The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-02638-B ApplicationAPPLICATION FOR REZONING ZONING CASE FILE NO. Z-.Q(p 3l _. & PLANNING COMISSION MEET!G DOCKETED FOR 19 qs ,AT :z .oo tt~. Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors, through the Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Act 186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code (1988), as amended, petitioning to rezone the following described area: 55" 01 Wtsf-L,~+h Sfru. + of~u w ;St. k"'tlw h A.i Lo.f-) , Title to this property is vested in: ___ -4rJ~o"::..:..=L,____.&~(4t..t.lie~~:........__ __________ _ The subject property is/is not currently covered by a Bill of Assurance. County Recorder Instrument No. __ It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be amended and that this area be reclassified from the present "C-3 " to...,. ""ttr ti~ I District to •• I-2" rllldr.o.~t,..,-~ I District. Present use of property V~~tA tJ { (.. terN & Proposed use of property tli lluu ~ c. • ...,s~,.ft Ch.-'1~lero.. / P/y._,o.,..fL. T}zde,s/..,,'p) ~. ~,v,-lt , !~c.. I C«rwst..,.ff re hiiJt, / ~:';.tvi~~t \ ' t ''"'"1>""'1 ) It is understood that notice of the public hearing hereon must be sent to owners of properties which lie within 200 feet of the subject property in accordance with the requirements set forth in the instructions given with this application. It is further understood that the cost of such notice is borne by the applicant. I, kiv i vt Y. ~vh i Vlfi.S o..., , acting as owner{(g~nt for this application, ce'ft1fy that the subject property does/does not conta1n uses/struc ur s that are certifiable as nonconforming within the definition section of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. Nonconforming land use status has been explained to me and I understand that false statements by me may be cause for revocation of the rezoning ordinance. ~ ..jf J/~) a.r4 1~ 1/:t!,,,_~f &.Nsh,.Pt s,~~~.·,e , r~,. MAl LING AD DRESS :_--'-P-'-'. 0::......:.'----"-B .:.....:.o Y:----==:3-=.S"_:..Y_G _ ___,L=-df..I.J...!..:../ « ___,_g..:....>.oc4_::;.x::.._+-1 ...!...-'A..,_IL _ _,_7:......:Z 2-_o-=3--'-- APPLICANT/OWNER 4t 2r0 . _o, FILING FEE: __ --=--=>--=--.:...__---- PLANNING COMMIS~ON ACTION: APPROVED: V DENIED: __ _ DATE:-;.~'----~() £::.~~£........_.,~-E{~tf!~...L..,_tf5:;____ ; f 4C'Il ))) JUL 0 5 1995 CI TY OF Un L~~ j-·,OCK BUilDING CODE TELEPHONE: 372-{, J b I B~ DIRECTORS' ACTION: APPROVED: __ _ DATE: __ _ D ~CUMENTING OFFICIAL SIGNATURE . . . ORDINANCE NO. 16,9 S6 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PD-I DISTRICT TITLED HILLCREST CAM SHAFT SHORT-FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, INDUSTRIAL LOCATED AT 5502 WEST 65TH STREET (Z-2638-B} IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 3 6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following described property be changed from C-3 General Commission to PD-I Planned Development, Industrial: A parcel of land in a part of Tract 26 of R. B. Leigh and R. C. Butler Acers, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Tract 26, being a 1/2 inch pipe; thence S01°45'08" West along the West line of said Tract 26, 100.08 feet to a 1/2 inch rebar; thence S88°28'1" East a distance of 328.63 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar with cap arid a point on the East line of said Tract 26; thence S01°28'11" West along said West line a distance of 507.21 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar with a cap and a point on the northerly right-of-way of West 65th Street; thence N88°28'11" West along said right-of-way line a distance of 328.63 feet to a 1/2 inch pipe and a point on the West line of said Tract 26; thence N01°45'08" East a distance of 507.21 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 3.827 acres more or less located at 5502 West 65th Street. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the PD-I District established permit the future expansion of buildings on the site not to exceed fifty (50} percent of the gross floor area existing on September 5, 1995 without further review by Planning Commission or Board of Directors. SECTION 4. Th~t the change in zoning classification contemplated for Hillcrest Cam Shaft (Short-Form PD-r) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within~ the t~e specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36- 454(d} of ,the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 5. That the map referred in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 6. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: September 5, 1995 ATTEST: APPROVED: Robbie Hancock Jim Dailey City Clerk Mayor ,· City' of ,Little Ro'c.k Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 August 10, 1995 Mr. Kevin Hutchinson P. 0. Box 3456 Little Rock, AR 72203 RE: HILLCREST CAMSHAFT SERVICE RECLASSIFICATION Dear Mr. Hutchinson: Planning Zoning and Subdivision At its meeting on August 8, 1995, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended approval of the reclassification of the subject property. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Board will be a modified application from that which was filed. The I-2 zoning was determined to be inappropriate by the Planning Commission, but that a planned development for industrial is appropriate. That action will be forwarded to the City Board of Directors for public hearing. This meeting will be held on September 5, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. The Staff will forward the appropriate supporting documentation from the Commission to the City Board reflecting the conditions set forth and the Commission's recommendation. The specific conditions being that the owner use the property for purposes of Hillcrest Camshaft and to retain all right to the C-3 commercial uses on this property plus retaining the ability to expand the existing structure to a maximum of 50% of its existing gross floor area without benefit of further site plan review. At the Planning Commission meeting, it was also discussed that there would be some requirement for landscape enhancement of the significant paved area surrounding this building. It is the suggestion of this staff that the full ordinance standard not be applied, but that some perimeter treatment be designed and submitted to Mr. Bob Brown of this office for his review. If you require assistance with that process or any other element of this rezoning action, do not hesitate to call my office. Sinc~rely, Ric~~Manager zoning and Subdivision Division cc: File No. Z-2638-B • I ' "" C4 • IIC D C::l::J . • c; 01 c r::J c::J D c:::f;:J D CJ CJCJ REZONING REQUEST . Z-2638-B 5502 W. 65TH STREET C3 to Tb-I. lRS TIN R!2W J1 PO __:;....13 __ _ V"x:inityMap cr naz Item No. ; . • cO 0 -FJ • .0 =0 0 .D 0 D .. o· o 0 .. 0 0 •• 0 0 ° 0 D •• 0 r. a · Item __ _ OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION SEPTE:MBER 5, 1995 AGENDA Subject Rezoning to establish a Planned Development, fndustrial (Z-2638-B) SYNOPSIS FISCAL IMP ACT RECOMMENDATION Action Required "J'Ordinance Resolution Approval Information Report Submitted By Charles Nickerson City Manager The owner of this land at 5502 West 65th Street requests rezoning to a PO-I District to allow use of the current building as Hillcrest Cam Shaft, a machine shop. Tne applicant would convert this unused site to his use by moving from the current Asher Avenue location. None The staff recommends approval as modified at the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the "PO-I" with the changes or conditions agreed upon in the public hearing: 1) allow up to 50% building expansion without returning to the Commission, 2) accept the filing that has been submitted for plan approval, 3) landscaping be enhanced and 4) C-3 uses now allowed be permitted for conversion in the future. CITIZEN There were no objectors. PARTICIPATION The Wakefield neighborhood was notified and responded by stating "no objection." BACKGROUND The applicant is a long time Uttle Rock business that growth has caused to move previously. The original Hillcrest Cam Shaft business was on Kavanaugh Blvd. east of Spruce Street. The business is now on Asher Avenue where it has been for a number of years. This site will permit significant growth and since the site was an auto dealership, the buildings are usable much as they are today. FILE· NO.; Z-2638-B owner: Noah Bates Applicant: Ken Hutchinson for Hillcrest cam Shaft Service, Inc. Location: 5502 West 65th Street Request: Rezone from C-3 to I-2 Purpose: Occupy existing building with machine shop Size: 3.827 acres Existing Use: Vacant building, formerly ice rink SPRROQNDING LAND USE ~~ ZONING North -Single-Family, zoned R-2 South -Warehouse and Retail, zoned I-2 East -Industrial, zoned I-2 West -Vacant, zoned c~4 STAFF ANALYSIS This application represents the third or fourth generation use of the site since the building was constructed for a Chrysler auto dealership. The use preceding this application was an ice rink. That. use was a nuisance according to the neighbors to the north in Stonehedge Addition. There were all manner of noisy machines involved in that occupancy that should be avoided if possible in a reuse. The proposed occupancy is a camshaft shop which is in its third location in Little Rock, which history goes back to Kavanaugh and Spruce in a nonconforming state. Staff review of its location on Asher Avenue (3517), its current business site, reveals a use that appears to be enclosed. All this aside, the application filed is for I-2 Light Industrial. That district permits a multitude of uses that are not compatible with a residential neighborhood. However, this reach of West 65th Street has a number of sites zoned I-2. Ten acres across the street to the south and 5 acres abutting on the east. There is no consistent zoning pattern in this area. FILE NO.; Z-2638-B <Cent.