Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 25 19841 LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 25,1984 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 10 in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. '\III.Members Present:John Schlereth Jerilyn Nicholson Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie William Ketcher Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones James Summerlin Ida Boles Members Absent:Bill Rector City Attorney:Victra L.Fewell 3 September 25,1984 Item No.A —Z-4298 Owner:Dwight Harshaw Applicant:Same Location:4309 and 4315 John Barrow Road Request:Rezone from "R-3"and "0-3" "C-3"General Commercial Purpose:Retail Size:.61 acre + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING- North —Vacant,Zoned "0-3" South —Residential,Zoned "R-3" East —Vacant,Zoned "R-3" West —Vacant and Residential,Zoned "R-3"&"C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Issues in this case are: 1.Subject site was zoned "0-3"for an office use which no longer occupies the building.That use was viewed as supportive and compatible with the neighborhood inasmuch as the building was occupied by a federal agency. 2.The "C-3"in place to the west has been zoned for a number of years and except for a billboard,the site remains vacant.Plus,the subject "C-3"is in the block to the north and does not share a direct relationship with this site.The "C-3"site in place also contains some five lots which we believe would be sufficient to provide neighborhood commercial needs. 3.The Barrow Road project to the north is improving a large number of commercial lots by installing underground drainage and widening of Barrow Road to four lanes.This construction has promoted interest in developing the lots which have been zoned commercial since the middle 1960's.The Boyle Park Land Use Plan for this area proposes West 36th Street at Barrow Road as the commercial center to the north of this application and suggests the next commercial corner be at Asher Avenue and Barrow Road on the south. i September 25,1984 Item No.A —Continued 4.The pattern of zoning between 41st Street and 44th Street was placed to provide supportive uses generally associated with the large nursing home which was in place at the time. 5.The Boyle Park Land Use Plan indicates a medium density residential uses on this site. The applicant has indicated that retail use is proposed and without specifics that indicates a spectulative filing to gain a more sellable site.We submit that Barrow Road has sufficient commercial zoning undeveloped in place at this time,and additional is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(8-28-84) The applicant was not present,but had requested a deferral. A motion to defer the item to the September 25,1984, meeting passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(9-25-84) The applicant,Dwight Harshaw,was present.There were no objectors present.Mr.Harshaw spoke and described the proposed use of the property.He stated that he plans to convert an existing structure into spaces for small shops. Mr.Harshaw went on to say that the areas available for lease would be 300 to 400 square feet and that there was a need for this type of low cost commercial space.He described the Barrow Road area and indicated that his proposal would be compatible with the neighborhood.The anticipated uses would be small retail shops and should not generate a great amount of additional traffic.There was a lengthy discussion about Barrow Road and existing commercial locations along it.Also,there were some comments about the possibility of striping out Barrow Road.The Commission voted 6 ayes,3 noes,1 absent and 1 abstention (John Clayton)to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. t September 2S,1984 Item No.1 —Z-3213-A Owner:Inez Carmichael Applicant:Same Location:"B"Street and North Van Buren Southwest Corner Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"0-1"Quiet Office Purpose:Quiet Office Size:11,847 square feet Existing Use:Vacant 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 proposal is to construct a 3,000 square foot office building on the property in question.The site iscurrentlyvacant.The location is two blocks north of Markham in an area that is primarily residential inuse.North of the site,there are some nonconformingofficeandcommercialuseswiththemostintensezoning being "R-4"until "G"Street.Between "G"and Kavanaugh,there is "MF-24,"0-3"and "C-3"zoning inplace.The "0-3"tract is being used for multifamilyunits.The alley that abuts the property on the south appears to be the line established for nonresidential zoning.Directly to the south of the alley on the eastsideofVanBuren,there is an "0-3"tract.From thatpointtoMarkham,the zoning includes another "0-3"site at "A"and Van Buren with some "C-3"and "C-4" between "A"and Markham.This type of patternindicatesthatanefforthasbeenmadetoconcentratethenonresidentialzoninginspecificlocationsalong Van Buren,primarily within the first block north of Markham and south of Kavanaugh with the alley between"A"and "B"Streets being the line for office zoning. September 25,1984 Item No.1 —Continued 2.The site is two typical residential lots with no unique physical characteristics.The property is flat and vacant. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements for Master Street Plan issues. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.In 1978,a rezoning request was made for this tract, but the application was withdrawn.At that time,the request was for office zoning to construct a clinic. There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. 