Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 29 1982LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JUNE 29,1982% 1 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 of the previous meeting were approvedasmailedout. III.Members present:Robert Wright John Schlereth Richard MassieJerilynNicholson William Ketcher Betty Sipes Dorothy Arnett Ron Tabor Betty Turner Calvin Scribner Member absent:Bill Rector Attorney present:Hugh Brown *This meeting actually was actually held on July 27,1982. June 29,1982 Item No.1 —Z-3841 Owner:Earl Hilliard Applicant:Earl Hilliard Location:7315 Asher Avenue Request:Rezone from "C-3"General Commercial to "C-4"Open Display Purpose:Used Car Lot Size:42,000 square feet + Existing Use:Used Car Lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" South —Vacant,Zoned "C-3" East —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency concerning this request.The requested zoning is compatible with the stated objectives of the ZoningOrdinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.After a brief discussion,the Commission moved to approvetheapplicationasfiled.The motion was passed —10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. ' \ June 29,1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No.2 —Universit Office Park LOCATION:University Avenue,between Evergreen and "H"Streets DEVELOPER ENGINEER: Hooper Bond Bob Richardson 12015 Hinson Road Little Rock,AR REQUEST:Waiver of improvements to University which extend beyond property line AREA:1.8 Acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW STREET:288 ZONING:"0-3" PROPOSAL: This request is in reference to a plat which was approved by the Planning Commissin on October 13,1981,and signed on March 24,1982.During Commission review,the applicant's representative agreed,after being asked,to widen University Avenue in excess of Ordinance requirements,from "J"Street on the north to "H"Street.The owner was unaware of this agreement and is now requesting that the Commission waive this condition, since it is not mandatory by Ordinance standards.Based on past policy,staff does not feel that the applicant should be forced to make improvements beyond the boundaries of his property if he does not wish to. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval,as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: Mr.Boyd Bond represented the applicant.A motion was made and passed for approval by a vote of:4 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. \ t June 29,1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No.2 —Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were no objectors present.Mr.Boyd Bond was present.Alengthydiscussionwasheldwithnoresolutionoftheissue.Theprinciplequestionwas,what was the source of the additionalimprovementsalongUniversityAvenue?Several theories wereofferedbystaffandEngineeringwithoutconcurrencebyallinvolved.The minutes of the meeting,where the plat wasapproved,were read aloud by the Chairman and did not offer ananswer. The Commission determined that additional time was needed inordertoresearchtheprojectfileanddevelopthefilehistory.It was determined that since the tri-party was set for expirationonJune22,that an extension of six weeks would be in order,toallowconstructionafterresolutionofthematter. Staff was directed to do research on this matter and report backonJune29th.The Commission voted 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absenttoconfirmtheabovedetermination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: This item on the agenda had been cleared on the July 13 PlanningCommissionmeeting;therefore,no action was taken and thismatterwaswithdrawnfromtheagenda. \ i l June 29,1982 Item No.3 —Z-3826 Owner:Gaylon and Debra Carter Applicant:Debra Carter Location:9910 Chicot Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"0-I"Quiet Office Purpose:Office Conversion Size:42,000 square feet + Existing Use:Vacant Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" South —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency regarding this application.Neighborhood oppositionisexpected.The applicant plans to convert the property from residential to office use.It is a large tract fronting on both Chicot Road and Carrie Lane which lies within a platted single family neighborhood.The south central island plan shows this property to remainresidential,with the commercial and other nonresidential uses being restricted to within the proximity of majorintersections. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (A ril 27,1982): The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.The applicant presented a map and discussed existing land uses along Chicot Road between Baseline and Mabelvale Cutoff.He contended that more than 50 percent of the properties on the west side of the street were being used for commercial purposes.His information was based upon the number ofproperties,rather than the scale of properties.There was a lengthy discussion of various alternatives for this proposal.During the course of the discussion,the applicant indicated that he had purchased the property June 29,1982 Item No.3 —Continued in December 1981,with the intention of using this propertyinthemannerforwhichhehasapplied.He stated his knowledge of the south central island planning effort priortothattime. After a lengthy discussion,the Commission moved to approvetheapplicationasfiled.The motion failed on a vote of 1 aye,4 noes,3 abstentions and 3 