> A strong point to be considered in this case is, that, Mr. Bates' dealership platted the north 100 feet of his ownership and gave each resident abutting title to a 100 foot tract to be added to his or her lot. That remains as a buffer. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Wakefield Association was notified by staff and no comment has been received in writing and one phone call for information only. LAND USE ELEMENT .. The subject site should be I-1 or PID if industrial use is to be located here. I-2 is not desirable adjacent to single family. care should be taken along the --north line. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Dedicate right-of-way from centerline of 65th Street to 45 feet per Master Street Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the use proposal. · However, , staff feels that the application should be converted to a PD-Industrial because of the use pian and residential abutting. The application can be converted to a PD-I and use the site plan in the file since the owner proposes no new buildings at this time. The use mix we would recommend is; keep the current C-3 uses and add machine shop to permit this use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Chairman aske~ that staff present the staff recommendation on this item. Richard Wood, of the .Staff, identified Item No. 12 pointing out that it was an expedited rezoning case to assist in occupancy of this building. The use is a proposed movement from Asher Avenue of the Hillcrest Cam Shaft business. This i~ a rezoning action to a I-2 classification to permit a machine shop. Wood expanded his comments to include a recommendation that the I-2 not be approved as recommended but that the applicant be offered an option of converting this application to a planned development 2 FILE NO.; Z-2638-B <cont.> industrial. Staff feels that this is more appropriate approach because I-2 is not recognized by the Land Use Plan as proper for this site. Staff recommendation would be that the current C-3 zoning use mix be retained in the planned unit development and that the I-2 use of machine shop be specifically attached so as to provide for the Hillcrest Cam Shaft business. At the conclusion of the staff remarks, the Chairman asked for clarification as to why this item was before the Commission. He asked.if there were issues pertinent to this application and notice. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that this application was not in complete and proper filing form but was added to this agenda to expedite the matter of locating this business. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Adcock. Commissioner Adcock stated that she had discussed this proposal with the property association of Wakefield and they had indicated they hav~no ~oncerns and do not oppose this application. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Dickson Flake and Kevin Hutchinson who were present representing the application. Mr. Flake offered several comments especially in response to the staff recommendation. He stated that he would appreciate the Commission giving some consideration to the application as it was filed for I-2. Mr. Flake indicated that he was somewhat confused as to what was to be gained by utilizing the PD-I as opposed to zoning the property to I-2. He expressed concerns about the future if someone wanting to make an expansion of the business by adding additional floor space. The POD application approach would require that they come back to the Planning Commission for such review. Mr. Flake described the surrounding properties that are east, west and south of this use site. He described those properties as being predominately zoned industrial C-4, commercial or occupied by industrial warehouse uses. He further described how the initial developer being a Chrysler dealership deeded to the single family homes on the north, a 100 foot strip so that each could add to the depth of their lot and provide a permanent buffer or open space area. He stated that this user knew they were not an intrusive use or objectionable in the neighborhood because they had existed at their initial location on Kavanaugh Blvd. for many years where they were surrounded by neighborhood commercial and a residential area. The specific site being somewhat to the east of Spruce Street in Hillcrest. Mr. Flake closed his remarks by stating that the applicant would appreciate the Commission•s consideration of the initial application for I-2 rezoning. 3 FILE NQ.; Z-2638-B CCont. > Chairman Walker again instructed Mr. Flake that it had been the commission's ongoing policy to permit the applicant to control their application. The Chairman then added several additional comments dealing with operational structure of the Commission and the history of this application with specific information provided by Mr. Flake that he was not previously aware of. Mr. Flake stated that he felt the staff's concern was one of future use of this site and should be used for all property in the area. Chairman Walker then introduced the idea that perhaps an approach could be taken whereby the planned development industrial would limit the use of the building to the current proposed occupant, but permit the site plan and buildings as they currently exist to be added upon approximately 50% and perhaps some other conditions on area that might be offered. Mr. Flake responded to Chairman Walker's comments by stating that was the primary concern, being limited the footprint and user to the current building outline. A question was then posed by the Chairman as to whether or not anyone knew the overall depth of the -property. Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying that this was recently about 600% foot tract of land and is currently less than that due to the 100 foot strip dedicated on the north to the single family lots. After a brief discussion about the potential options and limiting the expansion as to floor area, Richard Wood offered a suggestion that perhaps a 50% limitation on the existing gross floor area be placed in the ordinance and that 50% could be controlled by current ordinance provisions which is ,bulk area,· parking and landscaping. Those district provisions to be :as specified by whichever district the Commission might determine. The Chairman then expressed a thought to Mr. Flake that perhaps the staff was receptive to the expansion potential automatically once a determination is made as to an exact percentage. Also, the Commission wants to accommodate the expansion potential but there is the question of the district and the potential rollover if zoned to a specific zoning classification. Mr. Flake responded to the Chairman's comments by offering the following. The Commission could zone it to whichever district would be appropriate either planned development industrial or to the I-2 zoning with the limitation of the current C-3 uses for future rollover plus the proposed occupant of machine shop. He stated that the potential 50% gross floor area expansion without further Commission review and especially not having to return to the Planning Commission for a review was attractive. The Chairman asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, whether the staff had problems with Mr. Flake's offering at this point. Wood responded that the staff could accept that type of 4 FILE NO.; Z-2638-B CCont. > approach so long as the SO% expansion did not affect the site's ability to provide required parking and other design elements. commissioner Adcock then inserted a question at this point .. Her question dealt with whether or not this proposal would require upgrading the landscaping on this site. Richard Wood responded by saying that the zoning ordinance was amended several years ago to provide for those instances where nonconforming sites that are zoned to a POD or some form of conditional use or site plan review be brought up to Landscape Ordinance standards. Wood also pointed out that a remodeling permit for the interior of the structure would not cause that to occur. In response to a question from the Chairman concerning the point or direction of her question. Commissioner Adcock stated that this property in recent years has deteriorated and does not offer much in the way of visual treatment on the site. Commissioner Adcock also pointed out that one of the reasons for her raising it at this point is that the applicant be aware that the potential for