7.The requested change is not supported by the Heights/ Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to the rezoning. This position is consistent with the previous case in 1978 when staff recommended denial.Within the last year,a request was made to rezone the southeast corner at "C"and Van Buren to "O-l,"and that was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors.Staff's position is that previous zoning actions in the area have established a line along the alley between "A"and "B"Streets and that should be maintained by not granting this request.An alley can be a more desirable buffer between residential and nonresidential uses instead if the uses having a front yard relationship with the street creating the separation. S TAF F RECOMM ENDAT ION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Olan Asbury who was also representing Thomas Harding,the proposed purchaser of the property.There were no objectors present.Mr.Asbury described the site and the North Van Buren area.He stated that in 1981 the traffic count for Van Buren was 12,000 cars per day and felt that placed some restrictions on propertyforresidentialuses.Mr.Asbury then discussed the proposed building which would have two users,the Thomas Harding construction and one other tenant.The structure I September 25,1984 Item No.1 —Continued would front onto Van Buren and have adequate parking.He then went on to point that there were 32 property owners within 200 feet and there was no opposition from those residents.A majority of the property owners generally were in support of an office use for the location.Nr.Asbury discussed using a "PUD"and presented that idea as a possible solution.There were comments made by the Commission about a "PUD"and there was a lengthy discussion about North Van Buren and land use along it.The Commission requested the staff to take another look at North Van Buren between Narkham and Kavanaugh and be prepared to present some possible ideas at the October 12,1984,retreat.At that point,Nr.Asbury asked for a 30-day deferral.The motion was made to defer the request to the October 30, 1984,meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. I September 25,1984 Item No.2 —Z-4007-A Owner:First Southern Service Corporation Applicant:Pat Morrison Location:Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Southeast Corner Request:Rezone from "PCD"Planned Commercial Development to "0-3" General Office Purpose:Office Building Size:1.0 acres Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" South —Vacant,Zoned "0-3" East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" West —Vacant,Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to develop the property in question for an office building.To the west of the site,there is"0-3"zoning with some office use in place,and one block to the east is the intersection of Hinson Road and Rodney Parham with a mixed land use pattern.The proposed zoning appears to be compatible with the trends occurring in the area.The property has "0-3" zoning to the south and west across Hinson Loop with nonresidential development being the primary land use along the south side of Hinson. 2.The site is vacant and heavily wooded with some slope to it. 3.Hinson Road is classified as principal arterial on the Master Street Plan.A principal arterial requires atleast80feetofright-of-way so dedication of additional right-of-way is necessary because the existing right-of-way is deficient. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. September 25,1984 Item No.2 —Coninuted 5.There are no legal issues. 6.The property was reclassified to "PCD"in June 1983, for an office building.There is no neighborhood position on the site. 7.The requested rezoning conforms to the Suburban Development Plan which shows the south side of Hinson for suburban office development.There are no outstanding issues,and staff is in support of the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.There were objectors present. After a brief discussion,the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed.The vote —9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. I September 25,1984 Item No.3 —Z-4277-A Owner:Glynn D.Adams Applicant:Same Location:12324 Stagecoach Road (at the County Line) Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "I-2'ight Industrial Purpose:Pest Control Business Size:2.5 acres + Existing Use:Pest Control Business SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Vacant,Zoned "R-2" South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" West —Cemetery,Outside of City Limits PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.This rezoning application is the result of a Board of Adjustment action on the site.The owner of the property filed a request to place a mobile home on thetractforsecuritypurposes.The Board of Adjustment approved the request with the condition that the property be rezoned to the appropriate classification. With the use in place and this section of Stagecoach Road having a mixed land use pattern,it appears that the rezoning is compatible with the area.To the south across Stagecoach Road,there is a large "C-3"tract and further to the east,there is some "I-2"in place. 2.The site is a long narrow tract with the majority of it being vacant.There are three buildings located at the front of the property on the Stagecoach Road side. From Stagecoach Road to the rear of the property,the land decreases in elevation. 