Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_07 30 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD JULY 30, 1985 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum II. A quorum was present being nine in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the previous meeting were approved asmailed. III.Members Present:Jerilyn Nicholson William Ketcher Richard Massie Bill Rector Members Absent: City Attorney: John Clayton Dorothy Arnett Betty Sipes John Schlereth Jim Summerlin David Jones Ida Boles Pat Benton -- July 30, 1985 Item No. A -Z-3592-C Owner: Dr. W. Wise Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: South of Kanis and East of Bowman Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "MF-6" to "MF-12," "MF-18" and "O-3" Purpose: Multifamily and Office 100 acres + Size: Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: -Mixed, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"North South East West -Vacant and Office, Zoned "O-2" and "O-3"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal before the Planning Co mmission is torezone a portion of a 10 0-acre site west of theexisting Koger Executive Centre for office andmultifamily development. There are four parcels thatinvolve the following acreage: Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D "R-2" to "O-3 11 "MF-6" to "MF-18" "R-2" to "MF-12" "R-2 to "MF-12" 5.6 acres 21. 1 acres12.5 acres31.1 acres {The parcel designations correspond to those on the accompanying zoning sketch.) The site is situated in a section of west Little Rock, the I-430 Corridor, that is experiencing significant growth and development. This is created in part by the area's accessibility to the interstate system and the general location. The primary land use is still residential with a majority of the land being zoned "R-2." This is due to some of the area just recently coming into the City as part of the referendum area. Along both Kanis and Bowman Roads, the land use pattern is more mixed with nonconforming office and commercial uses. The most significant rezoning change that has occurred in July 30, 1985 Item No. A -Continued the immediate area is directly to the east of the property in question and involves large tracts zoned "O-2," 11 0-3" and "C-2." Development is taking place onthe "O-2" parcel, but there are sites still vacant. There are no significant multifamily projects in the area, but two developments were recently approved by the City. One is east of I-430 and the second one is to the northwest of the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads. 2.The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The propertydoes have some significant topography on it withcertain locations increasing in elevation between 60and 90 feet. 3.The Master Street Plan identifies three new collectorsthrough the vicinity, so dedication of right-of-way forthose streets will be required. One is an extension ofthe existing Executive Centre Drive that will connectwith Bowman Road. Another collector is proposed to tieinto Hickory Hill and a third one is located along theeast side of the property in question. Dedication ofright-of-way will also be required for both Kanis andBowman Roads. 4. No adverse comments have been reported by the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. Some of the property was recently annexed into the City through the annexation referendum that was upheld by the State Supreme Court. 7.Staff's position is one of general support for theproposed concept with the exception of the zoningrequest to "MF-li" for Parcel D. The I-430 Pl an doesnot identify that tract for multifamily development,and the multifamily line should remain to the north asshown on the plan. If a multifamily project isproposed in the future, staff feels that a "PRO" ismore appropriate for this particular site. Staffsupports "O-3" for Parcel A as requested but recommends"MF-12" not "MF-18" for Parcel B and "MF-6" forParcel C. "MF-12" should be the maximum densityallowed for this area. The stepping down of densitieshas been utilized in other locations when there is asingle family subdivision in close proximity. July 30, 1985 Item No. A -Continued This zoning pattern will maintain the I-430 Plan for the most part. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends approval of the "O-3" request as filed, "MF-12" for Parcel B and "MF-6" for Parcel C. At this time, staff recommends denial of "MF-12" for Parcel D. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Planning Commission that a written request for a 30-day deferral had been submitted. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 30, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The applicant submitted a request for a second deferral of this matter. The Commission was advised by staff that the owner had failed to mail notices to adjacent property owners as required. The Commission voted unanimously to defer this case to the August 27, 1985, he aring. The vote 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. B -Z-4465 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Richard Ea sterly Truman Ball 3023 Ware (West 31st Stre et and Ware -Northeast Corner) Rezone from "R-2" to "R-4" Duplex 0.16 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East west -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request before the Planning Commission is to rezonea single lot for a duplex. The property is locatedwest of University Avenue and north of As her in an areathat is primarily single family with a scattering ofduplexes,to the north and south. The existing duplexesare all nonconforming. Other land uses in theimmediate vicinity also include churches and twoschools to the south on West 32nd. The zoning is all"R-2" with the exception of a five-block "R-3" pocketto the east. The area appears to be stable, and theproperties are well maintained for the most part, whichusually indicates a high percentage of owner occupiedunits. The primary issues with this request are theappropriateness of rezoning a single lot and thepotential effect on the other properties in theneighborhood. 