requirement is there and might possibly be raised by the staff at a later point. In southwest Little Rock, there has been a recent effort to have people bring their properties up to code. Mr. Flake then stated that there have been recent developments on properties both east and west of this site and he would hope that this project would be treated in much the same way as those parcels. Chairman Walker pointed out that on a remodeling of a given site the effort was to bring what existed up to some minimal compliance level. But on a rezoning action, the effort was to have some discretion on the part of the Commission to bring it to full compliance with the Landscape Ordinance or perhaps some point back from full compliance. The Chairman concluded his remarks on this subject by stating that he felt Commissioner Adcock's reason for raising this issue was to ask that for either of these changes that action would stimulate a requirement for compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Flake then posed a question as whether those recent developments east and west of this site were in fact required to bring theirs up to code on the same basis. Chairman Walker responded to that question by saying he was not certain whether there was a rezoning involved, redevelopment or east change. The Chairman stated that given the circumstances of this site, its size and large servicing area there was some tradeoffs that the owner could make in approaching the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. He also pointed out that Mr. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, was not present. This person normally renders an opinion on the application of the ordinance in specific areas of land and dimensional 5 FILE NO.; Z-2638-B (Cont.) relationships that would be required on a given project. In his absence, it appeared that if in the application process for building permit it becomes on~rou~ the applicant could return to the Commission for further consideration. Chairman Walker then offered a brief overview of the application before the Commission. With the various comments presented and the potential resolution, he specifically asked Mr. Flake to choose one of the several routes that were discussed. Mr. F~ake responded by stating the City Attorney needed to address a question concerning appropriateness of the two approaches which had been discussed. One is a R-2 zoning with conditional relationships built into the ordinance and offered by the applicant. The other one is a planned development when the submittal requirements for that process would be accepted at a reduced level. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney•s Office, responded by saying that the planned development offered the greatest degree of flexibility in choosing a solution. Mr. Flake then posed the question, 11 Could the owner receive the planned development for industrial zoning with a condition or allowable built into the application whereby 50% additional floor space could be added at some future point without the requirement for a return to site plan review before the Commission. Giles and the Chairman had a lengthy discussion at this point on whether or not there was a place in the City Ordinance dealing with conditional rezoning on specific districts. The resolution of their discussion was that there was such an ordinance in place and it had been utilized and could be used in this instance. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that the staff has a basic site plan in the file that could be utilized as the basis for establishing the 50% and other factors as may be required. He pointed out that landscaping was the only element missing at this time. Mr. Flake inserted a comment at this point stating that he now realized that the PUD process with the limitation on the 50% without having to return to the Commission was the least complex or involved process. At this point, he and his applicant request that the application be amended to that form. Chairman Walker for the record stated that the current submittal would be accepted as a full submittal for a PD-I application. Since that is made in the record at this time as a completed application, there will be no question in the future as to component filing. The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission clarifying the specifics of the application as now amended. The application is to be a planned development industrial with 6 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 Z-2638-B <cont.> Mr. Flake inserted a comment at this point stating that he now realized that the PUD process with the limitation on the 50% without having to return to the Commission was the least complex or involved process. At this point, he and his applicant request that the application be amended to that form. Chairman Walker for the record stated that the current submittal would be accepted as a full submittal for a PD-I application. Since that is made in the record at this time as a completed application, there will be no question in the future as to component filing. The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission clarifying the specifics of the application as now amended. The application is to be a planned 'development industrial with the I-2 use of the applicant as proposed being a machine shop, the primary use. The c-3 permitted uses to be included for future turnover or occupancy and an expansion be permitted not to exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the buildings on the site without returning to the Planning Commission or City Board. The Chairman called for a vote on the matter. A vote produced 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. The application is approved as amended. 7 ORDINANCE NO. ________ _ AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PD-I DISTRICT TITLED HILLCREST CAM SHAFT SHORT-FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, INDUSTRIAL LOCATED AT 5502 WEST 65TH STREET (Z-2638-B) IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 3 6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the ~ following described property be changed from C-3 General Commission to PD-I Planned Development, Industrial: A parcel of land in a part of Tract 26 of R. B. Leigh and R. ~. Butler Acers, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Tract 26, being a 1/2 inch pipe; thence SOl 0 45'08 11 West along the West line of said Tract 26, 100.08 feet to a 1/2 inch rebar; thence S88°28'1 11 East a distance of 328.63 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar with cap and a point on the East line of said Tract 26; thence S01°28'll 11 West along said West line a distance of 507.21 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar with a cap and a point on the northerly right-of-way of West 65th Street; thence N88°28'll 11 West along said right-of-way line a distance of 328.63 feet to a 1/2 inch pipe and a point on the West line of said Tract 26; thence N01°45 • 08'' East a distance of 507.21 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 3.827 acres more or less located at 5502 West 65th Street. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the PD-I District established permit the future expansion of buildings on the site not to exceed fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area existing on September 5, 1995 without further review by Planning Commission or Board of Directors. SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Hillcrest Cam Shaft (Short-Form PD-I) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, section 36- 454{d) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 5. That the map referred in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 6. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: ____________________ __ ATTEST: APPROVED: ~ity Clerk Mayor City of Li'Uie Rock Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 Planning Zoning and Subdivision Re : Case No . .::Z"--~2'-!6~3~8=:..----==B"----- Location: 5502 W. 65th St. Date: August 18, 1995 Dear Mr. Flake: This is to advise you that in connection with your application for a change in zoning from C-3 District to I-2 District, the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 8, 1995. (a) Recommended approval as applied for. (b) Denied your request as submitted. (c) Deferred to meeting. (d) X Recommended approval of PD-I as amended. (e) Denied as amended. (f) Other: An ordinance affecting this rezoning will be submitted to the Board of Directors for its consideration at its meeting September 05, 1995. Sincerely, Richard Wood, Division Manager · Department of Neighborhoods and Planning rw:vy ..... ' ,. 1. 2. '• Dedication of additional right-of-way is required for West 65th Street. The additional right-of-way required is five (5) feet for length of lot frontage or a minimum of forty five (45) from the center line of 65th Street. Please use the enclosed quit claim deed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way. The completed and signed deed needs to be returned to the planning office by noon on August 30, 1995. If the dedication instrument is not received by the specified date, the item will be removed from the Board's September 5th agenda. Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Q ~ 1 I ~ 1 ~ 1 M Q f f Q (CORPORATION) KNO~ ~~L ~EN OY THESE PRESENTS: THI\T Hillcres t Camshaf t Service, Inc. a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing buniness under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in conside~~tion of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby grant, convey and quitclaim to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public st~~et and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Pulaski County, Arkansas to wit: A tract of land being part of Lot 1 of Sid Haydon Replat, dated December 28, 1973, more particularly described as follOVJs: Cornnence at the northwest comer of Tract 26, Leigh-Butler Acres, being a 1/2" pipe; thence S01° 45' 08"W , along the west lme of said Lot 1, 607.29 ' to a 1/2" pipe which is 46 .11 1 north of the center line of 65th Street and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S88 ° 52 '4l"E, 328 .65' to a J?Oint on the east line of said Lot 1 which is 45. 00 1 north of the center lme of 65th Street; thence S0l0 45 1 08"W, along the east line of said Lot 1, 2. 34' to a 5/8" rebar with cap; thence N88° 28 1 11 "W, 328 . 63 1 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefits herein described, tog~ther with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said HillcrestCamshaftService, Inc. a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Vice President and President , at tested by its Assistant Secretary and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said " HillcrestCamshaftService, Inc. , on this 1st day of Septerrber , 19~. · Vice President & Assistant Secretary STATE OF ARKANSAS) <pi;: r d J I -f-)-COUNTY OF LAS KI ) On this lst day of --~S~e~p~t~emb~e~r~--------' 19 ~ before me, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified and acting within and for said County and State, appeared in person the within named Alex Nesterenko and Timothy Alex Nesterenko being the President Vice President and and Assistant Secretary respectively of Hillcrest Camshaft Service, Inc. a corporation, and who had been designated by said corporation to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that they were the Vice President and President and Assistant Secretary for the said ___ H_i _l _lc_r_e_s_t __ ~ __ . __ a_f_t __ S_e_rv __ ic~e~,~r~n~c~·------------• a corporation, and were duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this lst day of September 19 95 ----~-------------' -----· My commission expires: :2 -0 t-~o ()o .. August 8; .t995 · ITEM NO.: 12 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Z-2638-B Noah Bates Ken Hutchinson for Hillcrest Cam Shaft Service, Inc. 5502 West 65th Street Rezone from C-3 to I-2 Occupy existing building with machine shop 3.827 acres Vacant building, formerly ice rink SURROQNDING LAND USB AND ZONING North -Single-Family, zoned R-2 South -Warehouse and Retail, zoned I-2 East -Industrial, zoned I-2 West -Vacant, zoned C-4 STAFF ANALYSIS This application represents the third or fourth generation use of the site since the building was constructed for a Chrysler auto dealership. The use preceding this application was an ice rink. That use was a nuisance according to the neighbors to the north in Stonehedge Addition. There were all manner of noisy machines involved in that occupancy that should be avoided if possible in a reuse. The proposed occupancy is a camshaft shop which is in its third location in Little Rock, which history goes back to Kavanaugh and Spruce in a nonconforming state. Staff review of its location on Asher Avenue (3517), its current business site, reveals a use that appears to be enclosed. All this aside, the application filed is for I-2 Light Industrial. That district permits a multitude of uses that are not compa.tible with a residential neighborhood. However, this reach of West 65th Street has a number of sites zoned I-2. Ten acres across the street to the south • L .--~:-...-------·r.--•-.o.·~---7· ·------.. -·-··'· .-·-··""""'··-.·:· ~-·•·.-,..-...·.,-·-~--.-•..., .. ..., •.• _. ..-.•:·.• ---··--·-··--,-~--------·-.. ·-:· ~,=-_:~~--:.•+.-:·----..,"":~-;-.~~~ •. :.-~-1!-:c ,-, .•.. ,:,.---.,..,.,. ·-.·.-z .- August .8, · .1~.95 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 Z-2638-B CCont. > and 5 acres abutting on the east. There is no consistent zoning pattern in this area. A strong point to be considered in this case is, that, Mr. Bates' dealership platted the north 100 feet of his ownership and gave each resident abutting title to a 100 foot tract to be added to his or her lot. That remains as a buffer. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Wakefield Association was notified by staff and no comment has been received in writing and one phone call for information only. LAND USE ELEMENT The subject site should be I-1 or PID if industrial use is to be located here. I-2 is not desirable adjacent to single family. Care should be taken along the north line. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Dedicate right-of-way from centerline of 65th Street to 45 feet per Master Street Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the use proposal. However, staff feels that the application should be converted to a PD-Industrial because of the use plan and residential abutting. The application can be converted to a PD-I and use the site plan in the file since the owner proposes no new buildings at this time. ~~he use mix we would recommend is; keep the current C-3 uses and add machine shop to permit this use. 2 ~-..... -~ ~:·-... -....... ~. •~""", .......... ::;!. '7 ••• • ..... -• ··"· . . . . •tJ-' . ,., ., -· ····· ....... ,. .,, ............... ... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON AN APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY To all owners of land lying within 200 feet of the boundary of property at: LOCATION: ___ s_s_o_2_w_e_s_t_6s_th __ str_ee_t ________________ _ OWNED BY : ___ N_oah __ Ba_te_s ____________________ _ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application has been filed for rezoning of the above property requesting a change of zone classification from: "C-3" Conmercial District which permits use of the property as: Nonconforming car sales lot -currently vacant building • to : __ "_I_-_2'_' _In_d_u_s_tr_ia_l ____________________ District which permits use of the property as: _ _:...:~.a=chin=·=e'--'s=hop=~------------- If approved, the rezoning will occur only upon the property described above. It will not change th e zon ing or permitted uses on ne ighboring properties . The purpose of this request is to: (1. build; (2) develop; sell after rezoning. EXPLANATION : Upon rezoning , the property will be occupied by Hillcrest Camshaft, a c ompany established in Little Rock over 40 years ago and initially located on Kavanaugh Boulevard in the Hillcrest neighborhood . This ccrnpany does precision work on camshafts, and there is no outside a c tivity . If yo u have any que stions , please c all Kevin Huchinqson at Barnes , Quinn, Flake & Anderso n , Inc., Teleph::me 372-6161. A public hearing on said application will be held by the Little Rock Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, 2nd Floor, City Hall, on Tuesday, August 8, 19 95 at 9:00 ~ a.m. All parties in interest may appear and be heard at said time and place or may notify the Planning Commission of their views on this matter by letter. All persons interested in this request are invited to call or visit the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, 723 West Markham, 371-4790, and to review the application and discuss same with the Planning staff. · Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. 1200 First Commercial Buil ding P.O. Box 3546 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501) 372-6161 • Fax [501) 372-0671 Mr. Richard Wood Department ofNeighborhoods & Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Rezoning of5502 West 65th Street Dear Richard: July 31, 1995 REALTORS In accordance with our instructions for making an application for rezoning the above- referenced property, we have enclosed the following: 1) Certified abstract list of property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property; 2) Mailing receipts, 3) Copy of notice that was sent to the property owners within 200 feet. Our records indicate that we have now fulfilled all the requirements for submitting the application for rezoning, and we now await our appointment before the planning commission. Thanks for your assistance and cooperation. Enclosure CC: Alex & Tim Nesterenko rw7-31 L DICKSON FLAKE, CAE, CCIM, SIDR SAMUEL W . ANDERSON, CPM NOLAN L RUSHING PHYLLIS LASER GLAZE, CPM DALE L. COOK, CPM DIANA G. LACY DRU E . ENGLISH. CPM MELANIE GIBSON, CPM LEAH M. SEARS ANN STOBAUGH DINAH M . CROSS, CPM KEVIN H HUCHINGSON INDIVIDUAL DR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS American Societ:y of Real Es-cate Counselors lnstrtute of Real Estate Management ln"Cernational Council of Shopping Centers Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc Nat:ional Associecion of Realtors Society of lndust;rial and Office Realcors Sincerely, Kevin H. Huchingson ... Beach Abstract & Guaranty Company July 18, 1995 Kevin Huchingson Barnes-Quinn-Flake & Anderson First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, Ar. 72201 Dear Sir: 100 CENTER STREET-P. 0. BOX 2580 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203 TELEPHONE 376-3301 We have examined the records of Pulaski County, Arkansas, as to the following described property, to-wit: Tract 1, Sid Haydon Replat of part Tract 26, Leigh & Butler Acres AND, we find that the owners set out opposite the descriptions on the attached sheets are the owners which lie within 200 fe'et of the above described property. We do not certify as to validity of title and our liability 1s limited to the amount paid for this service. The addresses shown are taken from current directories and tax records of Pulaski County. We do not guarantee the accuracy of said addresses. We have certified to July 4, 1995 at 8:00 A.M.