absent.Because of thelackofsixvotes,this matter was deferred automatically totheMay25PlanningCommissionmeeting. In addition,the Commission moved to have the staff reviewChicotRoadandpresentazoningmapindicatingtheproperzoningforeachandeveryusealongtheroadfrontage between Baseline and Mabelvale Cutoff.The motion waspassed:8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant had called asking that this matter be deferredbecausehiswifewasexpectingababywithinhours.The Commission moved to defer the matter to the June 29 meeting. The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and was represented by Sam Hillburn,attorney.They presented to the Planning Commission a videotape presentation showing the land uses onboththewestandeastsidesofChicotRoadinthearea between Baseline and Mabelvale Cutoff.In addition, Mr.Hillburn stated that there was a 10,800 car traffic count per day on Chicot Road,that it was a major arterial on the Master Street Plan and stated that it was clear thatthispropertywouldnotbesuitableforsinglefamilyuse. The application was amended to request the "O-l"zoning onlyontheeastern170feetoftheproperty.The applicantstatedthatthezoningandhisproposedmovefrom9110ChicotRoadwaspromptedbyachangeinhischiropracticoperationsandthathewasplanningtotakeonanewpartner.There was considerable discussion of thisapplicationandfinallytheCommissionmovedtoapprove theapplicationasamended.The motion failed on a vote of 4 ayes,4 noes,1 absent and 2 abstaining.There were notsufficientvotesineitherdirectionforthePlanning Commission to make a recommendation;therefore,as per Planning Commission bylaws,the matter is forwarded to the Board of Directors with no recommendation. ~'I June 29,1982 Item No.4 —Z-3848 Owner:Dr.C.A.Aroaz Applicant:Ben McMinn Location:5423 Kavanaugh Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"0-1"Quiet Office Purpose:Office Conversion Size:7,500 square feet + Existing Use:Apartment SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —U.S.Post Office,Zoned "0-3" South —Duplex,Zoned "R-4" East —Montessori School,Zoned "R-2" West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency on this request.The structure has been an apartmentformanyyears.Over this time,it has fallen intodisrepair.The applicant maintains that it is not economically feasible to repair the structure forresidentialuseandisaskingforofficezoningwhich will permit an economic use of the building. For years,the City has fought off attempts to extendnonresidentialzoningtotheeast.The Post Office zoning was shoved down the City's throat by the U.S.government, but even there the City was partially successful.The government wanted commercial zoning but was convinced to take office zoning.The eastern boundary of nonresidential zoning has been drawn at Polk Street.If broken,staff sees a continuing eastern encroachment along Kavanaugh. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant requested deferral.The Commission moved todefertheapplicationtotheJune29meeting.The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent. June 29,1982 Item No.4 —Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were 13 objectors. The applicant presented petitions from neighbors and othersinsupportoftheapplicationcarrying251signatures.He showed maps indicating where many of the signatures had comefromwithintheneighborhoodandofferedaletterfromthepostalservicerefutingstaffcommentsconcerningtheconditionsunderwhichthePostOfficewaszoned.He alsoreadfromthePurposeandIntentSectionsofthe"Ol"QuietOfficezoningdistrictindicatingthattheapplicationwasincompliancewiththestatedobjectivesoftheZoningOrdinance. Mart Vehik,a neighboring property owner and spokespersonforotherneighbors,spoke in opposition to the zoningrequestandpresentedpetitionsfromopponentscontaining134signatures.He pointed out that all of the opposinggroupwereresidentsoftheneighborhoodwhilemanyof thosefavoringchangeproposedwerefromoutsidethearea.Inaddition,Jay Wills,speaking for himself and otherresidentsintheneighborhood,also spoke in opposition totherequest. There was a lengthy discussion of the application andalternativelandusesonthepropertyprimarilycenteringaroundeconomicissues.Following the discussion,thePlanningCommissionmovedtoapprovetherequestasfiled.The motion failed on a vote of 3 ayes,7 noes and 1 absent. The petition,therefore,was denied. June 29,1982 Item No.5 —Z-3302-A Owner:Jyothi McMinn Applicant:Ben McMinn Location:5419 Kavanaugh Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"0-1"Quiet Office Purpose:Montessori School Size:13,500 square feet + Existing Use:Montessori School SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —U.S.Post Office,Zoned "0-3" South —Duplex,Zoned "R-4" East —Residential,Zoned "R-2" West —Residential,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property has a traceable zoning history of over 10 years dating back to July 1,1971.Subsequent to theinitialeffortin1971tozonethisproperty"F"Commercial, there have been two efforts to rezone the property and oneefforttogainavariancetousethepropertyfora Montessori School.The first application was denied,andallsubsequentapplicationshavelikewisebeenrejected. The last zoning effort and the use variance were both attempted by the present applicant.Briefly the history goes as follows: Z-2476 (7-1-71)"F"Commercial Denied Z-2476A (9-26-78)"E-1"Quiet Business Denied Z-3302 (1-29-79)Zoning Variance for Denied Montessori School Z-3318 (2-27-79)"D"Apartment Denied I June 29,1982 Item No.5 —Continued In March 