2.The site is a typical 50-foot residential lot and isvacant. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues involved with this request. July 30, 1985 Item No. B -Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this wr iting. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position or historyon the site. 7.The rezoning, if granted, would cr eate a sp ot zoning,and staff could not su pport that type of zoningpattern. Because of that and the Boyle Park Plan which identifies the area for continued single family use, staff is opposed to the re zoning request. The zoning has been ma intained over the years, and approving this "R-4" req uest would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood being the first non-single family rezoning. Undesirable precedent could be set by approving the change, and it could have a disrup tive influ ence over the ne ighborhood. Another concern that staff has is the width of the lot -50 feet. The Zoning Ordinance does recommend that an "R-4" lot not be less than 70 feet which staff feels is an adequate width. The SO-f oot width appears to be too narrow, but because of this being a previously platted lo t, a rezoning action can take place on it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-4" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item ne eded to be deferred because of the required notification of property owners had not been completed. A motion to defer the re quest to the July 30, 1985, meeting was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: {7-30-85) This applicant remains uncertain about the continuation of this petition. A deferral was requested un til August 27th with the thought that the owner may wit hdraw this application in its entirety and pursu e other uses. The Commission voted unanimously to defer the application to the August 27, 1985, agenda. The vote -7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. C -Z-4462 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: O.F. and Verbal Alexander L.J. Carter 13,015 Stacy Drive Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Retail 0.68 acres + Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family & Office, Zoned "R-2" & "0-3"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Industrial, Zoned "O-3"-Multifamily, Zoned "MF-18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to"C-3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retailbusiness. The site is located on a block south of WestMarkham Street in the Rock Cr eek Parkway area. Bothland use and zoning patterns are very mixed in thearea. The zoning includes "R-2," "MF-18," "O-3" and"C-3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the"C-3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconformingindustrial use to the east. Because of the highpercentage of land zoned "C-3" in the area, the needfor rezoning additional properties to "C-3" can bequestioned. The site appears to be better suited forcontinued residential use. 2.The site is flat and occupied by a single familyresidence. 3.Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as acollector on the Ma ster Street Plan, so dedication ofadditional right-of-way may be required. There are noMaster Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. July 30, 1985 Item No. C -Continued s. 6. 7. There are no legal issues. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. Staff's position is that the location is inappropriate for a "C-3" rezoning and opposes the request. This opposition to the reclassification is supported by the Suburban Development Plan, which shows the area for single family development. The majority of the property zoned "C-3" in the immediate area is north of West Markham and that appears to be a logical division between residential and nonresidential zoning. Some of the office and commercial zoning that was granted south of West Markham was done over the objections of the staff and in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The existing "C-3" zoning to the east was approved to accommodate a nonconforming use and now is being used for industrial purposes as is a majority of the "O-3" property south of Stacy if it was extended east of Gamble Road. Recently, the Planning Commission denied a "C-3" request for the "O-3" property to the east. No action was ever taken by the Bo ard of Directors. There was significant neighborhood opposition to that request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: St aff recommends denial of the "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION: (6-25-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the request and said that the area was no longer desirable for residential use. Tate Roberts, a contractor, discussed the proposal. There was a long discussion about the request and the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with staff to clarify various issues. · The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-85) The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, engineer. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff spoke and discussed some possible plan amendments for the area. He said that the staff had developed four options ·.,.