(Our Certifying Date) If we can be of further service to you, please call us. c;;· BEACH ABS TRA CT & GUARANTY COMPANY Over 100 Years Setting Records ; LEGAL DESCRIPTION East Part of Tract 36, Leigh & Butler Acres and South 210 feet of East 145 feet of West 175 feet of Tract 36, Leigh & Butler Acres Lot 47, Stonegate, an Addition to the City of Little Rock Lots 12A and 46A, Sid Haydon Replat Lot 7, Stonegate, an Addition to the City of Little Rock Lot 8, Stonegate, an Addition to the City of Little Rock Lot 9, Stonegate, an Addition to the City of Little Rock Lots 10, 11 and 12, Replatted as Lot 1, Lots lOA, llA, 12A and 46A, Sid Haydon Replat Lot lOA, Sid Haydon Replat Lot 11A, Sid Haydon Replat Lot lR, Fortune Little Rock Commerce Center, an Addition to the City of Little Rock Lot 2R, Fortune Little Rock Commerce Center, an Addition to the City of Little Rock Lot 1, 65th Center Addition to the City of Little Rock rnn t-1 niH>rl-'-'-~--- \ OWNER Jack Tyler Engineering Co. 6112 Patterson Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Casey L. Cook & Wife Anne J. 118 Wayside North Little Rock, Ar. 72116 Sid Haydon, Inc., et al 5502 West 65th St. Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Eula Willis 117 Timberlane Drive Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Huel N. D. Williams & Wife Alma Louise 119 Timberlane Dr. Little Rock, Ar. 72209 James R. Lee & Wife Lynne D. 1111 Timberlane Dr. Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Will Pittman, III & Wife Cynthia ff15 Timber Lane Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Joseph A. Laurence & Lisa Carole Bryant if 17 Timber Lane Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Binswanger Glass Co. c/o Blackwell Corp. P. 0. Box 171173 Memphis, TN 38117 Larry P. Crain 1911 West Pleasure Ave. Searcy, Ar. 72143 65th Center, Inc. A.B. Carden 17310 Cooper Orbit Rd. Little Rock, Ar. 72210 I . . LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part Tract 25, Leigh & Butler Acres in the City of Little Rock Described as Deed 93-56193 . Part Tract 25, Leigh & Butler Acres Described as Deed 85-35981 and Deed 87-32603 Herewith Tract 27, Leigh & Butler Acres -2- OWNER Bruce Thalheimer, Agent P. 0. Box 4066 Little Rock, Ar. 72214 Peggy Eva Glover & Candace L. Chapman 4904 Randolph North Little Rock, Ar. 72116 Bates & Pearson Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 5502 West 65th St. Little Rock, Ar. 72209 z 765 738 138 Receipt for . Certified Mall No Insurance Coverage P r ov i d~ Do not use f or Internat ional Ma•l (5 Reverse) ee ' . Sent to A\~\\ B · u.-"'"' .f'v.n '"%w' o. C._u ~ ~\·;;o:r1 f"n'o_.e_r \11f;2 u 'CO ::z ~ 0 0 CD M E 0 u.. (/) c. P.O .• S(L and Zl~ '=/ -:::::t~Oq L..-\ - Postage $ 3~ Certified Faa ;,;(") Si>OCta l Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing /'ID to VVhom & Date Delivered Return Receipt Showing to Whom, Data, and Addressee's Address -$ ~.5d-TOTAL Postage & Fees Postmark or Date .. " z 765 738 134 Receipt for . Certified Mall 'ded Coverage Provt No Insurance · • al Mall Do n ot use for l nt ernat•on (See Reverse\ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee /, /D ....... _, ·- Certified Fee z 765 738 136 Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided Do n ot use for Internationa l Mail (See Reverse) ID Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee M ~------~~------r---------1 ~ Return Rece1pt Showing / to Whom & Date Delivered , / 0 ~ ~~~~~--~~~~~--~~--~ ~ Return Receipt Showing to Whom. ~ Date, and Addressee's Address TOTAL Postage $ "") -._ oo ~&~F~e~es------~~----~~~~·-J_.~ CD Postmark or Date ~.~ M E 0 u.. (/) c. 0 OJ OJ ~ OJ c :::J -, 0 0 co M E 0 u. UJ c... r: 881 847 976 ...........__Certified Mail Receipt ~ No I nsurance Coverage Provided ___,;;; Do nor use for Internation al Marl ~~~. (See Reverse) Sent Ia Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receil)t Showing to Whom & Date Delivered Return Receil)t Showing Ia Whom. Oate. & Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage $ & Fees :..;::::_ Postmark or Date ~:~·~ ----------- z 765 738 137 Receipt for Certified Mail No I nsurance Coverag e Provided Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) Certified Fee c Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee ~ ~A-eru--m~A~a-c~ei-pt~S~h-o-w~in-g------~r--1--,-f-D------1 to Whom & Date Delivered ~ ~--~~~~~~~~~--------~ ~ Return Receipt Showing to Whom. ~ Date. and Addressee's Address TOTAL Postage $ • -"?-~~&~F;ee~s------------------~--~~--_;----1 CD Postmark or Date M § 0 u.. p 881 847 97.5 .........___Certified Mail Receipt ~ No Insurance Coverage Provided _ Do not use ior International Mail ~~ (See Reverse) Seo1 1o Certified Fee Special D2iivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Relurn Receipt Showing g to Whom & Dale Delivered OJ ._ Return Receipt Showing to Wham, ~ Date, & A<,jdress of Delivery - :::J -, TOTAL Postage 0 & Fees g Postmark or Date M E ~ (/) c... .. , •• & 0 $ p 106 584 566 ~ -UNoiTEOST4fES POSTAL s£A"VIC( Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided Do not use for International Mail (See Reve r s e ) I . I en Ret·..l~r = ~ce:O[ si".QVo'lr.s. Q') to 'v\Jr c ·-& Date S'e ~ .. ~n~c I. J o . -. ...... _ ... -· ___ ,........ _____ - z 765 738 139 ..........._ Receipt for ...ttl/11: Certified Mail ----~o Insurance Coverage Provided ~~ (So not use for International Mail ee Reverse) $ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee .., ~~~~~~~----~------__j I Return Rece ipt Showing ~ ~Re~t~ur~n~R~~~ei~p~IS~h~o:w~in~g~:to~W~h~om=-~_l~~L_ __ _j .r: to Whom & Date Delivered ~ trD0at~e~·L•n;d~A~dd~r~•s:s:~~·~s ~A~d :d•~·!~~-·f-----------__j 0~ TOTAL Postage g~&~Fe~es~~~------~$~~~~~~~~~ ... I Postmark or Date (') ~ p 106 584 567 ..........._ Receipt for ~ ~ Certified Mail --No Insurance Coverage Provided ~li."s'.'~ Do not use for International Mail , 1See Reverse ) /, Resmcteo ::::: '. -=''' Fee m Return ri::c-:1::: :;;~,awing C"> to Whom C. :~:e Del1ver~o /. Q) Return P.ec~·=: 3 'IOwlnC !O V.fr-.om § Date ana :.c:::·-::ssee·s -~C~ess • J TOTAL oas:ac::-~ lP:~~~~~:~.a~rk~;~-,~-~:~o-::e------~~~$~~~~~j2~ M .-::· -~- §" 0 1.1. (J) Cl.. .._..·. ---~--- p 106 584 563 Rece i pt f or Certified M ai l ~ o I nsurance C ove rage Provided o not use for I nternational M 'I ISee Re v ers e) al ~ ~oe~~a:e~~ ~ ·~·~ ~~:::;~~ § ~~~~:na~~c;:~.~::::~'~~:,"~:/m J TOTAL P-:15\::!c:.:. 0 & Fees -· g Postmark ~' :;;;IE~= .....:: :-:=. ('I') E 0 1.1. (J) Cl.. p 106 584 569 ..........._ Receipt for ~ Certified Mail ._-No Insurance Coverage Provl·ded LNTEosu.TEs Do n t ""''"'"""'" o use for International Mail (See Reverse J $ '3:;).., 1. ro m Retwn Rece rot Snowrnc 0'> to Whom & Date Oe:rv;r-=:: I. f 0 § ~~~~:na~~cz~o~r!:s~::~g,~oc_-~·,-,'.~ -, TOTAL Pos:age CX) g ~&:;Fe;;es~~=----~·~'$:_;;;}~. ~5~d...-2:J I Postmark cr Date ·- ("') E 0 1.1. (J) Cl.. p 1 06 584 564 Reslr rctea Jellverv Fee C'l Return Recerpt Snowrnc en to Whom & Date Deuv~·~t.:: g ~eturn Mece•or Showrng ;o /,':"' o:n ~ ate . and Addressee's ;.. ........... -~ J,/e;, J TOTAL Pos::aae '-'-·<=;:.': ~ rp&~F~ee~s;;~C· ~~--------~$~~~~~~ ...., Postmark or Date • "5' .;2.. ('I') E 0 1.1. (J) Cl.. p 106 584 565 Receipt tor ~ Certified Mail -No lnsur~nce Coverage Provided JNITEDSTATES Do not use for International Mail !><"'STAl5F~V.C:f (See Rev~rse ) a; r=::erurn ;:iece1::: Showmn 0> :c-',/·Jhom & Da!e Dellv;·e~ /.Jo Q) Ae!wn Rece1C! Showmq rc :'Vnom c :Ja~e and Adrjressee''5 Adcro2ss ~ r-~.o~-~,~~L~P~o-s•-,a -ge-------------+-$---~---.------1 0 {J ;:~'?S C/ as Postmark or Jate M E 0 LL (/) a.. • z 765 738 135 Receipt for Certified Mail ~ -No Insurance Coverage Provided .............. O'OSt&>OMa Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) Cenifiod Fee Special Delivery Fee M Restricted Delivery Fee /-' / O ·~ rR~.