HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 26 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 26, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present:
Members absent:
John Schlereth
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Richard Massie
William Ketcher
Betty Sipes
John Clayton
David Jones
James Summerlin
Ida Boles
Dorothy Arnett
City Attorney: Carolyn Witherspoon
June 26, 1984
Item No. A - Z -4103
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: John A. Castin and Henry Treece
Location: West 12th at University Avenue
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
and "C -3" General Commercial to
"MF -12" Multifamily, "0-2" Office
and Institutional Use and "0-3"
General Office
Purpose:
Size:
Office and Retail
11.96 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant and Church
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Quasipublic and Single Family,
Zoned "I -2," "C -3" and "R -5"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Single Family and Quasi - Public, Zoned "R -2,"
"R -4" and "R -5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. No specific plans have been submitted, but a conceptual
layout of the various elements was included with the
application. The proposed project is to include areas
for an office park, a mixed use office retail site and
a parcel for townhouse development. The concept also
shows a proposed church site to be located south of the
1'0 -3" parcel. The tract is zoned "R -2" so a
conditional use permit would be required for the
church. (As staff understands it, the existing church
to the north would be relocated to the new site if the
rezoning is approved.) The location's potential for
intense nonresidential development is questionable. A
majority of the property in question has no
relationship to a major street which is fundamental to
this type of project. The proposed "0 -2" tract has
some frontage on West 12th and University. The office
park area would take its access from residential
streets. The desirability of allowing nonresidential
uses to encroach into an established single family
neighborhood must also be questioned. Some of the
property includes platted single family lots.
June 26, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
2. A majority of the property is vacant and flat. There
are high points on the north and south. There is a
church located in the northeast corner and part of the
University frontage has some commercial development. A
number of the lots are part of the Broadmoor North
Subdivision.
3. Additional right -of -way will be necessary on University
Avenue to provide another lane for proper turning
movements and traffic flow.
4. At this time, no adverse comments have been received
from the reviewing agencies.
5. There are two significant legal issues associated with
this application, the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor
North and the University Park Urban Renewal Plan. The
Bill of Assurance restricts the land use to detached
single family residences as does the Urban Renewal
Plan. Both the Bill of Assurance and the Urban Renewal
Plan must first be amended before the rezoning can
occur. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires that the
grantor's, Winrock Development Company, approval must
first be obtained before any amendment can be made as
long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the
subdivision. The City has a 20 -year agreement with HUD
to adhere to the Urban Renewal Plan which is in effect
until 1984. It appears that until these two matters
are resolved the rezoning cannot be considered.
6. As has been stated previously, this property is part of
the University Urban Renewal Plan which was adopted 20
years ago. The site are also part of the Broadmoor
North Subdivision that was approved in the late 19701s.
Winrock Development Company, a landowner, "is
fundamentally opposed to rezoning the property in
Broadmoor North and, therefore, we do not support any
such rezoning on this property."
7. Staff views the request as premature and incomplete at
this time. Some of the major issues have been
described and discussed in detail, but there are other
concerns that must be addressed. They include:
a. A survey for the entire property has not been
submitted.
b. The appropriateness of filing an application for
nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted
to detached single family use.
June 18, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
C. The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle
Park Plan which shows single family.
d. The possible encroachment of nonresidential use
into a viable single family neighborhood.
e. The request appears to be speculative in nature.
f. What are the specific uses for the various
parcels?
g. Access is inadequate for the proposed
classifications. There is only limited access to
University and West 12th. Also, there is a
possibility of having to use residential streets
for circulation.
h. The layout of future streets and the possibility
of some street closures.
i. Is a mix of office and retail, good land use and
planning for the location? How much and what kind
of office and retail uses are desirable for the
area?
j. A complete plan must be submitted before any
adequate review can take place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral until all the outstanding issues
are resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 13, 1983)
The applicant was not present, but had submitted a letter
requesting a 60 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item
for at least 60 days passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 abent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 28, 1984)
The applicant was not present, but had submitted a request
for a 90 -day deferral. This was the applicant's second
request for a deferral. A motion to defer the item for 90
days passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 abstention (Richared Massie).
June 26, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984)
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There were
approximately 10 to 12 persons opposed to the request also
in attendance. Mr. Castin stated that he was a planning
consultant representing Henry Treece and a group of
investors. Mr. Castin reviewed the concept plan and
described the proposal which was now "0 -2" on all the
parcels not "MF -12" and "0 -3" as previously filed. He
stated that the area in question was no longer suitable for
single family development use and that more intense
development such as office was appropriate. Mr. Castin felt
that circulation for the project still needed to be
finalized and requested a 30 -day deferral to address this
issue and to meet the residents of the neighborhood.
Milton Halpert, a property owner, spoke against the request
and felt that the approval of the rezoning would disrupt the
neighborhood and place many hardships on the residents.
Bill Boswell, a resident on Bittersweet expressed concern
over additional traffic generated by this type of
development because of the number of children in the
neighborhood. He was opposed to the request. Joann Savage
stated that she was totally opposed to office use in the
area. Pat Kimbell also spoke against the request and was
concerned with using the land for office development in an
area that has provided affordable housing which is no longer
available in many locations. David Ball and Henry Brown
voiced the same concerns as those of the previous objectors,
and Mr. Ball felt that the request would severely affect
property values and the residents' investments. Carolyn
Jones also spoke in opposition to the request and read a
letter from a property owner who could not attend the
meeting. The Commission discussed the cased at length. A
motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984)
The applicant, Jack Castin, was present and represented
Henry Treece. There were five objectors present.
