Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 29 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 29, 1985 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: Members absent: City Attorney: Jerilyn Nicholson John Schelereth Richard Massie David Jones Betty Sipes Jim Summerlin Dorothy Arnett William Ketcher John Clayton Bill Rector Ida Boles Pat Benton January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Z- 3931 -D Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Royal Star Construction Co. Ronnie Hall Chicot and Bunch Roads SW Corner Rezone from "OS," "R -2," 'IMF-6,11 "MF -12" and "C -2" to "C -3" and "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and Commercial Uses 6.5 acres - "C -3" 173.5 acres - "R -7A" Vacant and golf course SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 173.5 acres to "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and 6.5 acres to "C -3." Both of the proposed "R -7A" and "C -3" areas include land that is currently zoned "OS," "R -2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C -2." The proposed site plan for the "R -7A" development has 720 lots which is approximately four units per gross acre or approximately five units per net sellable acre. The density limit for the "R -7A" district shall not be greater than 12 units per acre of net sellable land area. Currently, there is a golf course with two lakes zoned "OS" on the property which is part of the "R -7A" request, but the area is shown to be reserved for community recreation facilities. Leaving that area undeveloped does bring the density down to a more reasonable level. The property is located at the city limits in an area that is not heavily developed, and the primary use is residential on large tracts with some minor nonresidential uses. Because of the existing land use and the development pattern, a project of this size, 720 lots and its compatability with the surrounding area, may be questioned. The "R -7A" district requires that a site plan be submitted and reviewed which also has been filed for the January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued December 18 meeting. The site plan review should address the issues of compability and lot arrangement and size. 2. The site is wooded and primarily vacant. The golf course area includes a recreation building, parking areas and tennis courts. A portion of the property also includes an abandoned railroad right -of -way along the southern boundary which is currently outside the city limits. 3. As of this writing, it is unknown whether there are any right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. If additional right -of -way is needed, the plat will provide the right -of -way for both Chicot and Bunch Roads. Chicot is classified as a minor arterial and Bunch is a residential street. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. Engineering has noted that any change in the railroad embankment may allow floodplain encroachment. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979 and came into the City as "R -2." In 1982, the first rezoning application was filed for "C -3" but it was withdrawn. Then in February 1983, approximately eight acres were rezoned to "C -2" and in March of 1983, two tracts were rezoned to "MF -6" and "MF -12" and one large parcel to "OS." The multifamily rezoning did receive some opposition from nearby residents. Again in 1984, another application was filed to rezone 8.6 acres to 'IMF-24,11 but it was withdrawn at the request of the owner. This proposal was for land zoned "R -2," 'IMF-12" and "C -2." It is the staff's understanding that there is some area opposition to the "R -7A" request. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for single family development. "R -7A" zone is a single family district, but for manufactured housing. With the previous rezoning, the plan was amended to show the commercial and multifamily area. The property is located in the area that was primarily developed prior to being annexed and somewhat removed from what is considered the urbanized portion of Little Rock. January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued This does raise the question of compability because of the proposed lot sizes and the residential tracts in the immediate vicinity which are, for the most part, much larger. There has been some concern expressed over a number of units being proposed for the "R -7A" land, but with the "R -2" subdivision, the number of lots would also be significant. Staff supports the "R -7A" and "C -3" request because we believe the proposal is a reasonable use of the land. The City made an effort to encourage affordable housing by adopting the "R -7A" mobile home subdivision district and has approved some "R -7A" projects in locations with similar characteristics. The 11R -7A" district is not a mobile home park but rather a district that "provides for mobile home ownership of structure and lot for those mobile homes approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development." In addition, all mobile homes must be converted to a permanent structure by placement upon paired footings and piers or foundations to be completely enclosed and the removal of all transport elements. The plan is proposing to provide an adequate amount of open space in community areas which represents an effort to make the project appealing and livable. These open areas should remain as such and not be considered for development in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both the "R -7A" and "C -3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 18 -84) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were approximately 30 persons in attendance objecting to the request. It was pointed out that petitions were submitted prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hall spoke and indicated that the project would be phased over a period of 10 years, approximately 100 lots per year being constructed. He also stated that the lots would be for sale and the units would be 14' x 75' and placed on a slab with a carport. Darrell Brown, an attorney representing the property owners, then addressed the Commission and presented additional petitions opposed to the request. Mr. Brown said that the residents were very concerned with the proposed lot size because the existing development in the area was on at least one acre tracts and they were opposed to the "R -7A" �`` rezoning. He went on to discuss other issues such as January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued schools, inadequate police and fire protection, roads and effect on property values. Basil Butler, a property owner, described the sewer problem and discussed other issues. Ronnie Hall then stated that the proposed developers would be willing to work on the site plan because there was some flexibility with the types of unit and lot size. Darrell Brown spoke and said that he felt there was room for compromise and discussion. Bill Rudkin, another property owner, discussed property values and other issues of concern. Mr. Hall then requested that the site plan be deferred, but not the zoning action. After additional comments, a motion was made to defer both the rezoning and site plan for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. Mr. Hall agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). UPDATE: Prior to the January 29, 1985, meeting, the Wastewater Utility provided the staff with written information stating that the density and limit in the area was 6 units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 29 -85) (Items A and B were discussed at the same time.) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were a number of objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral to the February 12th meeting. Mr. Hall spoke and discussed the deferral request. Darrell Brown, Attorney representing the residents, addressed the Commission and stated that the residents were opposed to a deferral. Mr. Brown went on to say that the residents were still against the rezoning and asked the Planning Commission to act on the request. He then described some of their concerns and that the developer still had not met with the residents as suggested at the December 18, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hall spoke again and said that if the developer does not meet with the neighborhood before February 12th, that he would ask for the request to be withdrawn. Mr. Brown spoke, and there was a long discussion about the various issues. Basil Butler, a resident, said that the neighborhood had concerns with the developer and the option on the property. A motion was made to defer the request to the February 12th meeting to allow the developer to meet with the residents. The 10..-1 vote: 5 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). The motion failed due to a lack of 6 affirmative votes. Mr. Hall asked that the request be approved as filed January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued and discussed the various issues. Mr. Brown reviewed the objections of the residents, including the current development pattern in the area and possible effects on property values. He said there was also a question as to whether the proposed buyers would be able to maintain the amenities of the development. Mr. Brown went on to say that the community has been stabilizing and the proposed project could harm that. He said that there was a need for affordable housing, but there were too many uncertainties associated with this project due, in part, to the developer's failure to communicate with the neighborhood. A vote was taken on the request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent and 3 absentions (David Jones, Richard Massie and William Ketcher). The request was denied. rte; January 29, 1985 Item No. B NAME: Sugar Mill "R -7A" Site Plan Review (Z- 3931 -E) LOCATION: Southwest corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads OWNER /APPLICANT: Royal Star Construction Company/ Ronnie Hall (Garver and Garver, Inc.) PROPOSAL: To construct a planned manufactured home community which will consist of 720 lots (for sale), a 9 -hole golf course, a club house, tennis courts and parking on 154.3 acres of "R -7A" (5.7 acres of "C -3 ") in approximately 10 construction phases (12,000 feet of new street). ANALYSIS: The land use surrounding this site is mostly undeveloped and single family. The Suburban Development Plan calls for future single family attached, 6 -12 units per acre. The staff feels that this proposal would be a compatible land use and generally supports this proposal. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be clarified and resolved. The 722 proposed lots are to be developed on 140.4 net sellable acres which constitutes a density of 5.14 units per acre. 33.4 acres of land has been set aside for parks and open space. 32.8 acres will be used for street right -of -way. This proposal is well within ordinance density standards (12 units per net sellable acre). The following items need to be resolved. They are: (1) closure and abandonment of any existing dedicated streets not used in this plan; (2) the annexation of the former C.R.I. and P. Railroad right -of -way; (3) revision of the site plan to include specific dimensions of building lines and setbacks of the typical cul -de -sac layout; (4) the dedication and improvement of Chicot Road to minor arterial standards, including turning lanes into and out of the main entrance; (5) the dedication and improvement of Bunch Road to residential street standards; (6) the improvement of Coulter Lake Road to residential street standards; (7) the January 29, 1985 Item No. B - Continued construction of all other internal streets to City standards; (8) the submission of a detention plan in conjunction with the existing lake; and (9) a phasing plan for the subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) close and abandon any existing streets not used in this plan; (2) annex the former C.R.I. and P. Railroad right -of -way; (3) revise the site plan to include specific dimensions on the typical cul -de -sac layout; (4) dedicate and improve Chicot Road to minor arterial standards, including turning lanes into and out of the main entrance; (5) dedicate and construct Bunch Road to residential street standards; (6) improve Coulter Lake Road to residential street standards; (7) construct all other internal streets to City standards; (8) submit a detention plan of the existing lake; and (9) submit a phasing plan for the subdivision. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A lengthy discussion ensued over the Bunch Road street improvement requirement. The basic issue was whether or not the applicant could be required to construct a boundary street that did not adjoin his property. The City Engineer stated that the detention plan for the lakes was recommended and not required. The staff further stated that the landscape or perimeter treatment of this site was left to the Commission's discretion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 18 -84) The applicant was present as were approximately 25 objectors who were represented by Attorney Darrell Brown. There was a lengthy discussion about the site plan and the type of units to be constructed. The staff also stated that the Little Rock Wastewater Utility had commented that a sewer limit of 3.3 units per acre was in effect in this area. The applicant and Darrell Brown both agreed to a 30 -day deferral (January 29, 1985, Planning Commission meeting) to allow a discussion on the proposal between the property owners and the applicant. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, 1 absent to defer this item until the January 29, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. January 29, 1985 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 29 -85) (See Item A, Z- 3931 -D, for the complete discussion on this issue.) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, had submitted a written request for a deferral. There was a lengthy discussion on the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 12, 1985, meeting. The vote: 5 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). The motion failed. The Commission went on to discuss the request. Ronnie Hall was present. There were some objectors in attendance, and they were represented by Darrell Brown, Attorney. After a long discussion, the Commission voted on the item. The vote: 0 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent and 3 abstentions (David Jones, Richard Massie and William Ketcher). The request was denied. January 29, 1985 Item No. C - Z -4366 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Ray Vandiver Eugene Blaylock Walker at West 26th Street Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "R -4" Two Family Two Family Residences 3.6 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone two blocks of approximately 3.6 acres to "R -4" for duplexes. In addition to this land area, there is some potential for right -of -way abandonment which would increase the area available for development. The property is located in an area that is made up of primarily single family subdivisions and some vacant land. The site in question has an established subdivision to the south and east with vacant land to the north and west. The proposed "R -4" rezoning appears to be compatible with the area because it maintains the low density character of the neighborhood and there is some "R -4" zoning in place one block north of this property. This particular "R -4" parcel is currently vacant, but at West 22nd Street and Walker there is some developed "R -4" land. In addition, there are "R -4" locations to the northwest and northeast of the site. The property under consideration is relatively flat and does lend itself to some low density residential development. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. January 29, 1985 Item No. C - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has received some informational calls regarding this request. 7. The property in question is part of the Boyle Park Plan area which calls for single family use in the immediate vicinity. The site has been vacant for years and appears that single family development is not the most feasible development option for these two tracts. Staff feels that the requested rezoning is a reasonable alternative for the property because of the existing "R -4" zoning in place and the low density residential character would be maintained. It appears that other duplex projects in the vicinity have had a minimal impact on the neighborhood and with this project, it would be possible to develop the property utilizing a site plan that would reduce any potential adverse effects on the area. Considering all the circumstances, staff supports the request and believes that it is a good land use for the property without causing a great amount of disruption to the neighborhood. The plat will have to be filed prior to any development occurring. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 18 -84) The applicant, Eugene Blaylock, was present. There were two objectors present, Charles Pattison and Nancy Patton. Mr. Pattison spoke and presented a petition with 131 signatures opposed to the "R -4" request. He said that the residents had many concerns, including problems with the existing "R -4" locations and maintaining the quality of life in the "R -2" areas. He asked that the request be denied. Ms. Patton spoke about the streets in the neighborhood. She said that a petition had been submitted to the Board of Directors requesting improvements for West 28th and that the area could not accommodate additional low density development because the traffic and circulation problems. Mr. Blaylock indicated that he did not realize that there would be such strong opposition to the rezoning and that he would be willing to work with the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the request for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 29, 1985 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 29 -85) The applicant, Eugene Blaylock, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Blaylock stated that the developer had met with the residents. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to recommend approval of the rezoning. January 29, 1985 Item No. D - Z- 4081 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Jeffrey A. Jenkins Same 9215 Asher Avenue Rezone from "R -2" Single Family and "C -3" General Commercial to "C -4" Open Display Wrecker Service Size: 2.63 acres + Existing Use: Service Station and Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize some of the property for a wrecker service and storage of vehicles. This activity is to occur on the southern portion of the tract on a hillside. The Asher Avenue frontage is a service station currently in operation. The service station use on Asher Avenue is appropriate because of the development pattern associated with Asher Avenue. The storage activity of the inoperable vehicles is not compatible with the immediate vicinity and would create some adverse impacts for the area. 2. The street frontage is occupied by the service station which is a grade with Asher Avenue. Immediately behind the building the lot rises steeply for approximately 400 feet. It appears that only the north 150 to 200 feet adjacent to Asher is usable for commercial space. 3. The State Highway #5 (Asher Avenue and Stagecoach Road) is classified as a principal arterial and the recommended right -of -way is 100 feet. The existing right -of -way is deficient on both streets, so dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary. i, January 29, 1985 Item D - Continued - Z- 4081 -A 4. Engineering staff has indicated that street improvements will be required for State Highway #5. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. In September 1983, the applicant requested rezoning to "C -4" on the same piece of land. The proposed use was a used car lot and the request was a result of an enforcement action. At that time, staff recommended that only a 200 -foot depth off Asher be rezoned. The Planning Commission recommended approval of "the north 200 feet only along the Asher Avenue frontage and the balance of the tract including the Stagecoach Road frontage remain "R -2" Single Family." The Board of Directors has yet to act on the application because with the previous request the owner stated that he would not dedicate the needed right -of -way. The item is now before the Board of Directors because the applicant has agreed to dedicate the right -of -way along the Asher frontage. The Board of Directors action is to only be on that portion of the tract recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1983. It is the staff's understanding that the necessary easement deeds for the right -of -way has not been submitted to the City. With this request, the applicant has agreed to dedicating additional right -of -way. (This application is for the remainder of the property.) 7. Staff's position on this request is the same as the previous case. Asher Avenue is an arterial and is an appropriate location for a "C -4" use, but staff cannot support the balance of the site being rezoned to "C -4." The storage of vehicles is an undesirable use, especially along a hillside and could cause problems for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed for the balance of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7- 24 -84) The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 28, 1984, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 29, 1985 Item D - Continued - Z- 4081 -A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 28 -84) The applicant was not present. Because of the applicant's failure to appear at two public hearings, staff recommends that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. A motion was made to withdraw the request. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Note: Since this item was last on the Planning Commission's agenda, the applicant /owner has made some modifications to the site south of the existing service station. In addition, the applicant /owner has provided staff with some new information regarding the work that has taken place on the site and wishes this to be incorporated into the staff's review of the zoning request at this time. Staff will present this information at a public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 29 -85) The applicant was represented by Bob Bland. There were no objectors present. Staff updated the Commission and made a recommendation for a "C -4" depth of 300 feet off of Asher Avenue. This was a modification of the staff's previous position of supporting only 200 feet. Mr. Bland spoke and discussed the various issues. There were a number of questions concerning the numerous violations associated with the property. The Planning Commission pointed out that the rezoning will only legalize the use and the owner will still have to pave the lot, landscape the area and remove a mobile home that is currently functioning as an office. The Commission went on to strongly recommend to the City Zoning Office that they continue to pursue the enforcement of all violations until the owner is in compliance. There was a long discussion about the various problems. A vote was taken to recommend approval of the "C -4" rezoning for a depth of 300 feet off of Asher Avenue. The vote: 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. The request was approved. �o—� January 29, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z- 3371 -B Owner: Landagco, Inc. Applicant: Stephen L. Haynes /Garver & Garver Location: I -430 and Colonel Glenn Road, northeast corner Request: Rezone from "MF -12" and "0 -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Retail Size: 11.