-~-m~R~oc-e~ip-t~S~ho_w_i~ng--------+-~~~~----~ to Whom & Date Delivered ~ ~Re~t~um~R~~-e~ip~t~S~h-ow~in-g~to~W~h-o-m-.1-------------~ CU Date, and Addressee's Address ,:!E ~~~------+-----! $ TOTAL Postage & Fees August 8, 1995 ITEM NO.: 12 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: z-2638-B Noah Bates Ken Hutchinson for Hillcrest ---Cam ·shaft -Service, Inc. 5502 West 65th Street Rezone from c-3 to I-2 Occupy existing building with machine shop 3.827 acres Vacant building, formerly ice rink SQRRQQNDING LAND USE AND ZON I NG North -Single-Family, zoned R-2 South-Warehouse and Retail,·zoned I-2 East -Industrial, zoned I-2 West -Vacant, zoned C-4 STAFF ANALYSIS This application represents the third or fourth generation use of the site since the building was constructed for a Chrysler auto dealership. The use preceding this application was an ice rink. That use was a nuisance according to the neighbors to the north in Stonehedge Addition. There were all manner of noisy machines involved in that occupancy that should be avoided if possible in a reuse. The proposed occupancy is a camshaft shop which is in its third location in Little Rock, which history goes back to Kavanaugh and Spruce in a nonconforming state. Staff review of its location on Asher Avenue ( 3517), .its current business site, reveals a use that appears to be enclosed. All this aside, the application filed is for I-2 Light Industrial. That district permits a multitude of uses that are not compatible with a residential neighborhood. However, this reach of West 65th Street has a number of sites zoned I-2. Ten acres across the street to the south August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 12 Z-2638-B (Cont.) and 5 acres abutting on the east. There is no consistent zoning pattern in this area. A strong point to be considered in this case is, that, Mr. Bates• dealership platted the north 100 feet of his ownership and gave each resident abutting title to a 100 foot tract to be added to his or her lot. That remains as a buffer. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Wakefield Association was notified by staff and no comment has been received in writing and one phone call for information only. LAND USE ELEMENT The subject site should be I-1 or PIP if industrial use is to be located here. I-2 is not desirable adjacent to single family. Care should be taken along the north line. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Dedicate right-of-way from centerline of 65th Street to 45 feet per Master Street Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION" Staff recommends approval of the use proposal. However, staff feels that the application should be .converted to a PD-Industrial because of the use plan and residential abutting. The application can be converted to a PD-I and use· the site plan in the file since the owner proposes no new buildings at this time. The use mix we ~ould recommend is; keep the current C-3 uses and add machine shop to permit this use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995} The Chairman asked that staff present the staff recommendation on this ~tem. Richard Wood, of the Staff, identified Item No. 12 pointing out that it was an expedited rezoning case to assist in occupancy of this building. The use is a proposed movement from Asher Avenue of the Hillcrest Cam Shaft 2 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. ; 12-z-2638-B (Cont.> business. This is a rezoning action to a I-2 classification to permit a machine shop. Wood expanded his comments to include a recommendation that the I-2 not be approved as recommended but that ·the applicant be offered an option of converting this application to a planned development industrial. Staff feels that this is more appropriate approach because I-2 is not recognized by the Land Use Plan as proper for this site. Staff recommendation would be that the current C-3 zoning use mix be retained in the planned unit development and that the I-2 use of machine shop be specifically attached so as to provide for the Hillcrest Cam Shaft business. At the conclusion of the staff remarks, the Chairman asked for clarification as to why this item was before the Commission. He asked if there were issues pertinent to this application and notice. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that this application was not in complete and proper filing form but was added to this agenda to expedite the matter of locating this business. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Adcock. Commissioner Adcock stated that she had discussed this proposal with the property association of wakefield and they had indicated they have no concerns and do not oppose this application. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Dickson Flake and Kevin Hutchinson who were present representing the application. Mr. Flake offered several comments especially in response to the staff recommendation. He stated that he would appreciate th~ Commie~ion giving some consideration to the application as it was filed for I-2. Mr. Flake indicated that he was somewhat confused as to what was to be gained by utilizing the PD-I as opposed to zoning the property to I-2. He expressed concerns about the future if someone wanting to make an expansion of the business by adding additional floor space. The POD application approach would require that they come back to the Planning CommisaLo~ for such review. Mr. Flake described the surrounding properties that are east, west and south of this use site. He described those properties as being predominately zoned industrial C-4, commercial or occupied by industrial warehouse uses. He further described how the initial developer being a Chrysler dealership deeded to the single family homes on the north, a 100 foot strip so that each could add to the depth of their lot and provide a permanent buffer or open space area. He stated that this user knew they· were not an intrusive use or objectionable in the neighborhood because they had existed at their initial location on Kavanaugh Blvd. for many years where they were surrounded by 3 August 8 , 1995 SQBDIV I S I ON ITEM NO.: 12 Z-2638-B <cont.> neighborhood commercial and a residential area. The specific site being somewhat to the east of Spruce Street in Hillcrest. Mr. Flake closed his remarks by stating that the applicant would appreciate the Commission's consideration of the initial application for I-2 rezoning. Chairman Walker again instructed Mr. Flake that it had been the Commission's ongoing policy to permit the applicant to control their application. The Chairman then added several additional comments dealing with operational structure of the Commission and the history of this application with specific information provided by Mr. Flake that he was not previously aware of. Mr. Flake stated that he felt the staff's concern was one of future use of this site and should be used for all property in the area. Chairman Walker then introduced the idea that perhaps an approach could be taken whereby the planned development industrial would limit the use of the building to the current proposed occupant, but .permit the site plan and buildings as they currently exist to be added upon approximately 50% and perhaps some other conditions on area that might be offered. Mr. .Flake responded to Chairman Walker's comments by stating that was the primary concern, being limited the footprint and user to the current building outline. A question was then posed by the Chairman as to whether or not anyone knew the overall depth of the property. Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying that this was recently about 600% foot tract of land and is currently less than that due to the 100 foot strip dedicated on the north to the single family lots. After a brief discussion about the potential options and limiting the expansion as to floor area, Richard Wood offered a suggestion that perhaps a 50% limitation on the existing gross floor area be placed in the ordinance and that 50% could be controlled by current ordinance provisions which is bulk,area, parking and landscaping. Those district provisions to be as specified by whichever district the Commission might determine. The Chairman then expressed a thought to Mr. Flake that perhaps the staff was receptive to the expansion potential · automatically once a determination is made as to an exact percentage. Also, the Commission wants to accommodate the expansion potential but there is the question of the district and the potential rollover if zoned to a specific zoning classification. Mr. Flake responded to the Chairman's comments by offering the following. The Commission could zone it to whichever district would be appropriate either planned development industrial ·or to the I-2 zoning with the limitation 4 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 12 Z-2638-B <Cont.