___,, July 30, 1985 Item No. C -Continued which showed various land use mi xes of multi family, commercial and office. Mr. Lawson said th at staff recommended the plan option which showed commercial development to be kept north of West Markham. Because of this, he said that staff could only su pport an office reclas sification for the property in question. Mr. Davis then spoke. He questioned the Planning Commission and the staff as to whether the applicant's proposed use could fit into an office classification. There was a long discussion about the use and the appropriate zoning district. Mr. Davis then asked whether a "PCD" would be possible. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis requested deferral to the July 30, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer the it em as requested. The moti on passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: {7-30-85) The applicant was present. There wer e no objector s in attendance. The Planning staff offered a recommendation of approval of the application after explaining the st aff studies and subsequent change of request to "O-3." The staff in meeting wit h the owner ascertained that "O-3" was appropriate since an office use is now proposed. After a brief discus sion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the applicat ion as amended to "O-3" General Office. The vote -7 ayes, O noes, 4 absent. .'--'_ July 30, 1985 Item No. D -z-4470 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: CCMN Joint Venture II J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Rock Creek Parkway, 1/4 Mile East of Kanis Rezone from Unclassified to "MF-18" and "O-3" Multifamily and Office Development 40.28 acres + Vacant SURRO UNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Unclassified-Vacant, Office/Industrial, Unclassified-Multifamily, Zoned "PRD"-Church, Unclassified STAFF REPORT: The request is to rezone a 40-acre tract at the west end of the Rock Creek Parkway to "MF-18" and "O-3." The acreage breakdown is as follows: 11 0-3, 11 11. 96 acres and 11 MF-l8, 11 28.32 acres. No specific plans or development concepts have been provided. The property is currently unclassified because of being outside the City limits. This property is part of the Suburban Development Plan which currently recognizes the land for single family use only. Based on the current plan, staff cannot support the rezoning as proposed. The plan shows multifamily for the land to the east, classified "PRD,11 and further to the west, there is an area shown for commercial and some low to medium density residential development. This location would be the intersection of Kanis and the proposed Outer Belt West arterial. If the property is annexed into the City, it appears that a 11 PUD 11 would be more appropriate for the site because of its location and the existing 11 PRD 11 to the east. As has been stated earlier, the property is outside the City limits. An issue that will have to be resolved prior to the July 30, 1985 Item No. D -Continued rezoning being accomplished is whether the City limits will be extended beyond the current line. This line was established as the "official annexation boundary line" by a Board of Directors resolution. One final item is that this area will be included in the new planning effort that the City will undertake for west Little Rock. Both land use and future City limits will be addressed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" and "MF-18" as filed. �LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-25-85) Jim Hathaway, the applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke and presented an aerial photo of the area which he described in detail. There was a long discussion about land use and the street system. Mr. Hathaway said the "MF-18" density for the property was chosen because of various physical constraints such as utility easements. He indicated that no formal study or plan had been prepared for the site. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff then spoke. He discussed current plans for the area. He said that a "PUD" was more appropriate for the site because of the location. He also made reference to the City limits line and the Board of Directors' resolution regarding future City boundaries. Mr. Hathaway said that "MF-18" was a good density and that there wo uld probably be office development in the future. Mike Batie of City Engineering said the proposed collector through the property was good. Mr. Lawson described the proposed "west belt" intersection with Kanis and said that "MF-12" and "O-2" would be another possible zoning configuration for the land. There were additional comments made about development in the area and annexation of the property. The Planning Commission voted on the request as filed. The vote -4 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent and 2 abstentions (Jerilyn Nicholson and Jim Sum merlin). The item was deferred due to the lack of six affirmative or negative votes. The Planning Co mmission then voted to defer the request to the July 9, 1985, meeting. The votes 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. D -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-9-85) Staff in formed the Planning Commission that the applicant had agreed to another deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the July 30, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The staff presented commentary on the land use review performed during the past two months. It was pointed out that of the several plan options that were available the one chosen is compatible wit h the applicant's re quest. The area of this application is located su ch that it provides a gradual increase in use intensity between the low density apartments on the east and the planned commercial corner to the west. The staff noted for the record that the zoning line between the applications office and multifamily sites will provide additional buffer through a collector st reet alignment. This street will act as a physical barrier between the residential and nonresidential. The staff recommended approval of the request as filed. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as filed. The vote -7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. NOTE: This application is to be forwarded to the Board of Directors only when accompanied by the court order on annexation. July 30, 1985 Item No . 1 -Z-3150-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Orbit Valve Corporation Hathaway, Moore & Associates Mabelvale Pike at Chicot Road (North of I-30) Rezone from "R-2," "MF-18" and "C-4" to "MF-18" and "C-4" Multifamily and Co mmercial 6.6 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "C-4"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "O-3"-Single Fa mily, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone 6.4 acres to "MF-18" and 0.2acres to "C-4." Because of the existing zoningconfiguration, approximately 2.0 acres out of the totalinvolved are zoned "R-2." The remaining acreage isclassified either "MF-18" or "C-4." Based on thecurrent proposal , it appears that the primary reasonfor the zoning request is to straighten out the variouszoning boundaries. The immediate area has a mix ofzoning classifications including "MF-18," "O-3," "C-3,""C-4" and PCD. The land use is also mixed with singlefamily residential, multifamily and nonresidentialuses. Because of the existing zoning pattern and thisrequest primarily modifying a previous approval, therezoning is compatible with the area. 2.The site is vacant, heavily wooded and flat.There is a single family residence that is located along the Chicot Ro ad frontage. 3.There are no right-of-way requ irements or Master StreetPlan issues assoc iated with this request. '-.,___.. July 30, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments re ceived from thereviewing agencies. Street imp rovements will berequired. 5.There are no legal is sues. 6.Since being annexed to the City in 1977, theneighborhood's position on certain rezonings is welldocumented. The initial re zoning re quest was for anindustrial classification which the residents stronglyopposed. The industrial rezoning was denied and theamended appl ication to "MF-18" and "C-4" was approved.In May 1983, a portion of the east side of the site wasrezoned to "0-3" and the ne ighborhood expressed someconcerns. The property was rezoned to the curr entstatus in November 1984. There was no ne ighborhoodresponse to that request. 7.Based on the previous actions that ha ve oc curred andthis request modifying the existing zoning line, staffsupports the rezoning as proposed. Should the rezoning be approved, a plan amendment will be required. A preliminary plat was filed after the previous re zoning action which addressed the various street is sues such as new alignment from Mabelvale Pike. Staff's remaining concern is the status of that plat if the current request is approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted una nimously to recommend approval of the application. The vote -7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. 3 -Z-4486 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jerry A. Baldwin Same 10105 Mabelvale West Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Electrical Shop 0.84 acres + Electrical Shop (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2"-Vacant and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2" and"I-2" -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone an existing nonconformingindustrial use, an electrical shop, to "I-2." Theproperty is located in Mabelvale and abuts "I-2" zoningon two sides with the MOPAC railroad tracks lyingdirectly to the south. The existing use is a lightclean industrial operation and it appears that it hasno effect on the immediate vicinity. 2.The site is flat and occupied by a single structurewith a parking area. 3.Mabelvale west is classified as a minor arterial whichnormally requires an 80-foot right-of-way. It appearsthat dedication of additional right-of-way will benecessary. The Engineering staff will make the finaldetermination on the right-of-way question. 4.City Engineering has provided the following comments: (1)The southwest property boundary is adjacent to a100-year floodplain. Therefore, a minimum floorelevation for any new construction is 306.0 feet. ....__,. July 30, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued (2)This lot is located in the area of a City ca pitalimprovement project for street improvements.However, plans are in progress and will bediscussed at the meeting. 5.There are no legal issues associated wit h this re quest. 6.There is no documented neighbor hood position on thesite. The property was annexed into the City in 1979. 