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned 'IMF-1211 and "0 -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "C -2" and "C -3" East - Vacant, Unclassified and "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "0-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 11.0 acres in the northeast quadrant of the I -430 and Colonel Glenn interchange for retail /commercial use. A preliminary site plan for the property shows a development pattern with individual buildings and parking areas. In addition to the concept for a majority of this site, the proposed rezoning is to also provide parking for a commercial project on the 10 acres to the south, zoned "C -2." The plan identifies a single building with a large parking lot. Some of this parking is on land being considered for rezoning with this request, approximately the southern 100 feet of the 11.0 acres. At this interchange, a majority of the land that is currently in the City limits is zoned for commercial development, "C -2." Some of the property is under development and other areas are vacant. It appears that some additional land for commercial rezoning is appropriate, provided it is to accommodate the needs of a real project or has commercial potential with high visibility, etc. January 29, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued 2. The site is vacant and wooded. The property's low point is along the south side and increases in elevation approximately 50 feet from south to north. The tract currently has no street access or frontage. 3. The Master Street Plan shows a proposed collector bisecting the property in question and intersecting Colonel Glenn Road on the east side of the "C -2" tract to the south. Dedication of right-of-way will be required for the collector. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. The access plan shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed in 1979, and came into the City as "R -2." In 1981 or 1982, the site was rezoned to "MF -12," then in late 1983 an application was filed to rezone approximately 65 acres, including this tract, for office development. The City approved an amended request to create a mix of "MF -12" and "0-2." The property in question was rezoned to 110-2" at that time. 7. This particular area is part of the I -430 District Plan which was adopted in 1983. That plan identifies this location for suburban office development and, for the most part, reflects the existing zoning in the area. On the east side of I -430, the plan shows commercial use for land north of Colonel Glenn to the existing commercial ( "C -2" and "C -3 ") zoning line. Staff's previous position on the "0-2" request was one of nonsupport until a need was identified and a plan was developed. Staff did, in turn, support the rezoning as approved. Regarding the current request, staff's position is basically same, and that is to recommend rezoning to accommodate the needs of a real project. Because the only definite project at this time is the development for the 10 -acre tract to the south, staff recommends that approximately the south 100 feet of the 11.0 acre site be rezoned to "C -2" and not "C -3" as requested. This should allow the large commercial project to proceed and "C -2" is the predominant classification in the area. The "C -2" will provide site plan review and create a unified "C -2" January 29, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued tract. For the remainder of the 11 acres, staff would like to see some more specifics, a preliminary plat, before making a commitment to a commmercial rezoning. Because of the property's location and relationship to the interstate, the site appears to be suitable for some additional commercial development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a 100 -foot strip north of the existing "C -2" line be rezoned at this time to "C -2" and not "C -3" as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. Also present was Bill Hastings of RPM. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Hastings spoke and discussed the "C -3" request. He said that "C -3" was the proper zoning because of the typography and other land features. Richard Wood addressed the staff's position which supported "C -2" for the property to a proposed collector and a PCD for the balance. Mr. Hastings said that there were problems with the "C -2" reclassification because of the 40 -foot setback and that they could not commit to a PCD because there were no definite plans. Currently, they are just trying to market the property. There was a long discussion by the Commission. Staff pointed out that the applicant had submitted a letter amending the application to "C -2" for a 105 -foot strip (1.81 acres) north of the existing "C -2" line and "C -3" for the remainder of the property in question. The Commision then voted on the request as amended to "C -2" and "C -3." The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. January 29, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z- 3740 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Charles T. and Elizabeth Saugey Eliabeth Saugey 14825 Cantrell Road (West of Taylor Loop Road) Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -3" General Commercial Antique Shop 1.1 acre + Antique Shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The requested rezoning is from "R -2" to "C -3" to establish a conforming use on the property because there is an antique shop on it now. The existing use will continue. The site is in the vicinity of Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road intersection which has recently been identified as a commercial location along the Highway 10 corridor. The City recently, in late 1984, amended the Suburban Development Plan to show the Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road intersection for neighborhood commercial uses. This includes land on the north and south sides of Highway 10 with the property in question being within the designated area. Prior to that action, the property was identified for multifamily development. The requested rezoning is compatible with the immediate vicinity because of the plan and some of the existing uses. This section of Highway 10 has a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. rte, January 29, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued 2. The site is vacant and occupied with a single family residence and accessory structure. 3. The survey of the property shows 30 feet of right -of -way from the centerline for Highway 10. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary to meet the standards for an arterial. Required right -of -way dedication is 50 feet from the centerline. Boundary street improvements are also required for Highway 10. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The neighborhood's position relative to rezoning changes in this area is well documented. The property was annexed to the City in 1978. In 1981, a rezoning application was filed for "C -3." The request was supported by the Planning Commission but denied by the Board of Directors. At the Planning Commission Public Hearing, residents spoke both in favor of and against the request. Also, a petition was submitted supporting the rezoning in 1981. 7. Because of the recent amendment to the Suburban Development Plan identifying the intersection for commercial use, the staff supports the request to 11C -3." It should be pointed that outdoor display is not permitted in "C -3" and, if that is occurring on the site now, it will continue to be a nonconforming use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Betty Saugey, was present. There were three objectors present. Staff stated for the record that two letters had been submitted in opposition to the request. Ms. Saugey spoke briefly and supported the rezoning. Dr. Robert McGrew spoke in opposition and said he was concerned with traffic flow and the future development along Highway 10. There was a long discussion about the Highway 10 corridor and the plan. Phyllis McGrew addressed the Commission and said she was opposed to the rezoning. She questioned the location of commercial nodes along January 29, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued Highway 10 and their appropriateness. After additional comments, the Commission voted on the "C -3" request as filed. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (William Ketcher). The request was approved. January 29, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z -4378 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ralph Wright Same 13401 California Lane (north of County Line Road and east of Vimy Ridge Road) Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "AF" Agriculture and Forestry Tree Farm 5.0 acres + Single family residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant (Saline County) East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the tract of land to "AF" Agriculture and Forestry to permit a tree farm. The zoning ordinance states that the "AF" district "is intended to provide a smooth transition between purely rural areas and urbanized areas, allowing flexibility adequate to permit reasonable absorption of land use types typically found in the urban fringe. It is the purpose of the district to provide a usable zoning definition and to provide for certain compatible land uses during the interim period between annexation and final determination of the proper zoning districts for ultimate development of the area annexed." The development criteria for the "AF" district does limit on premise sales to agricultural products produced on the owner's farm or garden. It appears that the proposed use and location being at the county line are very much in keeping with the intent of the "AF" district. The rezoning and use should not have any adverse impacts on the surrounding area which is either vacant or single family residential on large tracts. January 29, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 2. The site is flat with one single family residential structure on it. 3. County Line Road is classified as arterial on the Master Street Plan. The existing right -of -way of 50 feet is deficient, so dedication of an additional right -of -way will be required to meet the necessary standards. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. (Boundary street improvements will be required in the future when the "AF" tract is rezoned.) 5. There are no apparent legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. This tract is in the Otter Creek District Plan Area, which is in the preliminary draft stage. The Otter Creek Plan identifies the general area for continued �. single family residential use with the commercial and multifamily uses at the intersection of Vimy Ridge and County Line Road. It is anticipated that single family development on either large tracts or subdivisions will continue for the foreseeable future, and the proposed rezoning and use are compatible with that type of development pattern. Considering the location, a tree farm is a very suitable use and should have very little consequence on the immediate vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. January 29, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z -4382 Owner: Arthur Robinson Applicant: Earl Trice Location: 4401 West 19th Street (at Peyton) Request: Rezone from "R -3" Single Family to "0 -3" General Office Purpose: "Lodge" Size: 8,000 square feet Existing Use: Single Family Residence 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 rezone a single famliy residential lot to "0 -3" to permit a meeting place for a group of individuals. At this time, the exact status of this group is unknown, and recent conversations with the applicant have not clarified the issue. When the application was filed, staff determined, based on discussions with the applicant, that "0 -3" would be the needed district because of a "lodge" being listed as a permitted use. A "lodge" seemed to be the use described by the applicant, and a majority of the proposed users of the facility are union members. The definition of a lodge is "a private nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to promote the fellowship of its members and may conduct business associated with philanthropy or civic awareness." One of the main objectives of this group is to promote fellowship, but it is not an organized /chartered body. Whatever the use is determined to be, it does not appear to be appropriate for the neighborhood. There is some commercial zoning in the immediate area, but those lots are either vacant or occupied by single family residences. There is no nonresidential use in this immediate neighborhood, and the commercial zoning is misplaced. The proposed use could have a negative January 29, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued impact on the neighborhood because of the number of people involved, up to 40. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one single family structure on it. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this case. 4. The Engineering staff has reported: 1. Boundary street improvements for three streets. 2. Parking and access should be addressed. There have been no other comments received. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. This particular location is part of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which was adopted in 1980. The plan shows only single family use in the area, and does not recognize the commercial zoning at West 20th and Washington. Staff does not support the request because of the potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood and the use not being compatible with the surrounding area. Staff would not support any nonresidential zoning for the property in question. There are other concerns such as providing adequate access and meeting the parking requirements. A residential lot normally cannot meet the parking needs of the proposed use. This location, West 19th and Peyton, is just not suited for a lodge use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Because of this and some confusion associated with the request, staff recommended that the item be deferred. There were four objectors in attendance and requested to be heard. Ms. 0. Halbert, a 11�, January 29, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued resident on West 19th, spoke in opposition to the request. Another person from the immediate neighborhood stated that she was against the rezoning. After some additional comments, the Planning Commission voted on the request. The vote: 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The rezoning was denied. January 29, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z -43.83 Owner: Roy K. and Ruth G. Smith Applicant: Same by Douglas B. Ward Location: Alexander and Sardis Road, southwest corner Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Convenience food store with gas pumps Size: 4.38 acres + Existing Use: Convenience food store with gas pumps SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C -2" South - Vacant, Unclassified East - Single Family, Unclassified West - Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone a tract of land at the southwest corner of Alexander Road and Sardis Road for an existing convenience store and car wash. The property was occupied by the current use prior to it being annexed into the City, which occurred in December 1984. When this application was first filed, it was the applicant's understanding that the owner had annexed the entire ownership of 4.38 acres, but that was not the case. The rezoning survey provided to the staff was for the 4.38 acres and that is what the accompanying sketch reflects. The site is located in the area with single family units on large tracts with some nonresidential use to the south on Sardis Road. At the northwest corner of the intersection, there is a large vacant "C -2" tract. Alexander Road and Sardis Road are both shown as arterials, so the intersection of these two streets is a logical location for a commercial rezoning and development. Because the use is already in place, it appears that the rezoning will have a minimal impact on the surrounding area. January 29, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 2. The site is flat and occupied by a commercial structure with gas pumps and a car wash. The majority of the tract is paved. 3. Both Alexander Road and Sardis Road are identified in the Master Street Plan as arterials. The existing right -of -ways are deficient, so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. Because of being at the intersection, the amount of right -of -way will have to be determined by the Engineering staff. Other related issues are the future alignment of the south loop (I -430 extension) and associated right -of -way needs in the area. 4. The City Engineer has requested a 60 -day deferral due to the south loop location at this intersection. The applicant should meet with the City Engineer immediately. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position. Staff has received some informational calls regarding the case. The property was annexed to the City in December 1984. 7. The site is part of an area covered by the Otter Creek District Plan. This plan is still in the preliminary draft stage, but it does identify the property in question for commercial use. The commercial designation is shown for only that portion of the ownership that is currently in the City limits. Staff's position is to support the rezoning for the developed tract inside the City limits and address the remainder of the property at a future date, because it is part of the referendum area. Also, that piece is vacant, and there is no proposed use for it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" for that portion of the property currently in the City limits with development on it. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant /owner was represented by Doug Ward, Attorney. There were no objectors present. Mr. Ward said that the January 29, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued car wash was outside the City limits and that the owner was prepared to annex the remainder of the property. Staff stated that the balance of the property outside the City was in conflict with the Otter Creek Plan. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended application to rezone only that portion of the property currently in the City limits to "C -3." The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. January 29, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z -4386 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Lloyd W. Vaught Same 14711 Cantrell Road (east of Taylor Loop Road) Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -3" General Commercial Family Medical Clinic and Restaurant 1.0 acre Grocery Store SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Church, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This property is the location of the existing Country Store on Highway 10 just east of Taylor Loop Road. The proposal is to rezone the site to "C -3" to allow a medical clinic and a commercial use. The existing store has been in place for a number of years and has been a nonconforming use since being annexed into the City in 1979. Being located on an arterial in an area where there are other nonresidential uses, the proposal appears to be appropriate for the site. The property is directly across Highway 10 from a "C -3" tract. The rezoning of the property in question should have very little impact, if any, on the surrounding neighborhood. The site is approximately one acre in size, and future expansion or new construction should not present any problems. 2. The site is flat and has three structures on it. 3. Engineering reports that 50 feet of right -of -way from the centerline and boundary street improvements will be required for Highway 10. January 29, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued 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. The neighborhood's position on commercial rezonings in the area is well documented. Staff has not received any comments regarding this specific request. With previous proposals, there have been peititons both in support and against commercial zonings in the area. 7. The property is covered by the Suburban Development Plan which was amended by the City Board of Directors in November 1984, to identify the intersection of Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road for commercial development. The property in question is the eastern boundary of that commercial node. Because of the recent amendment, staff supports the request. The Suburban Development Plan initially showed the area for commercial use, but was amended to multifamily when the commercial location was adjusted further to the east to accommodate rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Lloyd Vaught, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Vaught spoke briefly about the request. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. January 29, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z -4388 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Mrs. Lee V. Garrett Systems Management Development Corporation West Baseline Road west of Highway 5 Rezone from "R -2" to "MF -12" Multifamily 37.5 acres Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "MF -24" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 37.5 acres for multifamily development. The tract has approximately 959 feet of frontage along West Baseline Road, and is located about .3 miles west of Highway 5 (Stagecoach Road). The frontage dimension excludes the lot which is not part of the rezoning application. The property is located in the area of Southwest Little Rock that is experiencing some major land use changes. This is due, in part, to the development occurring in close proximity of the I -30 /I -430 interchange and a large sewer improvement district that is placing some pressures on landowners. The activity in the immediate vicinity has included the City rezoning of a 5 -acre tract to "C -2" at the southwest corner of West Baseline and Highway 5 and the Planning Commission recommending approval of a 9 -acre "C -3" tract at the southeast corner of the same intersection and 3 acres of "0-2" on Highway 5 and approximately 40 acres of "MF -6, 12 and 18" south of West Baseline on Highway 5. The southeast corner of the property in question abuts some of the proposed "MF -12" tract. Because of these recent changes in land use in the area, it appears that some multifamily development on the site is appropriate. January 29, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued Also, with the extensive frontage on West Baseline and the size of the property, a portion of it is suited for multifamily use. 2. The site is flat and mostly vacant. There are some single family residences along Baseline Road. The most unique feature of the propery is that it has a grass runway (airfield). Also, there is a 50 -foot gas easement along the east boundary. 3. Baseline Road is classified as an arterial on the Master Street Plan. The existing right -of -way is deficient, so dedication of 50 feet from the centerline will be required and boundary street improvements for Baseline. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no apparent legal issues. 6. The property was annexed into the City in 1979. With �- the recent multifamily rezoning request on the west side of Highway 5 /Stagecoach Road, south of this site, there was some opposition from the Otter Creek neighborhood. That application was amended to reflect the concerns of the residents. Staff has only received informational calls regarding this case. 7. The property is located in the Otter Creek District Plan Area, but the preliminary draft of the plan does not identify the site for multifamily use. Staff feels that rezoning some of the land to a multifamily classification is appropriate because of the location. To the west there is a tract of land approximately 14 acres zoned "MF -24" and the area to the east of the site is shown on the Otter Creek Plan for multifamily development. Also, land to the south and southeast of the property in question was recently recommended for multifamily rezoning by the Planning Commission. The area is suitable for multifamily development if a reasonable density is maintained, such as "MF -12." Staff does recommend that only approximately the north 570 feet be rezoned to "MF -12" at this time. This dimension is equal to the depth of the "MF -24" property to the west and establishes a reasonable multifamily zoning line along Baseline Road in this immediate area. i--� This recommendation is similar to the staff's position January 29, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued on the recent rezoning to the south and southeast. Staff feels that at this time it is appropriate to maintain "R -2" zoning adjacent to the existing "R -2 ", specifically the Otter Creek Community. The recent rezoning request to the south was amended to keep a substantial "R -2" tract, and that concept should be applied to this property. In the future, if a real project is proposed for the rear portion of the site, a PRD should be utilized or a reduction in the density be considered. (Staff strongly suggests that an effort be made to include the outparcel in the proposed development for the larger tract.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "MF -12" for the north portion of the property with a depth from Baseline Road equal to the "MF -24" zoning that abuts this tract on the west side. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Don Chambers. There were no objectors. Mr. Chambers discussed the "MF -12" proposal and said it was a logical location for multifamily development. He then went on to present two alternative zoning plans addressing the staff's concerns. The first option had 34 acres of "MF -12" and approximately 3.5 acres of "R -2" in the southwest corner of the tract. The second option had the tract split between "MF -12" on the front portion and "MF -6" to the rear with an 80 -foot "OS" strip adjacent to Otter Creek and the south property line. Staff indicated their support for the second option. The depth for the "MF -12" in option 2 would be approximately 560 feet, equal to the existing "MF -24" line on the west side. There was a lengthy discussion about the options. The applicant agreed to amending the application to "OS", "MF -6" and 'IMF-12." The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amended application. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 11 . January 29, 1985 Item No. 8 - Highway 10 Land Use Plan The Highway 10 Study Committee which was formed by the City Board of Directors in April 1984, has formulated a land use plan for Highway 10 from Rodney Parham to Pankey. The plan has been reviewed by the Plans and Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission. The Plans Committee recommended the following changes to the plan approved by the Highway 10 Study Committee: 1. Amend the plan from the PUD overl plan review district overlay with that the developer has the option desires. 2. The developer needs to give staff which 12 acres they wish the plan commercial. ay zone to the site the understanding of going PUD if he a drawing showing to show as 3. The Committee agrees that "MF -12" density would be appropriate for the Winrock multifamily site shown north of Highway 10. 4. The Committee recommended that the rezoning request (those properties which will be rezoned at the time of the street improvements) should be considered at the same time as the land use plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jim Lawson made a brief presentation of the Highway 10 plan. He mentioned that the plan has been revised several times since its original draft. One major change he mentioned was the changing from a PUD overlay zone to a site plan review district overlay. Jim further explained that the staff was opposed to the commercial /office layout on the south side of Highway 10 along the Southridge intersection. The opposition was based upon the amount of the commercial and its layout. He explained that the staff, the Highway 10 Study Committee and the Plans Committee had agreed to only 12 acres of commercial and not the total of 14 acres shown on the plan. Jim also stated that he felt the area west of Pleasant Ridge Drive would either be commercial or office, but not both. He felt that splitting the tract would not provide enough land area for a carefully planned development. January 29, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued Chris Barrier stated that there had always been confusion concerning the amount of acreage agreed to by the Highway 10 Study Committee. He felt that his total of 13 commercial acres (total of 14 would be including the Majik Market site) is what everyone had agreed to. He felt that the agreement was for four more acres of commercial and not for a specific total acreage as identified by the staff. Commissioner Massie said there was no confusion over the amount, and that it was a total of 12 acres. He then read from the October 24, 1984, Highway 10 Study Committee minutes which stated ... "Richard Massie then proposed an amendment to the motion. His amendment involved the creation of a total of 12 acres of commercial including the three acres now occupied by the Majik Market, cleaners and liquor store. His amendment would allow the developer to decide how his 12 acres would be allocated. He would retain the five acres west of Pleasant Ridge and have an additional