> of the current C-3 uses for future rollover plus the proposed occupant of machine shop. He stated that the potential 50% gross floor area expansion without further Commission review and especially not having to return to the Planning Commission for a review was attractive. The Chairman asked Richard wood, of the Staff, whether the staff had problems with Mr. Flake's offering at this point. Wood responded that the staff could accept that type of approach so long as the 50% expansion did not affect the site's ability to provide required parking and other design elements. Commissioner Adcock then inserted a question at this point. Her question dealt with whether or not this proposal would require upgrading the landscaping on this site. Richard Wood . responded by saying that the zoning ordinance was amended several years ago to provide for those instances where nonconforming sites that are zoned to a POD or some form of conditional use or site plan review be brought up to Landscape Ordinance standards. Wood also pointed out that a remodeling permit for the interior of the structure would not cause that to occur. In response to a question from the Chairman concerning the point or direction of her question. Commissioner Adcock stated that this property in recent years has deteriorated and does not offer much in the way of visual treatment on the site. Commissioner Adcock also painted out that one of the reasons for her raising it at this point is that the applicant be aware that the potential for requirement is there and might possibly be raised by the staff at a later point. In southwest Little Rock, there has been a recent effort to have people bring their propertie.s up to ~ode. Mr. Flake then stated that there have been recent developments on properties both east and west of this site and he would hope that this project would be treated in much the same way as those parcels. Chairman Walker pointed out that on a remodeling of a given site the effort was to bring what existed up to some minimal compliance level. But on a rezoning action, the effort was to have some discretion on the part of the Commission to bring it to full compliance with the Landscape Ordinance or perhaps some point back from full compliance. The Chairman concluded his remarks on this subject by stating that he felt Commissioner Adcock's reason for raising this issue was to ask that for either of these changes that action would stimulate a requirement for compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Flake then posed a question as whether those 5 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 12 Z-2638-B (Cent.> recent developments east and west of this site were in fact required to bring theirs up to code on the same basis. Chairman Walker responded to that question by saying he was not certain whether there was a rezoning involved, redevelopment or east change. The Chairman stated that given the circumstances of this site, its size -and large servicing area there was some tradeoffs that the owner could make in approaching the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. He also pointed out that Mr. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, was not present. This person normally renders an opinion on the application of the ordinance in specific areas of land and dimensional relationships that would be required on a given project. In his absence, it appeared that if in the application process for building permit it becomes onerou$,the applicant could return .to the Commission for further consideration. Chairman Walker then offered a brief overview of the application before the Commission. With the various comments presented and the potential resolution, he specifically asked Mr. Flake to choose one of the several routes that were discussed. Mr. Flake responded by stating the City Attorney needed to address a question concerning appropriateness of the two approaches which had been discussed. one is a R-2 zoning with conditional relationships built into the ordinance and offered by the applicant. The other one is a planned development when the submittal requirements for that process would be accepted at a reduced level. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, responded by saying that the planned development offered the greatest degree . of flexibility in choosing a solution. Mr. Flake then posed the question, "Could the owner receive the planned development for industrial zoning with a condition or allowable bui l t into the application whereby 50% additional floor space could be added at some future point without the requirement for a return to site plan review before the Commission. Giles and the Chairman had a lengthy discussion at this point on whether or not there was a place in the City Ordinance dealing with conditional rezoning on specific districts. The resolution of their discussion was that there was such an ordinance in place and it had been utilized and could be used in this instance. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that the staff has a basic site plan in the file that could be utilized as the basis for establishing the 50% and other factors as may be required. He pointed out that landscaping was the only element missing at this time. 6 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 12 Z-26 3 8 -B (Cont .> Mr. Flake inserted a comment at this point stating that he now realized that the PUD process with the limitation on the 50% without having to return to the Commission was the least complex or involved process. At this point, he and his applicant request that the application be amended to that form. Chairman Walker for the record stated that the current submittal would be accepted as a full submittal for a PD-I application. Since that is made in the record at this time as a completed application, there will be no question in the future as to component filing. The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission clarifying the specifics of the application as now amended. The application is to be a planned ·development industrial with the I-2 use of the applicant as proposed being a machine shop, the pr~ry use. The C-3 permitted uses to be included for future turnover or occupancy and an expansion be permitted not to exceed 50% of the sr;:oss floor area of the buildings on the site without returning to the Planning Commission or City Board. The Chairman called ·for a vote on the matter. A vote produced 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. The application is approved as amended. 7 PUBLIC WORKS' REVIEW COMMENTS July 12, 1995 Preliminary Plat S-1 071 Promised Land North End of Gooch Road 1 . There are a few items missing from the boundary survey requirements of the Preliminary Plat, a copy is available. 2. Right-of-way dedication for Gooch Lane should be 50 feet versus 45 feet, the length of the roadway appears to exceed minor residential length. This street also is not a cul-de-sac or short loop street. Minimum horizontal radius for street shall be 150 feet, unless a waiver is sought from the Board of Directors . Dedication of right-of-way should follow this minimum horizontal radius. 3. Widen the roadway to residential standards to gain access to this new subdivision. Otherwise, seek a waiver of from the Board of Directors. Reference section 31-201 (f). A sidewalk will be required on frontage. 4. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual, if ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval, reference Section 31-89(9) of the LR Code . Show any planned drainage ditches on preliminary plat. Show water courses entering and planned exit points for drainage. Planned Developments Z-4343-1 Saddle Creek Retail Center NE Corner of Chenonceau and Ranch Drive 1. Sketch plan information including floodplain information should be provided prior to Planning Commission action. APDC&E approval along with a proper grading and excavation permit before any work is planned. 2. Widen entrance on Chenonceau to 36 feet. 3. Construct sidewalks on both streets. Submit plans for construction of Ranch Drive to collector street standards. 4. Provide drainage easement for large drainageway on the North boundary. Recommend that the structures be held 25 feet minimum from the limits of the water surface. The design and construction of this open drainage for the flow of 3500 cfs will require approval. The ditch may require concrete lining or other erosion protection. Recommend that this large ditch be fenced for the protection of the public. 5. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. The approved drainage system for Chenonceau Boulevard does not allow for this site to discharge drainage over the ---·~ ~ .... -.. -. ... -... -.. --- curb or into the inlets on Chenonceau Boulevard. Discharge from site will be directly into the North drainage ditch. 6. The entrance drives should have adjacent sidewalks connecting to the public sidewalks. Z-4563-A Community Bakery 12th and Main Street 1. Traffic Engineering advises the following: a. Revise parking to incorporate total access to parking spaces within the lot. The attached standards from the Traffic Engineering Handbook should be utilized. All parking spaces shall only be accessed through the parking lot. (i.e. no perpendicular parking in alley). b. No compact car spaces, all spaces shall be built to be used by all vehicles. 2. Sidewalks and ramps shall be improved west of alley. 3. Alley apron shall be constructed to conform to City of Little Rock standards. Site Plan Reviews Z-6015 Arkansas Systems Lot 2, Arkansas Systems Park 1. The proposed location has 3 areas of boundary that require improvements per the Master Street Plan and City Ordinances. Chenal Parkway intersection plan at the unnamed collector that traverses this property is attached. The unnamed Collector and Kirk Road both require 60 foot right-of-way and 36 foot pavement with sidewalks on both sides. Chenal Parkway will require sidewalks on frontage. 