7.The Otter Creek Plan identifies this tract and amajority of the land south of Mabelvale west for lightindustrial uses, so the rezoning is compatible with theplan. Staff's position is that the rezoning will notimpact the area and supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted una nimously to recommend approval of the application. The vote 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. July 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Z-4491 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Ex isting Use: Various Owners C.J. Cropper West Markham and Pryor Street SE Corner Rezone from "R-2" Single Family and "O-3" General Office to "C-3" General Commercial Parking and Commercial Expansion 2.2 acres + Single Family and Parking SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and"O-3"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone approximately 2.2 acres to"C-3" for building expansion and additional parking,approximately 90 spaces. The property in question ispart of and adjacent to the shopping center located atthe SW corner of West Markham and Barrow Road. Thecenter is made up of a single structure with sevenleasible spaces that are all currently occupied. Thefloor areas range in size from 1,760 square feet to57,600 square feet. The largest and primary tenant isa Wal-Mart Store for which the expansion is proposed.Plans call for a 20,000 square foot addition that willbe used for storage and retail space. Representativesof the center and Wal-Mart have stated that the needfor expansion and additional parking is due to asubstantial increase in customers who are alsorequesting more parking spaces. In addition to theproposed parking and structural improvements on theproperty, the owners will provide and maintain alandscape strip adjacent to Pryor Street. Thelandscaping strip will be 25 feet wide with a concretewall screening the parking area. This wall will besimilar to the one that is currently in place. ·._,- July 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued 2.The site is occupied by three residences along PryorStreet and a parking area on the portion zoned "O-3."Two of the houses front Pryor and the other one frontsWest Markham. The rezoning involves three lots onPryor and the rear 30 feet of a fourth lot. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.Engineering has provided the following: (1)The area of building construction is locatedwithin the 100-year floodplain of Rock Creek.Therefore, a minimum floor elevation will berequired using Corps information. (2)Traffic access, driveways and parking shall becoordinated and approved by the Traffic Engineerbefore any permits are issued. No access fromPryor Street. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.In 1974, a request was filed to rezone a 170-foot stripto commercial with the exception of the east 50 feetwhich was to be ari office classification. There wassubstantial opposition to the proposal from theresidents in the area. The City approved office forthe east 100 feet, the current "O-3" parking area andcommercial for the east 70 feet to allow for a buildingprojection. Also, in 1974, the Board of Adjustmentapproved a variance to allow parking on the 100 footoffice strip. At that time, the additional parking wasnot required by ordinance. The 6-foot masonry and woodfence was one of the conditions included in thevariance approval. In 1979, an effort was made torezone the residence at the southeast corner of WestMarkham and Pryor. That request was denied by both thePlanning Commission and the Board of Directors. Again,the residents were opposed to the rezoning which was topermit a beauty shop. The staff has received severalcalls and letters in opposition to the current request.Some of the concerns expressed have included the effecton property values and the possibility of a fast foodeating place. Another issue frequently mentioned isthe amount of trash and litter generated by theshopping center. -......._..... July 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued 7.There are a number of issues associated with thisrequest such as removal of the three residences forcommercial development and future trends in the area.Another concern is establishing precedent forcommercial zoning further to the west and on the northside of West Markham. After carefully reviewing theproposal and analyzing the potential impact, staffsupports the "C-3" rezoning with the 25-foot landscapestrip. Staff's position is based on the followingpoints: (1)Pryor Street should provide an adequate barrier tofurther commercial encroachments to the west. Thenorth side of Markham, west of Brookside, is astable single family neighborhood that offerslittle potential for nonresidential encroachment. (2)The rezoning, if approved, will allow the centerto expand and be upgraded. (3)The 25-foot landscaping strip and wall shouldprovide a satisfactory buffer for the residentialneighborhood to the west. (4)A quality tenant/store is very important to acenter of this size because of its positive effectand ability to draw other good stores to thelocation. It is conceivable that if Wal-Mart isunable to expand, it will relocate to a largersite. This type of move could have a far reachingimpact on not only the shopping center, but alsothe neighborhood. Should the Wal-Mart spacebecome vacant, a good anchor for the center wouldbe lost. When this type of situation occurs, thetendency is for the center to attract marginaluses that have a higher turnover rate or thespaces remain vacant for extended periods oftime. Staff recommends that every effort be made to relocate the three residences along Pryor Street rather than demolishing them. That type of housing stock is too valuable of a resource to lose. Also, staff feels comfortable that the landscaping strip along Pryor Street should terminate the commercial zoning on the south side of Markham. Staff will not support nonresidential zonings west of Pryor Street in the future. July 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued One final item is the site plan for the property. Because of a previously approved plan, an additional site plan review will be required prior to obtaining the necessary building permits. On the current site plan, there is an approved separate freestanding building site to the east of the area under consideration. Should this rezoning to "C-3" be approved, staff will recommend removal of that building site from