four acres south and east of the existing commercial or the total 12 acres could be located east of Pleasant Ridge Road ...' J.D. Crockett, President of the Walton Heights /Candlewood Property Owners Association, read a prepared statement into the record. His statement in full is attached. After some further discussion, David Jones moved that the Highway 10 Plan be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval with the 12 acres commercial /office dispute to be resolved next month when the rezoning applications would be presented. The motion was seconded and approved by a 9 -0 -2 vote. TO: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BOARD OF DIRECTORS WH /CWHOA On Monday, January 14, 1985, the Board of Directors of the WHCHOA met with a quorum present. After a thorough discussion of the issue, the following motion was passed with a vote of 5 for and 1 against. "The Board of Directors of the Walton Heights Candlewood Homeowners Association will not oppose the realignment of Southridge to Pleasant Ridge at Highway 10 with the "Approp- riate Signalization" if there are no non - residential curb cuts onto Southridge and if there is an "Attractive Land- scaped Entrance" to the Walton Heights Candlewood sub- division. In addition, there would be a single lane of the present entrance remaining to allow access to Walton Heights Candle - wood and Highway 10 for the fire department and emergency vehicles. "Appropriate Signalization" would include controlled left turns, controls for pedestrian traffic and right turn lane westbound into Southridge. "Attractive Landscaped Entrance" would include a brick wall with the name Walton Heights on it on the north side of Highway 10 on the west side of Southridge and plantings approved by the Walton Heights Candlewood Beautification Committee ". For the Board, d. o. D. CROCKETT, PRESIDENT MINUTES PLANS AND ZONING COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1985 Members Present: Richard Massie, Former Chairperson David Jones, Chairperson Jerilyn Nicholson Staff: Jim Lawson Richard Wood Guests: Tom Wilkes Ron Tyne J.D. Crockett Don Snow Highway 10 Plan Jim Lawson gave a brief discussion on some of the elements of the Highway 10 plan approved by the Highway 10 Study Committee. He pointed out that there has been some concern expressed over the commercial designation west of Woodland Heights Road and east of the Pleasant Forest Subdivision. It was felt by staff and members of the Study Committee that this commercial designation was an oversight. Jim explained that several of the previous plan options had this tract as office. The Plans and Zoning Committee agreed that office was reasonable on this site. The Committee also recommended that the office designation should be carried south to Pleasant Forest Drive. Jim explained that one major unresolved issue was how the developers could construct the realignment and signalization of Southridge and be assured by the City that their future rezoning request would be granted. The developers want to construct a street immediately, but because of the PUD overlay, the rezoning could only be granted when a specific development could be reviewed and approved. Site Plan Review Several members of the Committee felt that a site plan review requirement instead of the PUD overlay zone might be appropriate. Chairperson Jones felt that the PUD might be over restrictive. He wasn't sure the PUD would benefit the community any more than the present zoning districts. He saw the site plan review districts as handling many of the concerns raised by neighborhood residents and the Planning Commission. Options A and B The Committee discussed the plan's proposed commercial options A and B in light of elimination of the PUD overlay zone. With specific rezoning allowed under the site plan review district, several Committee members felt that developers must specify which tracts should be commercial and which should be office. The floating aspect of the Highway 10 Study Committee Plan was allowed originally because no rezoning could be accomplished at the adoption of the Plan. Commercial Densit Chris Barrier explained that the developers wanted to expand the 12 commercial acres as agreed to by the Study Committee. Chris explained that they would not increase the square footage of the proposed structure but wanted more land to give better siting, parking, landscaping and buffering. David Jones and others felt that it was inappropriate to expand the acreage at this time. The point was made that when a development plan is decided upon some years in the -� future, the developer can make this expanded acreage request to the City. Plans Committee Recommendation After some discussion, the Plans Committee agreed to forward the following specific recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1. Amend the plan from the PUD overlay zone to the site plan review district overlay with the understanding that the developer has the option of going PUD if he desires. 2. The developers need to give staff a drawing showing which 12 acres they wish the plan to show as commercial. 3. The Committee agrees that "MF -12" density would be appropriate for the Winrock multifamily site shown north of Highway 10. 4. The Committee recommended that the rezoning request (those properties which will be rezoned at the time of ,-- the street improvements) should be considered at the same time as the land use plan. January 29, 1985 Item No. 9 Master Street Plan Amendment - Principal arterial I- 430/I -30 Interchange to U.S. 65/167 and to downgrade County Line Road to minor arterial. PATS has adopted a new principal arterial from the I- 430/I -30 Interchange, east to the U.S. 65/167 Highway. This alignment will give Little Rock a south loop arterial. Studies completed by the State Highway Department and Metroplan indicate that there is a current demand for this traffic movement and this demand will increase in the future. The PATS plan also recommends that County Line Road.be downgraded from a principal arterial to a minor arterial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission discussed the street plan change. Jim Lawson suggested that the item be deferred until the 29th meeting because some landowners had been incorrectly told that the public hearing was to be on the 29th instead of the 22nd. No one was present to discuss the change. The Commission voted to defer the item until the 29th of January (11 ayes, 0 noes). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 29 -85) Jim Lawson and Don McChesney presented the South Loop Corridor alignment. There were no objectors present at the meeting. Jim Lawson expressed some concern over the Master Street Plan for the entire Otter Creek District Plan area. He felt that the South Loop would serve the area well, but was concerned with Alexander Road, Vimy Ridge, Sardis and the other arterials. He felt a comprehensive study of the area was necessary. He recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution asking PATS to restudy the street plan layout for the Otter Creek area. Don McChesney felt that PATS was not the body to deal with the City's traffic circulation problems. He stated that the City staff could "get it on." The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to recommend to the Board of Directors the adoption of the South Loop and the downgrading of County Line Road from a principal to a minor arterial as well as studying the traffic needs for the entire district area. January 29, 1985 There being no further business before the Commission, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. S Ch i per V- 114_, Sec etary Date -��