Mr. Castin informed the Commission that the applicant had
met with the residents of the neighborhood and presented
some posssible compromises to those persons. He felt that
the residents were still opposed to the proposal because of
the land use issue and other concerns. Mr. Castin indicated
that the circulation would be internalized with no direct
access to Cleveland Street. With this and the closing of
certain streets, Mr. Castin felt that the impacts from
additional traffic should be reduced significantly. He
June 26, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
also told the Commission that his client had some potential
developers for the two smaller tracts and would like to
pursue the "0 -2" zoning for those two parcels. He requested
to withdraw the six plus acres site from the application and
amended the request. He stated that a PUD on the larger
tract would be proposed at some future date. Mr. Castin
told the Commission that Mr. Treece had reached an agreement
with the owners of the two residential lots on Charlotte
that are most directly affected by the proposal. The
structures would be used for rental uses. Pat Campbell, a
resident of the area, spoke in opposition to the request and
was very concerned with traffic. She felt that traffic
would increase and create severe problems for the
neighborhood. David Ball also spoke against the rezoning
and expressed similar concerns with the traffic issue as
described by Ms. Campbell. He felt that the area was
residential and questioned the appropriateness of using the
land for office development. James Shuffield, trustee of
the church to be relocated, spoke in support of the request
and thought office use was desirable for the area. One
additional resident indicated that she was very opposed to
the rezoning and that it would create many problems for the
neighborhood. Mr. Castin then addressed some of the
concerns raised by the residents. He said that Cleveland
Street is a collector, and traffic on it would not be
increased because of the proposed development. He felt that
the "0 -2" district was a good compromise because it provided
for site plan review. Bob Lane of the City's Engineering
Staff discussed access onto West 12th Street. He felt that
it was feasible but there were some problems that would have
to be looked into. After continued discussion, a motion was
made to recommend approval of the amended application to
rezone 3.74 and 1.5 acres to "0 -2." The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention
(Richard Massie).
June 26, 1984
Item No. B - Z- 2552 -B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Lilie Mae Davis
Same
6618 Forbing Road
Rezone from "C -3" to "C -4"
Used Car Lot
.643 acre
Existing Use: Used Car Lot (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C -4"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C -4"
West - Single Family, Zoned "C -4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This site is currently a vacant lot. At one time the
property had a structure on it and was operating as a
used car lot. The building was destroyed by fire, and
the property lost its noncomformity. The Building
Permit's Office determined that more than 50 percent of
structure was destroyed. The proposal is to rebuild
the structure and operate another used car lot.
Forbing Road is the southern end of a segment of South
University that is made up primarily of auto
dealerships. The property in question is just west of
South University Avenue and has "C -4" zoning on three
sides.
2. The property is flat with a vast majority of it being
paved.
3. Forbing Road is classified as a collector and the
existing right -of -way is adequate for collector
standards.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
June 26, 1984
Item No. B - Continued
6. There is no neighborhood position on the site. The
property in question and a tract to the west were
rezoned to "F" Commercial ( "C -3 ") in 1972. Auto
dealerships were permitted uses in the old "F"
Commercial district. The site to the west was rezoned
to "C -4" in 1981 as a conversion adjustment.
7. The site has commercial zoning on four sides with "C -4"
zoning on the east, north and west property lines. The
proposed zoning classification and use are appropriate
for the location, and staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984)
The applicant was not present. Also, the applicant had not
notified the property owners within the required 200 feet.
A motion to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984)
The applicant had requested a deferral of this item. A
motion to defer the request to July 24, 1984, passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 26, 1984
Item No. C - Z -4230
Owner: Troy Humphrey
Applicant: Wayne Daniel
Location: 221 Main Street (Mabelvale)
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to
"C -4" Open Display District
Purpose: Auto Repair
Size: 14,200 square feet
Existing Use: Auto Repair (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family and Institutional, Zoned "R -2"
South - Institutional, Zoned "R -2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "R -2
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property is occupied by an auto repair garage and
the proposal is to expand the existing building and
double its size. The repair garage is a nonconforming
use and expansion cannot take place without proper
zoning. The site is located in an area that has a very
mixed land use that includes an auto garage across Main
Street and a retail store directly to the east. Both
of these uses are zoned "R -2" and nonconforming. Most
of the Mabelvale area is still zoned "R -2" so there is
a high percentage of nonconforming uses. The facility
has been in operation for a number of years and has
created few problems for the neighborhood.
2. The site is two standard residential lots with one
metal building on it. The majority of the property is
unoccupied or used for storage of vehicles.
3. The Master Street Plan identifies East 3rd Street as a
minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right -of -way.
The current right -of -way is 60 feet, so additional
dedication will be required.
June 26, 1984
Item No. C - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. The approval of this request would create a "C -4" spot
zoning. This issue should be taken into consideration
when discussing the request.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The parking was annexed in 1979 as part of
thelarge I -30 annexation.
7. The request is not suported by the Suburban
Development Plan or staff. The plan shows the area
south of the railroad tracks to remain single family
with a nonresidential activity to take place north of
the railroad tracks. The Suburban Development Plan was
amended to show a neighborhood commercial area along
Mabelvale Pike which is north of the railroad tracks.