3.Stagecoach Road,State Highway No.5,is classified as a principal arterial.The existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. September 25,1984 Item No.3 -Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no neighborhood position on the site.The only history is the Board of Adjustment action in July of this year.The property was annexed into the City in 1979 ~ 7.The Suburban Development Plan identif ies this location at the county line north of Stagecoach Road for light industry and warehousing uses.The requested "I-2" classif ication is compatible with this type of land use pattern.This area is also part of the Otter Creek Plan which is still being developed,but the preliminary land use plan indicates industrial uses also.Because of the Board of Adjustment requirement and the reozning being in conformance with the Suburban Development Plan,staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the case briefly and then voted to recommend approval of the application as filed.The vote— 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. I September 25,1984 Item No.4 —Z-4306 Owner:Mrs.Al Green Applicant:J.D.Carter Location:11,899 New Benton Highway Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "I-2'ight Industrial Purpose:Building Materials Sales (Some Woodworking) Size:1.0 acres + Existing Use:Building Materials Sales SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Interstate Right-of-Way,Zoned "R-2" South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" East —Commercial,Zoned "C-4" West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to rezone the property which is currently occupied by a nonconforming use.The site is being used for the sale of accessory/storage buildings, and some fabrication of the units takes place on thesite.As staff understands the situation,the property had a fire that significantly damaged an existing building which was then rebuilt to a larger size. The structure was reconstructed without proper zoning, and a notice was issued by the Zoning Enforcement Office because of expanding a nonconforming use.This section of I-30 has a number of different uses with "C-3"and "C-4"being the nonresidential classifications in the immediate area.The City recently approved the "C-4"zoning to the east for the display and sale of stones used for construction.The existing use on the property is appropriate for the location and compatible with the area. 2.The site is vacant with the rear of the property located in the floodplain or floodway.The developed portion of the property is along the access road frontage.The extent of the floodplain involvement is not known at this time. I 1 September 25,1984 Item No.4 —Continued 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.The property was annexed into the City in 1979 as part of the large 1-30 annexation. 7.The applicant has requested a change to "I-2"which permits the sale of the buildings and light fabrication and assembly which is also occurring on the property. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for strip commercial development for which "C-3" and "C-4"are more compatible zoning classifications. Because of this and the existing zoning pattern,staff suggests that "C-4"is more appropriate for the location."C-4"will allow the storage and sale of the buildings but not the assembly of the units.The property in question is also part of the Otter Creek area plan which has not been formally reviewed or acted on.The preliminary draft of the plan recognizes the land use shown on the Suburban Development Plan.Staff is recommending that action be taken on the request because the use is in place and it does conform to the adopted and proposed plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION'taff recommends "C-4"as being more appropriate for the location. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,J.D.Carter,was present.There were no objectors present.Staff modified the recommendation to exclude the floodway from the "C-4"rezoning.Mr.Carter spoke and stated that he had no problems with excluding the floodway and dedicating it,but he did express some concerns with the "C-4"recommendation.He indicated that "I-2"was more suitable because the property needed a zoningclassificationthatwouldpermitsomewoodproduct manufacturing and assembly.Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office pointed out that "C-4"prohibits the assembly aspect of Mr.Carter's operation.Mr.Carter went on to describe the area and felt that "I-2"would not create any problems for the vicinity.There was additional I September 25,1984 Item No.4 —Continued discussion about various issues,including the construction that took place af ter the f ire.The Commission then voted to recommend approval of "I-2"excluding the designated floodway and that it remain "R-2"and the floodway be dedicated to the City.The vote —10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. ! September 25,1984 Item No.5 -Z-4307 Owner:John D.Crockett Applicant:Same Location:5521 Mabelvale Pike Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3'eneral Commercial Purpose:Commercial Uses Size:0.54 acres + Existing Use:Single Family Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Church,Zoned "R-2" South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone the property in question to "C-3"for some type of commercial use.No plans or specific uses have been submitted.The site has "C-3" zoning to the south and to the west across Mabelvale Pike and is just a short distance from University Avenue.Because of the property's location on Mabelvale Pike,it appears that it is no longer viable for some type of residential development and more suited for a commercial use.To the north,there is a church which probably has a long-term commitment to the location so that should preclude any further commercial zoning to the north.To the east,the adjacent property use is single family but on higher ground,so that should minimize any impacts that the proposed zoning could have on that piece of ground and establish the zoning line.Considering the use to the north and the grade difference between the Mabelvale Pike frontage and the properties on Geyer Springs,this site should define the extent of the commercial zoning on the east side of Mabelvale Pike.In the final analysis,the tract has a stronger relationship with the commercial properties to the west and south. September 25,1984 Item No.5 —Continued 2.The site has a small residential structure on the north end with the remaining portion being vacant.The property is lower on the south side than it is on the north and slopes up from west to east. 3.Mabelvale Pike is identified as a minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right-of-way.The existing right-of-way is only 60 feet so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. 