1979,the applicant filed suit in Chancery Court (79-1215)asking the court to find that the Montessori School proposed by the applicant be permitted under the definition of a school in the Zoning Ordinance in the"A"One Family District,which permitted "public schools, elementary and high,other educational institutions with curriculum equivalent to a public elementary school or public high school." In May 1979,the applicant filed suit in Chancery Court (79-2477)asking the court to find that the City of Little Rock was arbitrary and capricious in its action denying"D"Apartment zoning on the same property. In 1980,the City of Little Rock won a declaratory judgment in Case 79-1215,which prevented the Montessori School from being allowed "by right"in the "A"One Family District.In March 1981,the City was found not to have been arbitrary and capricious in denying "D"Apartment zoning in Case 79-2477.This decision was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court on April 12,1982.The Montessori School has operated at this location since 1977 and is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance at this time. Several years ago,a plan,never formalized,was done for the area surrounding this property.Known as the Forest Heights Plan,this plan called for the containment of nonresidential development to the area west of Polk Street and primarily south of Kavanaugh Boulevard.The problemstaffhasalwayshadwithproposalstoencroachintothis block with nonresidential uses is that a domino effect is likely to occur.The property is occupied by a single family structure virtually surrounded by other residential structures.It faces the U.S.Post Office across Kavanaugh Boulevard.All of the single family homes in the block have been restored to like new condition over the last few years, so little probability of neighborhood decline is present.Staff remains consistent in its belief that this property should remain residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant requested deferral.The Commission moved to defer the matter to the June 29 meeting.The motion passed 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent. 'I June 29,1982 Item No.5 —Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were 13 objectors.Theapplicantpresentedahistoryoftheownershipofthe property and previous applications for zoning on it.ThepetitionspresentedinZ-3848 for both sides were applicabletothiscaseaswell.All of the discussion in the previouscasealsoapplied.There was considerable discussion ofthiscase,and finally,the applicant agreed to amend hisapplicationtoarequestforaconditionalusepermitfor aday-care center in the "R-2"District.The Planning Commission moved to defer the matter to August 31st,and the motion was passed —7 ayes,1 no,1 absent,2 abstaining. June 29,1982 Item No.6 —Z-3645-A Owner:Charles and Elizabeth Menard Applicant:Phillip Kaplan Location:Southeast Corner Rodney ParhamatGreenMountainDrive Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"C-2"Shopping Center Purpose:Conformity with Existing Use Size:1 acre + Existing Use:Shopping Center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" South —Vacant,Zoned "MF-24" East —Cemetery,Zoned "R-2" West —Apartments,Zoned "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency concerning this request.This property was developedpriortoitsannexationintotheCity.It has been denied commercial zoning several times in the past.Since the last time it was considered,the property to the south has changed from commercial to residential zoning. Staff feels compelled to remain consistent with regard to the request for commercial zoning,but staff understandsthatanagreementhasbeenreachedbetweenthisproperty owner and the Pleasant Valley Property Owners'ssociation in which the Association has agreed to support the "C-2" zoning requested. As a practical matter,"C-2"zoning on this property would not make it any less nonconforming than it is at present. The lot is less than the required five acres,and the buildings do not meet the zoning setback requirements.If commercial zoning is appropriate for this property,then the proper "C-1"Neighborhood Commercial zoning should be applied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See Planning Considerations. June 29,l982 Item No.6 —Continued PLANNI G COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant had requested deferral because he would beabsentfromLittleRock.The Commission moved to defer theapplicationtotheJune29meeting.The motion passed-l0 ayes,0 noes,l absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.Theapplicantstatedthathewishedtoamendtheapplicationinlinewiththestaffcommentstoarequestfor"C-l" Neighborhood Commercial.After a brief discussion,the Commission moved to approve the application as amended,andthemotionpassed—l0 ayes,0 noes and l absent. June 29,1982 Item No.7 —Z-1470-A Owner:John R.Nesbitt Applicant:John L.Burnett Location:The 10100 Block of West MarkhamStreet(South Side) Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"0-3"General Office Purpose:Office Development Size:0.8 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Office and Residential,Zoned "0-3" South —Vacant,Zoned "0-2" East —Residential,Zoned "R-2" West —Vacant,Zoned "0-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property is included in the plat covering Corporate Hills Subdivision which was recently approved by the Planning Commission.This application conforms to the Suburban Development Plan as amended in September 1981. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. P LANN ING COMM I S S ION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were no objectors. This property is a part of the Corporate Hills Subdivision and the Planning Commission included in this request another application and comments from a previous meeting which called for the property affected by that subdivision,Lots 1 and 11 to be zoned "0-3"also.The Commission moved to approve this application and the change on the property known as Lots 1 and 11,Corporate Hill Subdivision.The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent. June 29,1982 Item No.8 —Z-3754-A Owner:Hickory Hill Partnership Applicant:Ed Willis Location:SW 1/4,SW 1/4,SE 1/4 gSection19,T-2-N,R-13-W Request:Rezone from "PRD"Planned Residential Development to"R-2"Single Family Purpose:Single Family Development Size:10 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING'- North —Vacant,Zoned "PRD" South —Residential,Zoned "R-2" East —Vacant,Zoned "PRD" West —Vacant,Zoned "PRD" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency concerning this request.This request is for the purpose of downzoning property which was reclassified to accommodate a Planned Residential Development which could not be completed due to economic conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.After a brief discussion,the Commission moved to approvetheapplicationasfiled.The motion passed —10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 29,1982 Item No.9 —Z-3844 Owner:Gerald K.Johnson Applicant:Gerald K.Johnson Location:Northeast Corner of Fairview and Fairview (See Map) Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to "MF-12"Multifamily Purpose:Multifamily Development Size:3 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-2" South —Commercial,Zoned "R-2" East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" West —Residential and Vacant,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency concerning this request.Engineering points out that rights-of-way and street improvements will be required on both streets and that both are collector streets.The Suburban Development Plan shows this area for single family development up to six units per acre.The commercial property to the south has been denied zoning in the past. The applicant states that a condominium development of about eight units per acre is planned for the property thereby necessitating the "MF-12"request.This density is necessary in order to offset the public improvements which will be required in association with the development according to the owner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "MF-6"Multifamily. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were two objectors. The applicant stated that what was intended for the property was 27 condominium units which would require an "MF-9" classification which is unavailable.He stated that the "MF-12"was the minimum district which would permit the nine units per acre proposed.The opponent,Charles Easley, June 29,1982 Item No.9 —Continued 11,600 Fairview Road,presented a petition from 36 residentsintheareaobjectingtothechangefromsinglefamily.Dr.Henley,11611 Summit Drive,also spoke in opposition tothehigherdensityproposedforthisproperty.There was alengthydiscussion,and after the discussion,the Commissionmovedtoapprove"MF-12,"and the motion failed —0 ayes,10 noes,1 absent.A second motion to approve "MF-6"Multifamily was passed —10 ayes,0 noes,and 1 absent.ThePlanningCommissionrecommends"MF-6"Multifamily zoning ontheproperty. ' June 29,1982 Item No.10 —Z-3845 Owner:Brent Tyrrell Applicant:Brent Tyrrell Location:8435 New Benton Highway Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"I-2"Light Industrial Purpose:Conformity with Existing Use Size:2.41 acres + Existing Use:GMC Truck Sales and Service SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —I-30,Zoned "R-2" South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" East —Commercial,Zoned "R-2" West —Commercial,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency concerning this request.The request is in conformance with the Suburban Development Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.After a brief discussion,the Commission moved to approvetheapplicationasfiled.The motion passed —10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 29,1982 Item No.11 —Z-3846 Owner:Midway Motor Freight Lines,Inc. Applicant:Andrew Robertson Location:8400 New Benton Highway Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"I-2"Light Industrial Purpose:Conformity with Existing Use Size:8.37 acres + Existing Use:Motor Freight Terminal SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-2" South —I-30 and Vacant,Zoned "C-3"and R-2" East —Vacant and Commercial,Zoned "R-2" West —Residential and Vacant,Zoned "R-2"and "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency concerning this request.The Suburban DevelopmentPlanshowsthisareaforstripdevelopmentwhichinthe pasthasbeeninterpretedtopermit"C-3,""C-4,"or "I-2"zoningalongtheNewBentonHighwayFrontage.This request,if approved,will make the zoning compatible with the existinglanduse.Staff is,however,concerned about therelationshipbetweenthispropertyandtheresidentialpropertiestothenorth. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as requested on all,except thenorth250'f this property. PLANNING COMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were two objectors. The applicant stated that the 250-foot buffer zone in his view was excessive and offered to provide a 50-foot buffer. The opponents,Charles Cockman of 8015 Edwena Drive and James Watson of 8013 Edwena Drive,brought petitions from 67neighborsindicatingtheiroppositiontotherequest.Thepetitionsandthespokespersonsprimarilywereconcerned with noise problems and flooding.The Planning Commissiondiscussedthismatteratsomelengthandmovedtoapprove June 29,1982 Item No.11 —Z-3846 the zoning as requested.The motion failed —0 ayes,10 noes,1 absent.In a second motion,the Planning Commission moved to approve "I-2"on the property except forthenorth250feetwhichwasrecommendedfor"OS"Open Spacezoning.The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. June 29,1982 Item No.12 —Z-3847 Owner:Waits Institutional Foods,Inc. Appl,icant:Bob Waits Location:3111-3115 Madison Street Request:Rezone from "R-3"Single Familyto"I-2"Light Industrial Purpose:Expansion of Adjacent Use Size:11,500 square feet + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-3" South —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" East —Commercial,Zoned "I-2" West —Residential,Zoned "R-3"and "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: )No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agencyconcerningthisrequest.It is expected that some neighborhood comments will be forthcoming.Neighbors are quite concerned aboutthetrucktrafficintheareaandthepotentialimpactsupontheresidentialpropertybythecontinuingencroachmentofindustrialusesintotheneighborhood. A driveway serving the dock area of the business located on Lot 10(the triangular shaped lot)crosses the property to the north which is part of this request.This drive was constructed when noprohibitionoftakingaccessacrossdifferentlyzonedpropertiesexisted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of zoning on the remainder of Lot 10 to"I-2,"but staff also recommends denial of zoning of the north lottopreventestablishmentofaprecedenttobeginjustificationoffurtherencroachmentintotheresidentialpropertytothenorth. PLANNING COMMISION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there was one objector.Thediscussioncenteredaroundanexistingdrivewaywhichwasapprovedinaccordancewithexistingregulations.After a lengthydiscussion,the Commission moved to approve the application asfiled.The motion failed —0 ayes,10 noes 1 absent.The Commission in a second motion moved to approve zoning as per thestaffrecommendationtoconvey"I-2"zoning on Lot 10 only.That motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes,and 1 absent. ~~4 June 29,1982 Item No.15 —Z-3851 Owner:Arkansas Power and Light Company Applicant:Paul Stanfield Location:Southeast Corner Alexander and Vimy Ridge Roads Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"I-2"Light Industrial Purpose:Comformity with Existing Use Size:175 acres + Existing Use:Power Substation SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Industrial,Zoned "I-3" South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" East —Residential and Vacant,Zoned "R-2" West —Residential and Vacant,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property is presently occupied by a major power station owned by the Arkansas Power and Light Company.According to Engineering estimates,about 80 percent of this propertylieswithinthe100yearfloodplain.The floodway portion which crosses the northeast corner of the property cannot befilled,but the remainder in the floodplain can be developed under the provisions of the Flood Hazard Ordinance. AP&L is presently moving many of its engineering functions from Pine Bluff to Little Rock and these will eventually be housed in a new facility being constructed on property just south of the Little Rock Port.Zoning requested on this property will enable the company to work relatively free of further use approvals for what will be storage of equipment, temporary buildings and ultimately some expansion of the present power station.The property is shown for industrial development in the Suburban Development Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval,except on those portions of the property which lie within the floodway and which should be zoned "O-S"Open Space. June 29,1982 Item No.15 —Continued PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION: The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.The applicant stated that he was amending the application to eliminate all portions of the property which were within 200feetofVimyRidgeRoad.The Commission moved to approvetheapplicationasamended.The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes,and 1 absent. I CV CV C) CV R ~0 3 oc 0 0 0 Z O m o ~z z z M 0 F4 ~~04 0 ~0 ~-~~h Sec&~5 QO hl o .."-„,„ISQJ0s-~tn 0 0 M u 4 J3 8 M M S M W 0 8 02M00WG fQ 4 0 4 '~~8 $4 4 0 N R M K M Z iX bC 4 B Ui K 4 N IX Kl N R R A IX M CO a June 29,1982 Item No.16 —Other Matters The Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposaltoamendthetextoftheZoningOrdinancetoprovidefor day-care family homes,to change the definition of day-care centers and to provide for a special use permit process. There was a brief discussion of the proposed ordinance andafterthisdiscussion,the Commission moved to approve the proposal.The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. There being no further business,the Commission moved toclosetheJunePlanningCommissionmeeting.The motion passed —10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.The meeting adjou d at .5 p. \ Chairperson Se re ary 3I I Date