Recent zoning changes that have occurred in the area
have been north of the tracks. Staff position is that
at this time it is inappropriate to cross the tracks
with commercial zoning and establish a spot zone. The
owner will be able to continue to operate the garage
but not expand it if the request is denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984)
The applicant was not present, and he also had not notified
the property owners within the required 200 feet. A motion
to defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984)
The applicant was not present. There were some objectors
present. Staff recommended that the item be deferred
because of notification problems. Barbara Bonds, an
attorney representing some residents, asked that the request
be acted on and presented a petition in opposition to the
rezoning. After some discussion, a motion was made to
withdraw the request from the agenda. The motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Staff was asked to
inform the applicant that if he desired to pursue the
rezoning that he would have to refile and properly notify
the property owners within 200 feet.
June 26, 1984
Item No. D - Z -4232
Owner: Gaylon Carter
Applicant: Same
Location: 9813 Chicot Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to
"0 -1" Quiet Office
Purpose: Office
Size: 7,770 square feet
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Office, Zoned "0-1"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. No specific plans have been submitted other than the
proposed use of the property is to be an office. The
property is currently occupied by a single family
structure and the immmediate plans are to utilize it
for a rental unit. The owner of this site also owns
the "0-1" tract directly to the south and that property
is being used for a clinic. The office potential of
the property is somewhat limited because of its size
and being able to accommodate the necessary parking.
The owner may have plans to incorporate this piece with
a tract to the south and provide additional parking or
some related activity.
2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single
family structure on it.
3. Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on the
Master Street Plan which requires a right-of-way of 80
feet. The existing right-of-way is deficient, so
dedication of additional right-of-way will be
necessary.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
June 26, 1984
Item No. D - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The site was annexed in 1981 as part of the south
central island. There is no documented neighborhood
position on this particular property, but with the
previous 110 -1" rezoning, there was some neighborhood
concern.
7. The property is not identified for office use on the
Suburban Development Plan and the staff is opposed to
the rezoning request. Staff position on the previous
110 -1" rezoning was also one of nonsupport because the
location was viewed as being inappropriate for office
zoning and development. Even with the approval of the
"0 -1" to the south, the plan was never amended to
recognize the change. Staff is concerned if additional
rezonings are granted that it will be hard to establish
a zoning line at a given point and this could lead to
an undesirable land use pattern on the west and east
sides of Chicot Road. The existing office zoning
should be confined to the present boundaries and not be
allowed to expand north or south. There is some "0 -1"
property in the block that is still being used for
single family so it appears that the demand for
additional office zoning is questionable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984)
The applicant was not present but had requested a 30-day
deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days (June 26,
1984) passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (June 26, 1984)
The applicant had requested another deferral. This was the
applicant's second request to defer the item. A motion to
defer the rezoning to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 26, 1984
Item No. E - Z -4240
Owner: Jim Shue
Applicant: Paul W. Davenport
Location: Cedar Hill Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to
"R -5" Multifamily
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 1.0 acre +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Park, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "R -5" to
permit four multifamily units. Because no specific
plans have been submitted, so the type or style of unit
is unknown. The applicant has suggested that units are
to be condominiums. The site is located in an area
that has mixed land use and zoning patterns with the
primary land use being single family. There are some
multifamily projects with "R -5" zoning in the
neighborhood to the southwest and southeast of this
site. This tract is part of a subdivision that has
been developed only for detached single family
residences and that use should be continued. The site
has a stronger relationship to the single family use
than to the multifamily developments and "R -5" zoning
should not be permitted at this location on Cedar Hill
Road. Because of the property's physical
characteristics, it appears that it lends itself more
toward a single family unit than a multifamily project.
2. The site is heavily wooded and slopes up from
Cedar Hill Road to the back of the lot. It is possible
that a multifamily development would require
substantial site modification. This would detract from
the appearance of the site. The physical layout of the
tract should dictate the type of development suitable
for the property.
June 26, 1984
Item No. E - Continued
3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements associated with this request. (The
applicant has not provided this office with the
necessary right-of-way agreement.)
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position, but the
staff has received some calls from nearby residents
opposing the the request. They are concerned about the
traffic on Cedar Hill Road and the type of development
proposed. The residents want the property to remain
single family. It has been mentioned that there are
possible deed restrictions on the subdivision
restricting the property to single family use. The
entire subdivision was part of an old urban renewal
project that expired a few years back.
7. The request is not supported by the Heights /Hillcrest
Plan which identifies the property for single family
use. The staff's position is that the property should
remain single family and not be rezoned. Also: if the
Bill of Assurance does, in fact, restrict the property
to single family use and then that takes precedence
until an amendment is made to it. The approval of this
request would extend "R-5" zoning to the north and
create an undesirable zoning pattern. The zoning is
not compatible with the residential development that
the property abuts to the south and the east.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 29, 1984)
The applicant had requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to
defer the item to June 26, 1984, passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 26, 1984)
The applicant had requested a deferral. A motion to defer
the item to July 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent. This was the applicant's second request
for a deferral.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z- 3125 -A
Owner: Jennifer Garrison
Applicant: Richard Daes
Location: 2500 West 7th (Thayer and W. 7th)
Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family
to "C-3" General Commercial
Purpose: Eating Place /Bar
Size: 3600 square feet
Existing Use: Vacant Building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "I-2"
West - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rebuild the Whitewater Tavern and
operate a restaurant and bar. The property has been
used for a number of years as a bar and has always been
a nonconforming use. This rezoning request is a result
of action taken by the Zoning Enforcement Office.