the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The owner and applicant were present as was Mr. Brad Walker, attorney repres enting the request. The Planning staff stated its position from the age nda and added emphasis on maintaining an existing successful shopping ce nter. At the Commission's request, Mr. Walker presented the applicant's case. He outlin ed the neighbor hood meeting and discussions held with various owners in the area. He st ated that the present wall treatment, the berms and landscaping would be extended to the west to accommodate the expansion. He offered an ame ndment which would leave a 25' "R-2" strip along Pryor Street as a buffer and access control. Mr. Steve Bruce, representing Weingarten, addressed the Commission. He offered comments on restricting ac cess to Prior Street, the elimination of a 5,000 square foot food sales site from the previous plan. Mr. Cy Young, representing Wal-Mart, offered comments on his firm's desire to remain at this location and serve the community. Mr. Mike Batie of the Public Works Department offered comments on floodplain elevations and imminent changes. He stated that a variance will be required from the Board of Adjustment in order that the new floor area remain the same as the present floor area. He indicated the existing floor elevation is .4 foot below the 100-Year Flood at this time. There were several objectors in atte ndance. Spokespersons were Mr. David Measel who represented the neig hbor hood in general. He offered a pet ition with 60 signatures of objectors. He offered concerns about the dis ruption of an established neig hborhood with many children and elderly persons. He discussed the trash, traffic and noise le vels as being unacceptable to the neighbor hood. July 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued Mrs. Sylvia Denham, a resident of Prior Street, offered comments on the adverse effects on her quiet re sidential street, its safety and permanent maintenance of the right-of-way landscaping. Mrs. Marie Burroughs and Mr. Allen Akin added additional comment on their objection to the expansion and rezoning. The possibility of expanding the Wal-Mart store into portions of the existing structure was explored. This resulted in the owner identifying several problems attendant to that type of approach, those being primarily the leases of other tenants. Mr. Walker then offered rebuttal of the ne ighbors' comments and discussed the site plan in more detail. A general discussion followed with the Commission questioning various parties. The case was then called to the floor for a vote. A vote was taken on the application as amended to include the 25' strip of "R-2." The application failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent, 3 abstention (J. Nicholson, W.Ketcher, J. Summerlin). NOTE: The Commission stated for the re cord that the re asons for rejection of the rezoning were: (1) the adjacent residential neighborhood would be adversely affected, (2)Prior Street cannot act to hold the line betweencommercial and residential development. July 30, 1985 Item No. 5 -Z-4492 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jimmy Heavrin Joe D. White I-30 and Stanton RoadSW Corner Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Commercial 1.16 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Interstate, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Commercial, Zoned "R-3"-Warehousing, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to rezone a vacant tract fronting I-30at Stanton Road from "R-2" to "C-3." No specific plansor uses have been provided at this time. The siteabuts commercial use to the east and a light industrialoperation to the west. Both of those uses arenonconforming. The land use pattern on the south sideof I-30 is primarily a mix of office, commercial andindustrial uses with some vacant land. In theimmediate vicinity, the zoning is "R-2" for the mostpart with some "I-2" to the west and "0-3" on the northside of I-30. Because of the location and area, acommercial rezoning use is appropriate for theproperty. 2.The site is vacant and has a slight slope to it. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with the request. 4.Engineering has reported that traffic access shall becoordinated and approved by the traffic engineer beforeany permits are issued. No other comments have beenreceived from the reviewing agencies as of thiswriting. July 30, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued 5.There are no legal issues. 6.Staff has received several informational callsregarding this req uest. The property was annexed intothe City in April of 1985 through the referendum areathat was upheld by the State Supreme Court. This isthe reason that most of the area is zoned "R-2." 7.Staff is in the process of developing a plan for thisarea, the Geyer Springs East District Plan. Theinitial analy sis of the I-30 frontage at Stanton Roadshows a mix of nonresidential uses. Because of thesite's location and the preliminary land use plan,staff feels comfortable supporting the "C-3" re quest at this time. There is a residential neig hborhood to thesouth, but it appea rs that the rezoning will have ver ylittle impact on those residences. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN: (7-30-85) The applicant was present. There was one objec tor present, Mr. Larry Hardin. The applicant, Mr. White, made a br ief presentation of the history of the site both platting and land use. Mr. Hardin whose lot rears upon the site objected to the additional commercial uses that will increase undesirables walking through the block as well as the noise and congestion created. The Planning Co mmission discussed the item br iefly . A motion was made to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. July 30, 1985 Item Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 -Annexation Rezonings File Nos. Z-4495, Z-4496, Z-4497, Z-4498, Z-4499 and Z-4500 Owner: Locations: STAFF REPORT: Various Owners 8120 Doyle Sp rings Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial 8313 Doyle Springs Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial 8414 Doyle Springs Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial 5101 Margie Circle Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial 8805 Dreher Lane Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial 8309 St anton Road Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial The follow ing six rezonings are part of a consent judgment that settled a lawsuit challenging the September 1982 annexation of certain lands and the November 1982 referendum confirming the annexation. The jud gment was signed in July 1983 and in it the City agreed to rezone a total of 10 tracts of land. The remaining four tracts will be addressed at a later date. The six sites are all located in southwest Little Rock and are a part of the Geyer Springs East District Plan area. This area was recently brought into the City by the Supreme Court action upholding the City and the November 1982 referendum. Staff is currently in the process of developing a detailed land use plan for the district. July 30, 1985 Item Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 -Continued The current land use for ea ch property is: No. 6/8120 Doyle Springs Road -A mix of commercial and light industrial uses. No. 7/8313 Doyle Springs Road -A mob ile home park. No. 8/8414 Doyle Springs Road -A mobile home park if the legal description is corrected or a single family residence. No. 9/5101 Margie Circle -A single family residence and undeveloped land. No. 10/8805 Dreher Lane -An auto service use. No. 11/8309 Stanton Road -Three single family residences and a mobile home park. The general land use in the area is a mix of residential and nonresidential uses with a num ber of mob ile home parks. Because of being a consent judgment, the properties must be taken through the normal re zoning processes with final action being adoption of an ordinance by the City Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The Commission discussed this matter at lengt h. There were several comments offered questioning the app ropriateness of this action as well as the profound effect on newly annexed areas for future land use planning. The matter was then called to the floor for a vote. The Commission voted 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (John Clayton) to recommend denial of the rezonings. July 30, 1985 Item No. 12 -Annexation Policy Request: That the Planning Commission endorse the proposed interim Annexation Policy. Mr. Greeson offered comments concerning the clarification of the City Annexation Policy, he presented a brief hi story of the City Policy Resolutions that have been relied upon in past years and the effects of the proposed resolution. A general disc ussion followed Mr. Greeson's comments with the various criteria within the resolution being explained. The Chairman then called for a motion. A motion was made to endorse the resolution as drafted. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, o nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson) City of Little Rock Office of · ComprehensivePlanning July 25, 1985 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 MEMORANDUM LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION GARY L. GREESON, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ANNEXATION POLICY Please find enclosed for your review a copy of a proposed interim annexation policy prepared by the planning staff. Also enclosed are copies of two previous resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors concerning annexation. We would welcome your comments on the proposed interim policy. We plan to discuss it ,with the Commission at its meeting on July 30, 1985. A consultant for the Extraterritorial Land Use Plan and Annexat ion Study will be selected in the near future. Pending completion of the Plan, the interim annexation policy will provide a basis for expansion of the City's boundaries in a way that promotes proper growth. Also, at the July 30th meeting, we will present alternate plans for the Rock Creek Parkway area. After review of five alternate plans, we have decided to recommend one that will accommodate Mr. Hathaway's proposed rezoning in that area. If you have any questions relating to these items, please do not hesitate to call (371-4790). GLG/se Encls. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. ________ _ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM ANNEXATION POLICY FOR THE CITY PENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE EXTRATERRITORIAL LAND USE PLAN AND ANNEXATION STUDY. WHEREAS, the City Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 6,351 on June 3, 1980 establishing an official annexation boundary line to facilitate long-term planning for future annexa tions and service delivery; and WHEREAS, Resolution 6,351 stated the City will discourage voluntary annexations beyond this line until such time as a demonstrable urban potential is present; and WHEREAS, the City is in the process of retaining a consultant to study the relocation of the official annexation boundary line; and WHEREAS, the City does not want to discourage reasonable extensions of the City boundaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK. SECTION 1. The Board of Directors hereby establishes an interim annexation policy pending a final policy decision resulting from the Extraterritorial Land Use and Annexation Study. SECTION 2. The interim annexation policy shall be as follows: ADOPTED: The City will generally accept an annexation beyond the off icial annexation boundary line provided that all of the following criteria are met: 1.The annexation consists of either: (a)developed acreage, or (b)undeveloped land that is likely to startdeveloping within five years.