4.There have been adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.There is no documented history on the site. 7.With the zoning pattern that is in place along this segment of Mabelvale Pike and the property's location, staff supports the request.The site is more removed from the uses to the north and east than it is from what is occurring to the west and south.This is primarily due to the use on the north and the grade difference between Mabelvale Pike and Geyer Springs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.There were no objectors in attendance.The Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as filed.The vote —10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. September 25,1984 Item No.6 —Z-4314 Owner:Arkansas Guaranty and Trust Corp. Applicant:B.Greenwood Location:10412 Mabelvale West Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3'eneral Commercial Purpose:Office and Commercial Uses Size:2.31 acres + Existing Use:Mixed Uses SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" South —Vacant and Single Family,Zoned "R-2"6 "I-2" East —Single Family and Commercial,Zoned "R-2" West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to utilize the property for commercial and office uses.The site has a building on it that had a number of different uses in it includingresidential,but recently,it was heavily damaged by afire.Because of the fire,the structure lost it nonconforming status and could not be reconstructed without rezoning the property.The development potential of the site must be questioned because of a creek and its floodway on the west and the existing land use in the area which is primarily single familyresidential.The floodway could place restrictions on the property as to how much could be used for parking and reduce the amount of buildable land area.Another possible impact on the size of the tract is the necessary dedication of the right-of-way from Mabelvale West. 2.The site is occupied by a large metal building vacant because of the fire and a large amount of it is pavedover.The west side of the property has some floodway and floodplain involvement. September 25,1984 Item No.6 —Continued 2.Mabelvale West Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right-of-way.The existing right-of-way is deficient so additional dedication will be necessary. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.The property was annexed into the City in 1979.Staff has received some informational calls from residents in the area concerned about the type of uses that are permitted in a "C-3"district. 7.This location is part of the Otter Creek Plan which isstillintheprocessofbeingdeveloped.Because of this and the other issues raised earlier,staff recommends that the request be deferred until a more definite site plan is submitted and the Otter Creek Plan has been finalized.The Suburban Development Plan identifies the site for single family residential use with much of the surrounding area shown for residential development.To the east and west on the south side of Mabelvale West,large tracts of land are zoned "I-2." Staff feels that this a very significant location on Mabelvale West and could dictate the future land use along it.Because of the property's location and the status of the Otter Creek Plan,staff is not ready to make a positive or negative recommendation at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two-month deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,Bill Greenwood,was present.There were no persons objecting to the rezoning present.Mr.Greenwood spoke and described the June 25,1984,fire which necessitated the request to rezone the property.The fire heavily damaged the building,and it could not be rebuilt without proper zoning.Mr.Greenwood stated that he understood the floodway and right-of-way requirements.He then discussed the previous uses in the structure and that the new uses would be similar excluding the multifamily units on the second floor.He said the new building would be approximately 32,000 square feet with commercial and September 25,1984 Item No.6 —Continued office uses.Several Commissioners felt that Nr.Greenwood had described more of an office warehouse use and "C—3"wasnottheappropriateclassification.The request and thevariousissueswerediscussedatlength.A motion was madetodefertherequestfor30days(October 30,1984,meeting)to allow the staff to address the site in the context of theOtterCreekPlan.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.(Staff was directed to have a recommendation for the property by the October 30th meetings ) September 25,1984 Item No.7 —Z-4318 Owner:Don Parks,-Inc. Applicant:Same Location:6705 Geyer Springs Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3'eneral Commercial Purpose:Commercial Uses Size:1.4 acres + Existing Use:vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family and Office,Zoned "R-2,""C-3" and "I-2" South —Office and Commercial,Zoned "C-3"and "I-2" East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"and "C-1" West —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The property in question is one of the few remaining "R-2"tracts on Geyer Springs Road south of West 65th. The proposal is to rezone the land for commercial use, but no specific plans have been submitted.The site has "C-3"and "I-2"zoning to the north and south,"I-2"to the west across Geyer Springs and "C-1"to the east.On the east side of Geyer Springs between Big Oak Lane and Browning Road,a majority of the parcels are zoned "C-3"except for this one and two tracts at Browning Road.Based on this trend and the overall development pattern along Geyer Springs,the requested rezoning is compatible with the area.Because of the zoning that is occurring,it appears that Geyer Springs will have a mix of office,commercial and industrial development with the existing residential uses and lots being phased out over a period of years. 2.The site is vacant and flat.There are no unique physical characteristics. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. I September 25,1984 Item No.7 —Continued 4.As of this writing,there have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5.There are no legal issues attendant to this request. 6.There is no documented history on the site. 7.The requested rezoning is in keeping with the previous zoning actions and maintaining the land use pattern along Geyer Springs Road.This site's depth is much greater than the other "C-3"tracts fronting Geyer Springs,but that should be of little consequence because it abuts "I-2"on the south and "C-1"on theeast.There are two "R-2"lots on the north side,but they are abutting "C-1"to the east and "I-2"to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PZANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.A resident,Frances Myers, abutting the property was also present.Mrs.Myers was concerned with the types of uses that were permitted in the"C-3"District and what was being proposed for the site.Staff read some of the uses listed under "C-3,"and a representative of Don Parks,Inc.,indicated that there was no specific use designated at this time.Mrs.Myers did not object to the request.The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed.The vote —10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. f September 25,1984 Item No.8 —Z-4321 Owner:G.O.Harper Applicant:Phoenix Real Estate,Inc. By:Blake Buffington Location:Base Line Road West of Production Drive Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "C-4'pen Display Purpose:Retail or Commercial Uses Size:1.2 acres + Existing Use:Vacant Single Family Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" South —Industrial,Zoned "R-2" East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" West —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to rezone the property for some kind of commercial or retail use.The site is located in a part of southwest Little Rock,the Production Drive and Distribution Drive area,that is slowly becoming a strong industrial pocket.Currently,the land use pattern is mixed along Base Line west of the railroad tracks,but in the long-term,it is envisioned to be all industrial on the north side of Base Line Road. Recent rezoning changes on the north side of Base Line have been to "I-2,"except for a "C-1"tract east of Production Drive.Between Production and Distribution Drives,nonresidential zoning is "I-2,"and it appears that an industrial classification for the property in question is more appropriate. 2.The site is flat with a vacant single family structure and a small storage building on it. 3.Base Line Road is classified as principal arterial on the Master Street Plan.The existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. I t September 25,1984 Item No.8 —Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.The property was annexed into the City in 1979 as part of the large I-30 annexation. 7.The Suburban Development Plan identifies this location and a larger area for major industry for which the appropriate zoning classification is "I-2."The property is bounded by "I-2"on two sides,and there ia a major APaL facility on the south across Base Line Road.The commercial uses are shown to be at the intersection of Chicot and Base Line and along the I-30 frontage road.Because of this and no immediate use for the site,desirability of rezoning the property for a commercial development is questionable,and staff recommends the property be rezoned to "I-2."The zoning pattern has been established,and this is an opportunity to follow that trend and create a unified industrial area with the proper zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I-2"and not "C-4"as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants Blake Buffington,was present.There were no objectors present.Mr.Buffington agreed to the staff's recommendation and amended the application to "I-2."The Commission then voted to recommend approval of the request as amended.The vote —10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. I l September 25,1984 Item No.9 —Z-4322 Owner:Etta A.Aversberg Applicant:Phoenix Real Estate,Inc. By:Blake Buffington Location:7310 and 7316 Indiana Street Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "R-4'wo Family Purpose:Two Family Residences Size:15,00 square feet Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" South —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" East —Duplex,Zoned "R-2" West —Single Family,Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The two lots in question are located on Indiana Street one block east of Mississippi.The neighborhood has been substantially impacted by previous rezoning actions which include "R-4,""R-5"and "PRD."To the east of the property,there is a large "R-5"tract,anditabutsan"R-4"parcel on the west.Most of the block on the south side of Indiana is zoned "R-4.So this proposal is compatible with the zoning pattern currently found in the neighborhood. 2.The site is vacant and wooded.The high point is on the west side and slopes down to the east. 3.Indiana Street is just a residential street with the existing right-of-way being only 30 feet.The Master Street Plan requires 50 feet of right-of-way for residential streets,so it appears that some dedication will be necessary.(The City's Engineering staff will make the final determination.) 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. September 25,1984 Item No.9 —Continued 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thissite. 7.Because of the existing zoning in the neighborhood, staff feels that the request is reasonable and supports the rezoning.There is no plan for this area,but it appears that the future development scheme will be low to medium density multifamily.The existing single family especially along Indiana and Ohio has been heavily impacted by what has occurred,and because of that,it is losing its desirability as a single family neighborhood.This is primarily west of Mississippi and north of Indiana. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,Blake Buffington,was present.There were no objectors present,but staff informed the Commission that letters and a petition opposing the request had been submitted prior to the hearing.The petition contained 11 signatures.Mr.Buffington discussed the proposal for the site and said that he had no problems with the dedication of additional right-of-way for Indiana Street. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed.The vote —8 ayes,2 noes and 1 absent. I September 25,1984 Item No.10 —Z-4323 Owner:Alan C.Springer Applicant:Same Location:State Highway No.10 1/2 Block East of Taylor Loop Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3'eneral Commercial Purpose:Food Store Size:2.75 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" South —Single Family,Church and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to rezone the property in question to"C 3"to permit a food store.The owner of this tractiscurrentlyoperatingthecommercialuse,a foodstore,across Highway 10.The existing building is very close to the highway,and the applicant is concerned that when the proposed widening of Highway 10 does take place that the new right-of-way line will be at the building.This will create an undesirablesituationbecausethatareaisbeingusedforparking and gas pumps which will have to be relocated once the highway improvement occurs.The property on the south side is too restricted to accommodate any change,and the applicant would like to relocate to the north side on a much larger tract.This tract can provide the needed land area for parking and accessory uses.The applicant feels that this is a more desirable location, and the food store will be providing a needed serviceforthearea. 2.The site is vacant and flat. September 25,1984 Item No.10 —Continued 3.State Highway No.10 is classified as a principalarterialwhichrequiresaminimumof100feetof right-of-way.The existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be necessary.(Engineering will address the specifics of this issue.j 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5.One possible legal issue is the creation of a significant spot zoning.The request is approved. 6.This section of Highway No.10 was annexed into the City in 1979.When the applicant filed the application,he submitted a number of signatures in support of this request.Since that time,the applicant has provided staff with additional petitions, and now the total number of signatures exceeds 500. These names cover a large area and are not restricted to the immediate Taylor Loop neighborhood. 7.The requested rezoning is conflict with the Suburban Development Plan and not supported by staff.The planidentifiesanareatotheeastofPinnacleValleyRoad for commercial development,and staff feels that is adequate to meet the community's needs for the immediate future.Originally the Suburban Development Plan showed a location to the west of Taylor Loop Road for commercial uses,but that was shifted to the east by the Board of Directors.The general area is now shown for single family attached and multifamily housing.This is all on the south side of Highway No.10.The property in question has always been identified for single family use only.The Suburban Development Plan has been followed in this area by the City denying another commercial rezoning request some time back.The staff's current position is consistent with previous actions and discussions with other property owners in the area.Arguments have been made that this type of commercial service will be lacking in the area if this request is not approved, but that does not appear to be the situation.To the west on Highway 10,there is a food store with related services and to the east within the Pankey community, there are similar establishments.Also recently,the City rezoned a tract of land on Pinnacle Valley Road for a food store.Granted,these are in the immediate vicinity of the property in question,but it does indicate that the area is not without these types of September 25,1984 Item No.10 —Continued services.The Suburban Development Plan has identified an adequate location for commercial development,and that should be supported by denying this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Hal Kemp, attorney.There were a number of persons in attendance who had an interest in the request.Mr.Kemp discussed the rezoning at length.He stated that Nr.Springer,the applicant,provided a needed service for a large area and that the existing store (The Country Store)was the only full service food store in the vicinity.Nr.Kemp indicated that Mr.Springer's present store serves approximately 400 persons per day.Nr.Springer was proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot store with adequate parking and other related services.Nr.Kemp went on to point out that the applicant had submitted approximately 500 signatures favoring the request.At this time,20 to 25 persons in the audience expressed their support for the rezoning by standing.A long discussion continued about needed services in the area and other issues.Grace Miller spoke against the rezoning.She discussed Highway 10 and how previous rezoning requests had been denied.She was very concerned that the approval of Mr.Springer's application could lead to a strip zoning pattern along Highway 10.Lloyd Vaught,owner of the existing Country Store property,then spoke.He presented a history of the store and discussed the Taylor Loop area. Mr.Vaught had earlier submitted letters to the Planning Commission members opposing the request but withdrew his opposition to the rezoning at the public hearing.Land use in the area was discussed and comments were made that the present site was a logical location for commercial uses. Charles Hinson,resident of the area,spoke in support of the rezoning and said there was a need for a larger store. Jim Lawson of the Planning Office addressed the Suburban Development Plan.He said the staff could study the Taylor Loop area again and possibly make some recommendations to the Commission by their next meeting.There was some discussion about sewer capacity in the northwest part of the City.Evelyn Thomas and another resident spoke in support of the rezoning.Ben Rand described the need for a modern food store and supported the request.Nr.Vaught briefly discussed Highway 10 and certain issues.After some additional comments,the motion was made to defer the request to the October 30,1984,meeting to allow staff a September 25,1984 Item No.10 —Continued to take another look at Highway 10 and land use. Nr.Springer agreed to the deferral.