Approximately two months ago, the structure had a fire,
and it was determined that the damaged exceeded 50
percent of the current replacement value, and the
building lost its nonconformity. "Such structures
shall not be restored unless structure and use thereof
shall be thereafter conformed to all regulations of the
zoning district in which such structure and use are
located." Additionally, the issue of whether the
building was vacant for more than one year has been
mentioned. If the structure was, in fact, not in use
for a period of one year, then the use cannot be
reestablished without proper zoning. The rezoning if
approved would create a commercial spot zoning and
establish a "C-3" site in an unsuitable location for
intense commercial use. The area has been impacted by
previous zoning actions, but that does not justify
further intrusion of nonresidential zoning into the
neighborhood. The site is somewhat removed from the
major street network and does not lend itself to being
a viable commercial location.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
2. The site is a small lot with a single structure on it.
The building occupies a large portion of the property
so that leaves very little area for parking.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. The apparent legal issue is the creation of spot zoning
if the request is approved.
6. The property has been used for a bar /tavern for a
number of years and has always been a nonconforming
use. In 1977, an attempt was made to rezone the site
to "F" ( "C-3 ") Commercial. That request was denied by
both the Planning Commission and the Board of
Directors. The rezoning was strongly opposed by the
residents of the area. In December of 1980, a fire
damaged the building, and City inspectors determined
that more than 50 percent of the structure had been
destroyed. This was overruled by the City Attorney's
Office in March of 1981, and the Whitewater was able to
obtain a building permit without having to rezone the
property. The most recent fire is the second in three
and one -half years.
7. The property is an area that is part of the Woodruff
School neighborhood. The adopted plan for that
neighborhood identifies the site for low density
residential development. The "C-3" request is in
conflict with the plan and is not supported by the
staff. The location is inappropriate for a commercial
use such as a tavern /eating place because of the poor
circulation and the property, when occupied, has had an
adverse impact on the neighborhood. The site should
not be recognized as a viable commercial location by
approving the rezoning because of its previous use and
history.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were also 10 to 15
objectors present. Kenny Scott of the City's Zoning
Enforcement Office spoke and addressed the nonconforming
June 26, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
status issue. He stated that the owners had been notifed in
writing that the building had not been occupied for more
than one year and the property lost its nonconforming
status. He also indicated that the fire was not an issue.
An appeal of this decision would have to go to the Board of
Adjustment. Ray Hartenstein, an attorney representing the
Whitewater, then spoke. He gave a brief history of the
Whitewater and also presented some dates. He stated that
the Whitewater closed in April 1983, and that a liquor
license was issued in July of 1983. In January 1984, plans
were initiated to remodel the structure and some
reconstruction did take place after that. Mr. Hartenstein
stated that the Whitewater reopened on April 26, 1984, three
days later the fire in question happened. He went on to
present a letter dated April 30, 1984, from Jim Hathcock,
Chief Enforcement Official, that stated the Whitewater had
reopened illegally. Mr. Hartenstein felt that there was a
hardship issue that needed to be addressed and that no
abandonment did take place. Several Commissioners indicated
that the nonconforming issue needed to be resolved prior to
acting on the rezoning request. Richard Daes, the
applicant, stated that he became involved with the
Whitewater on May 16, 1983, and was not certain of the exact
date when it closed in April. Mr. Daes spoke at length and
said that he just wanted to reopen. The question of
documentation was raised, and the file did not provide any
evidence of when the Whitewater had closed or building
permit information. Also, it was pointed out that Mr. Daes
had not provided the City with any documentation regarding
the closing. Mr. Daes then went on to say that he would not
expand the building and that he would upgrade the appearance
and, in turn, the neighborhood. He stated that the
neighborhood had many existing problems and presented photos
of the area. He also showed a graphic with the proposed
plan for the Whitewater. Mr. Hartenstein then discussed the
issue of the building being vacant. Andrew Zawacki, a
resident on Thayer Street, spoke against the request and
presented a petition with 199 signatures opposing the
rezoning. He stated that the request was in direct conflict
with the Woodruff Neighborhood Plan and that primary access
to the Whitewater is on residential streets. He described
instances where cars on Thayer Street had been hit by people
coming from the Whitewater and that it created a problem for
the area. Mr. Zawacki also stated that the neighborhood was
in complete support of the Woodruff Neighborhood Plan. At
this time it was pointed out that some of the signatures on
the petition were of persons residing outside the
neighborhood. Mr. Zawacki said that was correct, but those
names comprised less than 10 percent of the total.
Dorothy Pilachowski, of the Woodruff C.D.B.G. Committee,
June 26. 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She then
described the improvements being undertaken by the Block
Grant Program, and that the neighborhood was in the process
of upgrading itself. She also said the area is changing for
the better, and the zoning could damage that.
Mrs. Pilachowski said that the neighborhood had worked
closely with the City in developing the plan and that it
should be followed. Kathy Volk spoke against the request
and described the problems with traffic and drunk drivers.
