on its westexn edge to buffer the x'esidential.The request is in conflict with the plan and,conditions have not changed to warrant an amendment. F 8 T Dedication of 5 feet is needed for west 12th to satisfy the Master Street Plan standard. Tl Staff recommends denial of the C-1 rezoning reguest. P I A (MAy 4,1993) The applicant,Robert Mooner,was present.There wexe noobjectorsinattendance.Mr.Hooner spoke and discussed thereguest.He said that he understood the concerns with maintaining the x'esidentia3.char'actex of the neigihboxhood.. 2 May 4,1993 I 7 n Mr.Noonex"told the Planning Cozszission that the Plan was toconvextthexesidenceintoabeauti'hay,aud he would makearealefforttobuffex"the house to the east.Mr. Moonex'entontodescribetheneighborhoodandsaidthetwo houseswestofBookerwereownedbyachurch.Mr.Nooner said thatthex'esidence would not look like a commercial business,andadditionalyaxkingcouldbepxovidedatachurchlessthanoneblockaway.He said the beauty shop would have twofull-time and three part-time operators.Mx.Sooner thenaskedtheCommissiontosupyoxttheC-1 xezoning.Mr.Booner also said that the patrons would enter from Booker,and the shay would have an 8:00 y.m.closing time. There was a long discussion abo~t various issues,includingothexoptionsforallowingthebeautyshop. Mx.sooner asked the Planning Commission to vote on the C-1xezoningasrequested. A motion was made recommend appxoval of a C-1 rezoning.Themotionpassedby'vote of 6 eyes,3 nays and 2 absent. 3 May 4,1993 ITEM Z-67 Owner:Howard M.Calvert Applicant:Howard M.Calvert Location:6600 woodson Request:Rezone frOm R-2 to 0-3 Purpose:Office Size:0.41 acres Existing Use:Single-Family RROU DI L D Z NI North —Vacant,zoned R-2 South —Single-Family,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family,zoned R-2 West —Single-Family,zoned R-2 STAFF Y I The request for 6600 Woodson is to rezone the property from R-2 to 0-3 for an unspecified office use.The site is occupied by a single family residence and two accessory structures in the southwest corner of the lot,and has 217 feet of frontage on Woodson and 82 feet on Big Oak Lane. The intersection of Big Oak and WOodson is situated south of west 65th and approximately a I/O mile east of Geyer Springs Road. Zoning in the neighborhood is R-2,R-4,C-l,C-3 and I-2. The property is surrounded by R-2 and the existing zoning pattern has been placed for a number of years;there has been very little zoning change in the immediate vicinity. Land use is made up of single family residences,duplexes, office,commercial and industrial.The majority of the nonresidential uses are located on the land that fronts on either West 65th or Geyer Springs,There are several exceptions,a beauty shop,zoned C-l,on Big Oak and industrial user on the east side of woodson. An 0-3 reclassification of 6600 woodson is in conflict with the 65th Street East Plan,and staff does not support the request.Over the years,the City has tried to protect the residential neighborhood along Woodson from incompatible zoning and the proposal before the Commission is contrary to that effort.When the I-2 (z-2382)was rezoned on the east May 4,1993 side af WaodIsan,a 50 foot buffer was cx'sated between theindustxiallandIandthesinglefamilylets.Gn the westsideofWaodsan,there is no zaned buffex at this time, however,the adapted plan shaws a buffer stx'ip along the sauth sidIe of a mixed commercial/industrial area.ThecornerofBigOakandWaadsonisnotastrongoffi.celocationandIrezoningthepxoyertywouldbeveryundesirablefartheneighborhood. E The ylan recommends Single Family far the site in guestion. math the plan and zoning pattern have gx'een space strips north af the site to buffer the single family fxom commercial and waxehause uses to the noxth.The proposal isinconflict.with the plan and existing canditians have not changed to warxant an amendment. 