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. / September 25,1984 Item No.11 —Z-4324 Owner:James A.Culberson Applicant:Same Location:ll,ill Stagecoach Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "C-4'pen Display Purpose:Commercial Size:8.0 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 —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The requested rezoning change is to "C-4"to allow a commercial development.No specific plans or the type of use have been provided at the time.The property is located along State Highway No.5 between Otter Creek and the County Line Road where a majority of the landisstillvacant.Very little development activity has occurred along this section of Highway No.5 except for the immediate area around Otter Creek and County Line Roads.This site is somewhat removed from what appears to be the more desirable locations along Highway No.5.Because of this,the property does not seem to be best suited for a commercial rezoning. 2.The site is vacant and flat with some physical features that restrict its potential for certain types of development.The property is located in the 100-Year Floodplain and approximately the southern one-fourth is in the floodway.Also there are two easementsg AP&L and sanitary sewer,crossing the land at different locations. 3.State Highway No.5 (Stagecoach Road)is identified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan.The recommended right-of-way width for a principal arterialis100feet,so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way isdeficient. September 25,1984 Item No.11 —Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.There is documented neighborhood opposition on the site.The property was annexed into the City in 1979. 7.The Suburban Development Plan identifies the property as part of a large floodplain that is found in this part of Little Rock.Because of the floodplain and the floodway along with existing easements,the owner feels that the property has severe limitations for residential use.Staff recognizes these constraints but also questions the desirability of a "C-4"tract at this location having very little relationship to the identified commercial sites in the area.In addition to this concern,the approval of this request would create a substantial "C-4"spot zoning.Since this tract is part of the plan being developed for the Otter Creek area,staff recommends that the request be deferred until a later date.The Otter Creek Plan may determine that another use other than what is shown on the Suburban Development Plan is more appropriate. Until the Otter Creek Plan is beyond the preliminary draft phase,it is premature for staff to make a recommendation other than deferral for this vacant tract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two-month deferral. PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION: The applicant submitted a letter agreeing with the staff's recommendation for deferral.A motion was made to defer the request to the November 13,1984,meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. September 25,1984 Item No.12 —Z-4325 Owner:Bill Terry Applicant:Joe D.White Location:State Highway No.5 south ofBaseLineRoad Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"MF-12"&"MF-18"Multifamily,"0-2"Office 8 Institutional,"C-2"Shopping Center and"C-3"General Commercial Purpose:Mixed Uses Size:71.67 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant and Single Family,Zoned "R-2"South —Single Family and Church,Zoned "R-2"East -Vacant,Zoned "R-2" West —Vacant,Single Family,and Commercial Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1 ~The proposed rezoning is for a substantial amount oflandalongStateHighwayNo.5/Stagecoach Road in anareathatispartoftheOtterCreekPlan~The requestinvolves50.4 acres for multifamily,12 'acres ofcommercialzoningand8.6 acres for office zoning.ThepropertyislocatedinpartofLittleRockthatisbeginningtoexperienceanincreaseinrezoningactivityanddevelopment.This is due in part to theOtterCreekcommunitytothesouthandthenewconstructionthatisoccurringatI-430 and I-30.Also,this proposal is in close proximity to theproposedOtterCreekMall.Much of the area is stillzoned"R-2,"but there are large tracts zoned formultifamilyandcommercialdevelopmentatOtterCreekandforcommercialuseinthevicinityofI-30 andI-430,the proposed mall site being zoned "C-2." 2.The sites involved are primarily flat and vacant'hetwotractsontheeastsideofStateHighwayNo.5 areadjacenttoalargefloodwaythatcreatestheeasternboundaryfortheproposed"MF-18"and "C-3"parcels. September 25,l984 Xtem No.l2 —Continued This physical feature is common along the east side of Highway No.5.Also,there is some floodplaininvolvementonthewestsideofHighwayNo.5. 3.State Highway No.5 is classified as a principalarterialontheMasterStreetPlan,and Base Line Roadisshownasaminorarterial.The existingrights-of-way are deficient so dedication of additionalright-of-way will be required for both streets to meetarterialstandards. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewingagenciesasofthiswriting. 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.The property was part of a large annexation thatoccurredinl979. 