She stated that the traffic had decreased with the
Whitewater being closed and that it was a bad influence for
the neighborhood. Gregory Braybaw and Peter Ternoprovich
spoke against the rezoning. Mr. Ternoprovich said that the
location had not been a bar for 50 years and that ABC
records indicate that the Whitewater closed on April 24,
1983. Morris Lewis, representing the Arkansas Hospitality
Association, spoke in support of the request and stated that
the location had been occupied by a commercial use for a
number of years. Mrs. Pilachowski then pointed out that
there had been opposition in the past to the Whitewater
being there and referred to the previous rezoning request in
1977. Lee Wilson, a property owner, spoke in favor of the
rezoning. Patricia Carter, a resident, opposed the request
and indicated that nothing had changed to justify the
rezoning. Mr. Daes spoke again and said that he had
obtained the necessary permits to open and had given proper
notice when applying for the liquor license. After a
lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval
of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request
to maintain the Whitewater's "nonconforming" aspect.
Because there was some question as to whether the Whitewater
lost its nonconforming status, the Commission felt that this
was the appropriate action to take to allow them to
continue. Also, there was concern that the site had been a
nonconforming use for years and the Whitewater would face
possible closure if not rezoned. Some Commissioners
indicated that if the Whitewater was permitted to continue
as a nonconforming use, they would have voted against the
rezoning.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-3315-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
John Henderson
Willis Smith
Green Mountain and Rainwood
Drives, Southeast Corner
Rezone from "MF-24" Multifamily
to "C-3" General Commercial
Retail
1.91 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4"
South - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop the property for some type
of retail uses, but no specific plans have been
submitted at this time. The site is located in the
area that has been heavily impacted by previous
rezoning actions. The property has commercial to the
north and east, "R-5" zoning on the west and
nonconforming commercial use on the south. The
property to the south is zoned "R-2" Single Family.
Because of what has taken place over the years, it
appears that the site is a suitable location for a
small scale commercial development. The property has
been zoned for multifamily use, but no project has been
developed, so it is possible that another use is more
appropriate.
2. The site is vacant, flat and heavily wooded.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property was rezoned to "MF-24" in May 1983.
Previous to that rezoning, an attempt was made to
rezone the property to "F" Commercial in 1979. The
request was denied by both the Planning Commission and
the Board of Directors. That action by the City was
upheld by the courts. At that time, the staff felt
that the area was overzoned because many of the
properties had not been developed.
7. It is the staff's opinion that circumstances have
changed since 1979, and because the site has never been
developed for multifamily units, some type of
commercial use is appropriate for the location. Since
the property was rezoned to "MF-24," two projects have
been proposed but have never been built so medium
density residential use does not appear to be a viable
alternative. The land in the area zoned for commercial
uses has been developed or is being developed, and this
is one of the major changes that has taken place in the
vicinity. Also, the property is surrounded by
commercial uses or zoning on three sides. The staff
position is in support of a commercial classification
on the property, but "C-1" not "C-3" as applied for.
There is a residential neighborhood to the south of the
site, and "C-1" is a more suitable commercial district
for this type of land use relationship. The property
could function as an attractive entry into the
subdivision. In the future, careful consideration
should be given to not extending commercial zoning on
Green Mountain Drive south of this property. If the
site is rezoned, the plan amendment will be required
because the Suburban Development Plan identifies the
location for office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends "C-1" as being more appropriate for the
location.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Bob East, was present. There was one person
in attendance that desired to address the Commission.
Mr. East stated that he was a co-owner of the property and
the reason for the "C-3" request was because that district
allowed more flexibility. He indicated that the proposed
use would be a small-scale shopping center but not could
offer any other specifics. He said the project would be a
June 26, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
quality development and the "C-3" district was appropriate
for the location. Mr. East described the area and indicated
that the property was surrounded by intense zoning. The
person present was concerned with the type of uses being
proposed and the type of development. Mr. East said that no
commitments had been made, so he could not describe the uses
but said that the development would be attractive and not
create an eyesore for the area. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 abstention (Bill Rector).
June 26, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4016-A
Owner: P and L Investment Company
Applicant: Perry Gravitt
Location: Wanda Lane (Lots 13 and 14,
J.O. Dickey's Subdivision)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "C-3" General Commercial
Purpose: Retail
Size: 21,000 square feet ±
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. No specific plans have been submitted, but the proposal
is to utilize the site for some type of retail use.
The property to the south is currently zoned "C-3," and
it is unknown at this time whether the two lots in
question will be combined with other parcels to create
a larger tract if the request of rezoning is approved.
The "C-3" property has been occupied in the past for a
used car lot but is currently vacant. The existing
"C-3" zoning is an unfortunate situation and that
should not be intensified by granting this request.
The rezoning would create a further intrusion into a
single family neighborhood and create an undesirable
land use pattern. Expanding a misplaced "C-3" tract
should not be justified by approving this request.
Also, the property in question only has frontage on a
residential street which could impact the neighborhood
by increasing nonresidential traffic.
2. The site is two standard residential lots that are
vacant.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In 1983, an application was filed to rezone the "C-3"
tract and the two lots in question to "C-4." The
request was denied by both the Planning Commission and
the Board of Directors. The residents of the
subdivision submitted a petition with over 100
signatures opposed to the rezoning in 1983. Staff
recommendation for the "C-4" request was denial. Staff
has received some calls in opposition to the most
recent request.
7. Staff is opposed to the request which is in keeping
with the staff's position on the previous rezoning.