1 There ax'e name ta be x'sported. A Staff recommends denial of the O-3 xezaning request. (NAY 4,1993) The applicant,Boward Calvert,was present.Thexe were fourobjectorsinattendance.Mr.Calvext discussed tlhe staff'swrite-up and said there was some support fram several af thenei.ghbors.Mr.Calvert said that he thought the propertycouldbedevelopedasasmallclinicandparki.ng could beprovided,He went an to describe ather zoning in the nei.ghbarhood,including sevexal R-4 lots on Big oak Lane. Mr.Calvert said the rezoning would not create any txafficox'oise problems. Milan Allinsan,a resident af Meadowlark fox 29 years,objected to the rezoning.Mx.Allinson described othex usesintheareaandsaidthexewasalotofvacantofficespace. Mr.Allinson said there was na need for mare vacant affices andI the nei.ghbox'hood was owner occupied. Betty Miller,a neighborhood xesident for 25 years,said theareawasresidentialandwell-kept.Ms,Mi.llex said therezoningwoulddecreasepropertyvaluesandaskedIthe Commission to vo'te agains't it. 2 May 4,1993 EM '-77 n Pauline Pearrow said the area was a nice family neighborhood,and did not need a business and the associatedtraffic.Ms.Pearrow said the single family neighborhood needed to be maintained,and asked for a denial of the 0-3. J.E.Hammond,another resident in the neighborhood,saidtrafficandnoisewouldbeaproblem.Mr.Hammond said the property was not an office location,and there was not adequate area available for parking. Howard Calvert spoke again and said that he has no immediateplans,however,no major changes would have to be made tothestructure.Mr.Calvert went on to discuss the parking and traffic.He said there were no prospects for the property,and he was willing to sell or lease the site. At this time,a motion was made to deny the 0-3 request. The motion was seconded. Jay Dyke,an attorney,spoke for Mr.Calvert.Mr.Dyke saidasmalldoctor's office could be beneficial for the neighborhood,and there was sufficient area for parkingbecauseofbeingacornerlot.Mr.Dyke also said thattrafficshouldnotbeaproblem.Mr.Dyke suggested thattherewouldbenonoisefrom0-3 uses,and concluded byaddressingvariousissues. The Commission then voted on the motion to deny the 0-3rezoning.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 naysand2absent. 3 t May 4,1993 ITEM NO 7 P LE N :-2 -1 7 HARD:U.S.Depot,Inc.Alley Abandonment LLL~i Within the block north of West 2nd Street,Bast of the undeveloped High Street right-of-way and south of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. er li n U.S.Depot,Inc. ~Rt:To abandon the 16' 300'ndevelopedalleyright-of-way extending east and west within Block 1,Deaf Mute Addition; bounded by Lots 1-6 on the north and Lots 7-12 on the south. SSTAFF tRFFRR. 1.Public Need for hi Ri ht-of-W There is no public need for this right-of-way. 2.r tree Plan The Master Street Plan shows no need for this right-of-way. 3.for Ri ht-of-W n Ad'a nt Str No additional right-of-way is re&Zuired on adjacent streets. 4.h r cteri ics f Ri h -of-Wa T rrain Although platted,this alley has never been developed. The right-of-way terrain is very uneven,rocky and overgrown. 5.Dev 1 n ial Once abandoned,the area of this alley will be incorporated into a parking lot expansion for the Union Station property. I May 4,1993 ITEM 7 n FILE NO :-2 6.i rh L n n Eff Abutting the alley are several vacant lots and the parking lot for the Union Station property.There is no direct access to this alley right-of-way. Abandonment of the alley will have no effect on the neighborhood and will allow for the expansion of the parking lot for the Union Station. 7.N i rh P 'n No neighborhood position has been voiced as of this writing.No notice is required when the applicant is the sole owner of the abutting property. 8.ffect on P blic Services or Utiliti s Little Rock Wastewater Utility has facilities located within the alley and requires that the area of the abandoned alley be retained as a utility easement. 9.R v iona Ri ht All reversionary rights will extend to U.S.Depot,Inc. 10.P li lfare and Safet I sues The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. STAFF RE MME DATI Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the area of the abandoned alley right-of-way being retained as autilityeasement. P I IS I ACTION:(MAY 4,1993) The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.The Planning Commission recommended approval of the alley abandonment byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 PLANNlNG COMMlSSlON VOTE RECORD gag ~~~~~so ~~Meum&~~~oA,~+~5$+W YONDER MEMBER Z 3 ~X 4-5 BALL,RAMSEY y' CHACHERE,DIANE V V p v'»y'' WILLIS,EMMETT v v'» MCDANIEL,JOHN V V y v v'ICHOLSON,JERILYN OLESON,KATHLEEN 4 VONTUNGELN,JIM & v'UTNAM,BILL v y y v V v WOODS,RONALD A AA WAA A, SELZ,JOE H.A AA PAL A A WALKER,BRAD A A A y TIME IN AND TIME OUT BALL,RAMSEY CHACHERE,DIANE WILLIS,EMMETT MCDANIEL,JOHN NICHOLSON,JERILYN OLESON,KATHLEEN VONTUNGELN,JIM PUTNAM,BILL WOODS,RONALD A SELZ,JOE H.A WALKER,BRAD FJNTE@ED IM6 N'4O -Fi O Keu z D Meeting Adjourned 2'ZD P.M. V AYE ~NAYE 4 ABSENT ~ABSTAIN +OUT'F MThlG f@OIVf M ay 4,1993 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Date N I