· 2.The annexation is bordered by natural orman-made features which will form a logicalcity limits line. Examples of suitableboundaries are streets, cre eks, railroads,and section lines. 3.The annexation will not create an immediate ,significant City service need that the Citycannot readily provide. 4.Undeveloped acreage within the area isplanned at least to the extent of havingstreet and utility services andproposed land uses identified. ATTEST: ____________ APPROVED: ___________ _ CITY CLERK MAYOR .tj _ _j u ·'_____,. RESOLUTIOfl r:o. 7, 2!)2 A RESOLUTIO:l DIRECTICIG ,TifE PU\rmrna STAFF TO r:AKE ·nEco:::·IE!lDJiTIOIIS REGAROir:G AIIEIIOMEIIT OF THE OFFICIAL OOUUDJ\RV LlflE llASED UPOII CURREUT. PROJECTED UROAIIIZATIOII AIID REQUIRE• r:rnrs FOR CITY SERVICES. . . l!l!EREf1S, the City Doill'd of Di rectors cstnb11shed an Officfol Annexation 6oundn1·y Lino in Resolution r:o. 6,351 on June 3, 1980, .1.nd l-:liEREAS, tho Offic1�1 r.nncxntion Boundary Line 1·ms established to fac11itatc lono•tcrm plunnin9 of future annc:<otfon ,and for future sc1·vice dol 1 '/cry • .ind t!llEnEiiS. the City l!o.1rd of Dirccto1·s 1Hl5 required that property lie nnr.exod to tile City prior to p1·ovision of se::·:er and \'later service.� . and l:HEREM, tlw City hes dis couraged volunto1� annexations beyond the officia1 1 i r.e bccaw;c the City felt deironstrnb1e urban potent fol was not present, and ::HEP.Ei,S, p1anr.ad utility extensions and cxp,mdcd urban dcvclci,11'.i::nt are being contc;:-platcd in r.:an:1 of tho m·oas bo:,cn' tho cur1·�nt Official Ar.noxation ecundm·.:1. :;O:·l, i!-!EP.l!FORE, DE IT RESOLVED BY TIIE £:OARD OF DI.RECTORS OF iHE Cli'f OF LITTLE ROCK, Jiflr'J\!,SAS: SECTi:O:l 1. The Offi co of Corr:prchcnsi\le Planning Staff is hereby directed to study the c:dsting annexation bounda1·y lino to dcternine its �roper 1 ocation based upon tho cur1·ent projectad urbanization potontfo i. SECT!Oil :. The Study shall involve tl:o entire Official Anr.c:mtkn J;o1;nda1•y Lir.e 1:ith pm·ticular a�pi1asis upon tho projected se::·:er capc::city for r:ortb:e:st Little P.ock as a result of the :cnstruction of tho Little flat:.;:llc force �c1in along Count:, Ferr;; noud. SECTIO:l 3. iiie Study shn11 ir.clut!e 1·ccor,:.'.e11dations to the Cou,·c! of Directors n:garcling staged c::.tcn:;icn of the line to .icccr:-r:-.odato cxr,cctcc gro:1th ar.d c!e:•:clcp;:-cnt _.inc! to .i11c:: for plcnnad c:<te:nsion of City sc1•vir.c.-�, to arcns to t:c .innr.xcd. 'I /• I' ; . ; . 170 SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force, a • from and after its adoption and approval. nP • ' ADOPTED: December 9, 1989 ATTEST: ' ' APPROVED: ` Jan 1 Cz cn,���±; �7erE: J. 11. Benaf eld, fi'ry"or . • ,• • • • • • • • • • • a• a � ' w• 'i • 3 '''c iii. � "�7!q'ft'�'t??'Z.F„�:Y!`i!.yvtslq'!e^iTa'MFS�•t•.«'p.'a°gM';F��"�: - ':'p•-`_^'3•�:_ '-· RESOLUTION NO. 6,351 A RF.SOLUTION ESTABL ISHING AN OF FICIAL ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LINE ENCOMPASSING THOSE AREAS TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE CITY UNTIL THE YEAR 1990 BY A REFERENDU M TO BE HELD SOMETIME AFTER THE YEAR 1980 AND BY VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, an Official Annexation Boundary Line will facilitate long-term planning of future annexations and for future se rvice delivery , and WHEREAS, she Proposed Annexation Boundary Line encom passes that area so uth of the Ark ansas River that is presentl y ur ban in ch aracter , and WH ERtAS, the City hereby states its intention of accepting al l voluntary annexations that lie within this area, and WH EREAS, the City will discourage voluntary annexations beyond this li ne until such time as a dem onstrable urban potential is present, and WHEREAS, the City will use the proje cted annexation boundary described in the Suburban Plan as a guide for future growt h, and WHEREAS, the li ne proposed on the attached Exhibit A encompasses those areas to be brou ght into the City by voluntary annexations and a referend um to be hel d so metime after the year 1980. NOW, THERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROC K, ARKANSAS: SEC TION 1. An Official Annexation Boun dary Line as shown on the att ached Exhibit A is hereby adopted. SECTION 2. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption and approval . ADOPTED: June 3 , 1980 6 ;5 ATTEST: 016 APPROVED: 09 ■City k Mayor lJ I ' -�} r' .. --\ .. r----- .. , ,_,:. r-------_____ .i I l '· ;. 1 \ r--� -I / r ____ j . -�' DATEJu.\� 3?, {985 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ZONING , � SUBDIVISION MEMBER f; C J) I z 3 !iL 5 to '7 f:?q LO A A � q / I , , , J.��----�li"I I II I/ / I/ I/ � J.Schlereth I./ � ,/ • . ./ ,, I , - R.Massie I/ / ',/ ,/ ,../ 1/ / , ,/ ,, , I • B.SiDes v v / I/ / / / -� ,•-� , J.Nicholson ,/ :,/ I/ / / / / 1'13 ,/ •• •• � w.Rector ii,/' I/ I,/ / ,/ / I/ , !v •, , , � w.Ketcher 1/. I,/ I/ t/ V ,/ I/ 11 !,/ ,.�, , , D.Arnett v I/ I/ I/ I/ / / -i/ ,, , , , D.J. Jones (\ f I I.Boles II " J; Clayton A .A , I � � .lr6 -ifs �1/f --/AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN ) ) ) ) � IA.A •• ... / -7/,., /J ':. "4:' --,·· , / , v'"' , v , / � 'lk �/ , v I v J1 II IT I\ 11 / I �v ) July 30, 1985 There being no further business at hand, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m. C*hp r n ./ Date