Also, the request is not supported by the Suburban
Development Plan which identifies the property for
single family use. Approval of this reclassification
would create undesirable intrusion into the residential
neighborhood and could produce some unwanted problems
for the residents of the area. Another concern of the
staff is that the intersection of Wanda Lane and South
University is usually listed in the "Top 10"
intersections for accidents. Increasing the amount of
commercial zoning could add to the traffic and further
aggravate the existing situation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Perry Gravitt, was present. There were
approximately eight objectors also present. A petition
opposed to the request with 112 signatures was submitted to
the Staff prior to the public hearing. Mr. Gravitt said
that he and his partners owned all four lots and that the
proposed use was a small shopping center. He indicated that
they would try to get low- volume businesses to occupy the
center and that access would be restricted to the frontage
road. A.O. Tucker, a partner of Mr. Gravitt, spoke and
stated that he had notified all of the property owners on
the abstract list, and none of those had any real objections
of the request. Because of this, Mr. Tucker indicated he
June 26, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
was very surprised that a petition had been submitted.
Stephen Cobb, a resident of the area and representing the
neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. He said
that there was already a lot of commercial uses in the area
and the traffic situation was a definite problem. He also
described the intersection of Wanda Lane and the frontage
road as being very dangerous and that something should be
done to improve it. Mr. Cobb expressed concern over
property values and the number of children in the
neighborhood. He reminded the Commission of a previous
denial for commercial zoning on the two lots in question and
that nothing had changed since that request was filed.
Mr. Cobb felt that if the request was approved, it would
create a very undesirable intrusion into the residential
neighborhood. Mr. Gravitt spoke again and said that the
proposed development should not increase the traffic flow in
the area. He also pointed out that the two lots in question
had never been developed for residential uses. A motion was
made to approve the request. The motion failed for lack of
affirmative vote. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes and
1 absent. The application was denied.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-4256
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: Arlan Harris
Location: Sibley Hole Road East of I-430
and South of Stagecoach Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "C-2" Shopping District
Purpose: Shopping Center
Size: 9.43 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop a small scale shopping
center on the property in question. No specific plans
have been submitted, but "C-2" is a site plan review
district so prior to development of the site further
review by the Planning Commission will be required.
The property has some problems and really does not lend
itself to this type of zoning or use. The site has an
extensive involvement with the floodway, and the land
has virtually no frontage on an arterial or a
collector. The property fronts onto Sibley Hole Road,
a substandard street, at a point that appears to be
located in the floodway. The development potential of
the property is questionable because of these issues
and the site is not a "C-2" location.
2. The property is flat and vacant. Approximately the
southern one-half is in the floodway, and it is
bisected by Fourche Creek. It appears that the
property is heavily impacted by the creek and its
floodplain. These characteristics of the site raise
questions as to whether the property can be developed
for commercial uses.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this site.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history on this site.
7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies areas to the
west of I-430 for the commercial commitment and not to
the east, the location of this request. The plan shows
the property in question as floodplain. The staff does
not support the request because of the plan and
inadequate access for a commercial use and the floodway
involvement. For a "C-2" site to work, it should have
proper access and frontage on a major street and this
site is lacking both. There is a strip of land between
the property in question, Sibley Hole Road, that
possibly has controlled access as a result of the I-430
project. Sibley Hole Road is a substandard street and
cannot handle additional traffic flow. The Master
Street Plan identifies Fourche Creek as part of the
"floodway open space acquisition" program which
recommends a minimum width of 350 feet. This could
substantially impact the property. One additional
concern is whether the property has been properly
subdivided. From all indications, this is not a good
"C-2" location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Donna Harris, was present. There were no
objectors present. Mrs. Harris stated that the issues
raised by the staff were minor construction problems and
could be resolved. She described the proposed use as a
24,000 square foot shopping center and that some
commitments had been made. Arlan Harris spoke and addressed
the floodway and floodplain issues. He stated that he did
not intend to include the floodway portion of the property
in the request and that he realizes that the floodplain
would have to be built up. Mr. Harris said the site would
have to be raised at least five to six feet and that should
solve some of the flooding problems. Jim Lawson of the
Planning staff also addressed the floodway issue and
June 26, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
informed the Commission that the Board of Directors is to
act on a resolution encouraging the dedication of the
floodway lands. It would be similar to the right-of-way
dedication procedure. After a long discussion, Mr. Harris
agreed to amending the application to exclude the floodway
from the "C-2" request and dedicate the floodway to the
City. The floodway would remain zoned "R-2." A motion was
made to recommend approval of the request as amended. The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4257
Owner: Wayne Wilkins
Applicant: Same
Location: 1505 Welch
Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family
District to "R -5" Urban
Residence District
Purpose: Multifamily Units
Size: 15,200 square feet
Existing Use: Multifamily
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R-4"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property is occupied by two structures, a residence
and a garage with one residential unit. The residence
is a two-story structure, and recently, the upper floor
was damaged by fire. The house had four units in it
and was a nonconforming use. It was determined that
the damage was greater than 50 percent and to rebuild
the structure with the four units, the owner would have
to rezone the property to "R-5." The site has been
used in the past for multifamily units, and it appears
that the use has had very little impact on the area.
The neighborhood has a mix of land uses including some
commercial. There are also some structures zoned "R-4"
that are being used for more than two units. The major
source of disruption for the neighborhood has been the
construction of the I-630 interchange.
2. The site is a typical residential lot with two
structures on it.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with the request.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
revewing agencies at this time.