7.Some of the proposed rezonings are in conformance withtheSuburbanDevelopmentPlan,but because the sitesarewithintheOtterCreekPlanarea,staff is recommending that this request be deferred until the new plan is closer to completion.The multifamilyareasandthecommercialsiteatBaseLineRoadandStateHighwayNo.5 are shown on the Suburban Development Plan,but because of the amount of landinvolvedandsomeotherconsiderations,staff feelsthatitwouldbeinappropriatetoactontherequest atthistime.A rezoning of this size requires additionalreviewandanalysisinthecontextofthenewplan. Many changes are occurring in this area which the OtterCreekPlanisaddressingandshouldprovideamorecurrentoverview.One additional plan element that isinvolvedwiththisrequestistheMasterParksPlan.That plan shows the area east of Highway No.5 for aproposedlakeandopenspace.This proposalencompassesanareafromHighwayNo.5 and I-430 to thesouthjustnorthofOtterCreekRoad. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two-month deferral. September 25,1984 Item No.12 —Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant had submitted a letter supporting the staff's recommendation for a deferral.A motion was made to defer the request to the November 13,1984,meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. September 25,1984 Item No.13 —Z-4326 Owner:Coleman Dairy,Inc. Applicant:Same By:Don Nance,Sr. Location:5801 Asher Avenue Request:Rezone from "C-3"General Commercial to I-2"Light Industrial Purpose:Expansion of Dairy Plant Size:0.47 acres + Existing Use:Offices SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Commercial,Zoned "C-4" South —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" East —Vacant and Single Family,Zoned "R-2"&"C-3" West —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: l.The property is currently being used by Coleman Dairyforoffices.The proposal is to rezone the site to permit the expansion of the dairy onto this location. The expansion will include warehousing,a cold storagevaultandsomeofficespace.The site abuts "I-2" zoning on the west and south,Asher Avenue on the north and "C-3"on the east.In this area,a high percentageoflandonthesouthsideofAsheriseitherzoned"C-3"or "I-2."The land use pattern is primarily mixed with no one use dominating.Recognizing this,it appears that the requested rezoning is compatible withtheareaandshouldnotcreateanyadverseimpacts. 2.The site is flat with a single structure on it beingutilizedforofficespace. 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 at this time. September 25,1984 Item Mo.13 —Continued 5.There are no legal issues. 6.The property was rezoned to "C-3"some time ago,and there is no documented history on the site. 7.The staff's view of the rezoning request is consistent with the general direction the area is going and supports the application.The land use plan on the south side of Asher appears to be one of commercial andlightindustrialwithoneortwolargefacilitiessuch as Coleman Dairy.The residential use will probably be phased out over a period of years. STAFF RECONNENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.After a brief discussion,the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 abstention (James Summerlin). September 25,1984 Item No.14 —Z-4327 Owner:James A.Rogers Applicant:Robert M.Brown I ocation:12,900 Vimy Ridge Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single FamilytoC-3"General Commercial Purpose:Commercial Development Size:1.77 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 proposal is to rezone a tract that is part of theQuailRunpreliminaryplatforanunspecified commercial use.The property is located along Vimy Ridge Road between Alexander Road and County Line Road, a location that,does not appear to be appropriate for"C-3"zoning.The site is in an area where otherlocationshavebeenidentifiedforcommercialuse thataremorecompatiblewiththelong-range developmenttrends.One consideration that should be raised inthispartofLittleRockishowmuchcommercialland is needed to meet the future demands.Many activities areoccurringintheareathatareencouragingpropertyownerstotrytoplaceahighervalueontheirland. With this in mind,rezoning actions must be carefullyanalyzedtoensurethebestlandusepatternforthearea. 2.The site is vacant and increases in elevation fromnorthtosouth.There is a 100-foot APaL easement thatbisectsthenorthwestcorneroftheproperty. 3.Vimy Ridge Road is identified as a minor arterial whichrequires80feetofright-of-way.The Quail Run platwillprovidethenecessaryright-of-way.DuringdiscussionsontheOtterCreekPlan,there has been some mention made of classifying the street on thenorthasacollector.If this is the case,the platwilldedicateanynecessaryright-of-way. September 25,1984 Item No.14 —Continued 4.There have no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5.There are no legal issues attendant to this request. 6.The site was annexed to the City in 1975.Staff has received one call objecting to the requested rezoning. 7.The staff has many concerns about "C-3"rezoning at this location,but because of the status of the Otter Creek Plan,staff is unprepared to address the request in any detail.Two issues that should be mentioned are the Suburban Development Plan and spot zoning.The Suburban Development Plan identifies the property question for single family use only and anyreclassificationotherthan"R-2"would create a significant spot zoning for the area.Staff feels that this request,being part of the Otter Creek Plan area, should be deferred until the plan is completed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two-month deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present but had submitted a letter requesting a deferral of the item.A motion was made to defer the item to the November 13,1984,meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 0 M ~&f CQ Q &f M g o ~~ z oo R M 0 cn R e cn 04+a olRQg)Q g0e~m 0 0 OMM8CW0QJo m o o ~c ~~~ra 41 (Q W 'W QJ QJ Kl M K M R 4 R 4 ~m klz ~&a a &W g a I 1 September 25,1984 There being no further business before the Commission,the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m. ate .Secretary