5. The only legal issue is one of spot zoning.
6. The property has been used for multifamily units for a
number of years. There is no neighborhood position on
the site.
7. The area is in transition and has similar uses in
place. Zoning and land use have not impacted the
neighborhood as much as the construction of the
interchange. Staff supports the request but is
concerned with the property's ability to provide the
necessary off - street parking. The Zoning Ordinance
requires 1.5 spaces per unit for multifamily
structures. A minor issue is that the approval of the
request will establish spot zoning, but that should not
create any additional problems for the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend
approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z-4258
Owner: Fred Walloch
Applicant: Joe White
Location: I-30 and Production Drive
Southwest Corner
Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "C-3" General Commercial
Purpose: Retail
Size: 3.57 acres ±
Existing Use: Retail (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-2"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
East - Commercial and Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The use on the property is presently nonconforming, and
the owner wishes to change that. The site is the
location of Walloch's which is on the northern tract
and the southern parcel, Lot 10, is vacant. The
current retail use will continue, but no specific plans
have been submitted for Lot 10. This section of I-30
has a mixed land use pattern with similar zoning. This
request will do nothing to change that, and it will
recognize the existing use that has a commitment to the
area.
2. The site is flat with a single building on the northern
portion, and the remainder of the property is vacant.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues.
4. As of this writing, there have been no adverse comments
received from the reviewing agencies.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
6. This location was part of the large I-30 annexation
that took place in 1979. The property was annexed as
"R-2."
7. There are no outstanding issues, and the staff supports
the rezoning. The Suburban Development Plan identifies
the area for strip development for which "C-3" is an
appropriate zoning classification.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no persons in
attendance objecting to the request. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the rezoning request. The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z -4259
Owner: James L. Lasley (Trustee)
Applicant: Joe White
Location: South and West of the Richland
Addition
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "I -2" Light Industrial
Purpose: Warehousing and Other Related
Activities
Size: 58.85 acres ±
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family & Vacant, Zoned "R-2" & "I-2"
South - Interstate Right-of-Way & Vacant, Zoned "I-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
West - Vacant, Outside the City Limits
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone approximately 59 acres to
"I-2" for warehousing and other related industrial
uses. A majority of the property is outside the City
limits but within the City's land use jurisdiction
through the "River Zoning" Act which permits
Little Rock to exercise zoning control over lands
within so many miles of the Arkansas River. The
property was zoned "R-2" by the Board of Directors when
they adopted the East River Island Plan. That action
took place in May of this year. The property appears
to be suitable for some type of industrial uses with
an interstate on one side and Fourche Creek being the
western boundary. The tract does abut a residential
subdivision on the northeast portion of the property,
so careful consideration should be given to buffering
the neighborhood and minimizing any impacts that the
proposed industrial uses might have on the subdivision.
The property abuts "C-3" zoning on the east and "I-2"
on the south and north. The "I-2" tract to the north
was recently rezoned by the City. The site is not
served by an adequate circulation system so a street
network will have to be constructed for the land to be
utilized.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
2. The site is flat and vacant. The western side of the
property is encroached on by the Fourche Creek
floodplain.
3. The Master Street Plan was recently amended to show an
east /west and a north/south collector running through
the property. Needed right-of-way for the collectors
will be provided for by a plat. This collector system
will provide the traffic flow for the proposed
development.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. There is no documented history on the site. With the
rezoning of the land to the north from "R-2" to "I-2,"
there was some opposition voiced by the residents of
the area. They were concerned with noise pollution,
additional truck traffic, drainage and property values.
7. The property is part of the East River Island Plan
which has been formally adopted by the City. The site
is identified on the plan for light industrial and
research /business uses. The "I-2" District is the
appropriate zoning classification for this type of land
use pattern, and staff does support the request. The
plan also shows a 50-foot open space buffer adjacent to
the residential subdivision, and it is the staff's
recommendation that the entire buffer strip be rezoned
to "OS." This should offer the neighborhood some
protection from the industrial uses and their potential
impacts. A major issue is the annexation of that
portion of the property that is currently outside the
City limits. This is part of the referendum area in
which a judge ruled in favor of the City but that
decision has now been appealed. Because of this
development, staff recommends that this item not be
forwarded on to the Board of Directors until an
annexation petition has been filed and that both the
rezoning and annexation be acted on by the Board of
Directors at the same time. One additional plan
element is the Master Parks Plan and Fourche Creek.
The plan identifies Fourche Creek as a priority stream
for floodway open space acquisition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request with the exception
of the 50-foot "OS" buffer strip.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Joe White, was present. There were six to
eight objectors also present. Mr. White spoke and agreed to
amending the application to include a 50-foot "OS" strip as
reflected in the staff's recommendation. Don McClure, a
resident of the Richland Addition, expressed concerns over
the type of uses being proposed and circulation. He felt
that the existing streets were inadequate and could not
accommodate the additional traffic flow. It was explained
to Mr. McClure that a new street system would be constructed
through the property in question to provide it with the
necessary circulation. Those proposed streets are now
reflected on the Master Street Plan. Mr. McClure was also
concerned with the "OS" strip and who would be responsible
for its maintenance. Because of these uncertainties,
Mr. McClure requested that the rezoning be denied. Clarice
Martin, another resident of the area, expressed similar
concerns as Mr. McClure. She was also concerned with the
types of impacts the proposed zoning would have on the
neighborhood. Mr. White addressed some of the issues
mentioned by the residents and stressed that there would be
no access through the Richland Addition. After a lengthy
discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the
request as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector).
NOTE:
This item will not be forwarded onto the Board of Directors
until the annexation petition is placed on the Board of
Directors Agenda.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 8 - Z -4260 (Special Use Permit)
Owner: Ralph E. Durden
Applicant: Same
Location: 6902 Briarwood Drive
Request: Special Use Permit
Purpose: Day-Care - 10 Children or Less
Size: 10,400 square feet
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is for a special use permit to allow a day-care
home with 10 children or less. This request is a result of
a complaint filed by a resident in the neighborhood. With
the restriction that places a limit on the number of
children that may be cared use, the use should not adversely
affect the neighborhood. Some concern over cars impeding
traffic flow on Briarwood during certain times of day or
causing congestion have been expressed. This should not be
a major problem because of the number of children permitted.
One issue that must be addressed is the Bill of Assurance
for the subdivision. The Bill of Assurance's land use
provision restricts the lots to "detached single family
dwelling." Based on that, it appears that the proposed use
is in conflict with the Bill of Assurance. The City does
not enforce Bill of Assurances so this is a matter for the
individual property owners to resolve. The applicant has
provided the staff with some letters from neighbors in
support of the request. For informational purposes, the
conditional use permit to the northeast of this lot (West
Markham and Hughes) is a church operated shelter for
children).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Ralph Durden, was present. There were also
some objectors present. Mr. Durden spoke and offered
additional letters in support of the request. He stated
that the day -care has been in operation since 1981, and that
his wife has a license for keeping up to ten children.
Mr. Durden reported that the day -care was open Monday
through Friday all year round and his wife was keeping
children six weeks to six years old. Mr. Durden felt that
the day -care had not increased the traffic in the area.
Joe Erwin, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Jim Thweatt
of 6900 Briarwood, then spoke. Mr. Erwin explained that the
Thweatt's property was the adjacent lot to the east and had
been heavily impacted by the use. He felt that the
Thweatt's residence would be isolated if this request was
approved because the lot to the north is a shelter for
children. Mrs. Thweatt spoke and felt that there had been a
disregard for their property and that on several occasions
there had been more than ten children. On one day
Mrs. Thweatt counted seventeen children and for five days in
June of this year (the 4th, 12th, 22nd, 25th and 26th), the
count ranged between eleven and sixteen children.
Mr. Thweatt presented a map of the immediate area and stated
that the use had impacted his property. He felt that his
lot should not be subject to the influence of the day-care
facility. Mr. Durden then presented some photos of the two
properties. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement Office
addressed the enforcement issue and said that six children
or more would require a special use permit. Diane Woolly,
directly west of the property in question, said that the use
did not impact the neighborhood and that the Durdens had
upgraded the property. Mrs. Charles Tolland, who uses the
day -care, spoke in support and said that she utilized the
driveway for dropping off her children. Two other persons
voiced their support for the special use permit. Both
indicated that the Durdens had improved the lot. Mr. Erwin
addressed the Commission and stated that it appears that the
use had a lot of customers and needs to be in a commercial
location. Preston Bynum also spoke in support of the
request. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
special use permit for ten children. The motion failed for
lack of affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 7 noes,
2 absent and 2 abstentions (David Jones and Ida Boles). The
request for the special use permit was denied.
June 26, 1984
Item No. 9 - Master Street Plan Amendments
The staff has proposed two Master Street Plan amendments
involving collector additions. The first amendment involves
Nash Lane and Sibley Hole Road. This amendment would
connect Mabelvale Pike to I-30 by upgrading Nash Lane and
Sibley Hole Road. Development is occurring in the area
requiring the traffic circulation.
The other amendment involves adding the collector,
Corondelet Drive, to the Street Plan as a collector.
Corondelet Drive connects Parkway Place to the northern
extension of Pride Valley. This amendment allows access
westward from St. Charles addition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson discussed the two proposed amendments to the
Master Street Plan. He discussed that the two proposals
were results of plats that have been filed in the areas.
After some discussion, the Planning Commission approved both
of the amendments. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
r
DATE JuNE 2'-, 1984 ,
ZONING
MEMBER A f)C
J • S umrnP r 1 -i n ,/ � ,/"
J.Schlereth ✓ v' ,,
R.Massie As � .,
B.Sipes ✓ ,I �
J.Nicholson ✓ ,I ,/
,I y' w.Rector
W.Ketcher ,, � ,,,
D.Arnett A A
D.J. Jones � Ii' ,, t
I.Boles I ,, ,, ,,,
J; Clayton ( ,, ,I'
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
D E. 1 2.3 4 5 (o 7 8 9
t/ � ✓✓ • II'✓,/ I •II'
,,I ,,, ,I ,/ • v ti' ✓,,•ti'.,, ,/ •✓ • ,/ ✓ ,,, ,/•,/
� ,/ •,I • ,,, ,/ ,, ,/ •II',., ,,, •y' • V • �v •y
,I ,, v As • II ✓ v-As •//
� � y ,I •y .,, � ✓ • V"
A
,I' ,., ,,, ,I • .,✓ ,,, ,,, Ae t/'
,/ II' ,/ � • " t/ ,,, y �V
II' ,,,,,, ,,, � y" • I/ t/y V • v
✓AYE NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
'
I I l'
June 26, 1984
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Date
Secretary
Chairman