2. The intersection shown on the submitted plan is located only 200 feet from the collector's intersection with Chenal. This spacing does not meet the required minimum spacing requirement of 600 feet as specified in Section 31-285 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. This proposed street will provide major access to a multi-office complex, thus generating large peak hour volumes causing the intersection as designed to fail. The intersection should be moved to the east a minimum of 200 feet and preferably 400 feet to provide ample left turn storage and weaving section to access the development. Another option would be to extend the median island to restrict left turn movements from the unnamed collector. The intersection should be within 15° of a 90° intersection. The private street should be 36 feet in width and have sidewalks on both sides. The private street should not connect two public streets and be limited to short loop or cul-de-sac alignments where the development served contains less than 5 acres, per Section 31-207.b(2). 3. Stormwater detention will be required for site. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual, if ditches are planned, they must be shown on the plan and be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval. ~ I • "'""' • • o • • • •-• -•:-~• ------------ 4. The location of the unnamed collector is recommended to be moved South of the dam. Public liability for the dam would be required if the dam is a part of the public right-of-way. The dam construction shall be certified by a geotechnical engineer with experience in dam construction. 5 A sketch plan identifying the floodplain and floodway is required before Planning Commission action. Base flood elevations are required. Dedication of floodway is required. a grading and excavation plan and permit are required. A Development permit is required. Contact USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work. All drainage structures for the fioodway including the spillway of dam shall be designed for the 1 00 year storm. S-969-B Chenal Park Apartments Chenal at Venture Drive 1. A grading and excavation permit is required. Contact ADPC&E for permit prior to starting construction. 2. Widen drives to 27 foot and provide sidewalks. Reference Section 31-287(2). The drives should be 36 feet at the intersection with Venture Drive and provide minimum 1 00 foot stack space for left turning vehicles. 3. The address for Chenal Park Apartments is 15000 Venture Drive. 4. Stormwater detention and internal drainage system shall be submitted for approval. 5. The construction of Venture drive will require approval. The construction of the large drainage way including the box culvert under Venture Drive will require approval. If an open ditch is planned the ditch may require concrete lining and fencing to protect the public. ZONING Z-2638-B 5502 West 65th Right-of-way requirement for 65th Street (minor Arterial) is 45 feet from centerline . Dedicate additional right-of-way or seek waiver of MSP right-of-way requirements . CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Z-4423-B Chenal Car Wash Submit plans for review of any construction within the public right-of-way. Z-6012 5423 w. 65th 1. Right-of-way requirement for 65th Street (minor Arterial) is 45 feet from centerline. Dedicate additional right-of-way or seek waiver of MSP right-of-way requirements. 2. City ordinance requires wheel stops be placed 2.5 feet from the edge of sidewalk to protect pedestrians. Ordinance also requires the existing gravel parking and drives be paved. Z-6013 1100 West 33rd Alert Center 1. Right-of-way required for Ringo Street is 25 feet from centerline . The Braddock's Boulevard Addition platted 20 feet of right-of-way. Dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way along with the 20 foot radial dedication at the corner of 33rd and Ringo. 2. Repair or replace sidewalk and install handicap ramps at intersection. Sidewalk should be 5 feet wide if placed at the back of curb. 3. Repair or replace broken or damage curb and gutter. Z-6014 18020 Cantrell Road lmmanual Baptist 1. A grading permit is required prior to start of construction. Also, contact ADPC&E for permit prior to starting construction. 2. Contact AHTD for approval of any construction in the right-of-way of Cantrell Road (Highway 1 0). 3 . Construct sidewalk on highway 10. 4. Construct collector street improvements on Patrick County Road. Radius at intersection should be 31 .5 feet. Construct sidewalk on Patrick County Road. Improve 1 00% of drainage across Patrick County Road as required by Ordinance. 5. Provide stormwater detention analysis for site. 6. Concrete aprons are required for driveways onto public streets. 7. Confirm right-of-way requirements for highway 10. 55 feet from centerline required by MSP. Abandonments G-23-236 Fairview addition Vacate streets and Alleys Public Works does not object. G-23-238 Vista Drive ROW Abandonment The correct name is Misty Drive. This is not public right-of-way and thus should not go to Planning Commission . . ·--.... -.. ---·-------------- PUBLIC WORKS' REVIEW COMMENTS July 12, 1995 Preliminary Plat Promised Land North End of Gooch Road 1 . There are a few items missing from the boundary survey requirements of the Preliminary Plat, a copy is available. 2. Right-of-way dedication for Gooch Lane should be 50 feet versus 45 feet, the length of the roadway appears to exceed minor residential length. This street also is not a cul-de-sac or short loop street. Minimum horizontal radius for street shall be 150 feet, unless a waiver is sought from the Board of Directors. Dedication of right-of-way should follow this minimum horizontal radius. 3. Widen the roadway to residential standards to gain access to this new subdivision. Otherwise, seek a waiver of from the Board of Directors. Reference section 31-201 (f). A sidewalk will be required on frontage. 4. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual, if ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval, reference Section 31-89(9) of the LR Code. Show any planned drainage ditches on preliminary plat. Show water courses entering and planned exit points for drainage. Planned Developments Z-4343-1 Saddle Creek Retail Center NE Comer of Chenonceau and Ranch Drive 1. Sketch plan information including floodplain information should be provided prior to Planning Commission action. APDC&E approval along with a proper grading and excavation permit before any work is planned. 2. Widen entrance on Chenonceau to 36 feet. 3. Construct sidewalks on both streets. Submit plans for construction of Ranch Drive to collector street standards. 4. Provide drainage easement for large drainageway on the North boundary. Recommend that the structures be held 25 feet minimum from the limits of the water surface. The design and construction of this open drainage for the flow of 3500 cfs will require approval. The ditch may require concrete lining or other erosion protection. Recommend that this large ditch be fenced for the protection of the public. 5. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. The approved drainage system for Chenonceau Boulevard does not allow for this site to discharge drainage over the .. . ... . curb or into the inlets on Chenonceau Boulevard. Discharge from site will be directly into the North drainage ditch. 6. The entrance drives should have adjacent sidewalks connecting to the public sidewalks. Z-4563-A Community Bakery 12th and Main Street 1. Traffic Engineering advises the following: a. Revise parking to incorporate total access to parking spaces within the lot. The attached standards from the Traffic Engineering Handbook should be utilized. All parking spaces shall only be accessed through the parking lot. (i.e. no perpendicular parking in alley). b. No compact car spaces, all spaces shall be built to be used by all vehicles. 2. Sidewalks and ramps shall be improved west of alley. 3. Alley apron shall be constructed to conform to City of Little Rock standards. Site Plan Reviews Z-6015 Arkansas Systems Lot 2, Arkansas Systems Park 1. The proposed location has 3 areas of boundary that require improvements per the Master Street Plan and City Ordinances. Chenal Parkway intersection plan at the unnamed collector that traverses this property is attached. The unnamed Collector and Kirk Road both require 60 foot right-of-way and 36 foot pavement with sidewalks on both sides. Chenal Parkway will require sidewalks on frontage. 2. The intersection shown on the submitted plan is located only 200 feet from the collector's intersection with Chenal. This spacing does not meet the required minimum spacing requirement of 600 feet as specified in Section 31-285 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. This proposed street will provide major access to a multi-office complex, thus generating large peak hour volumes causing the intersection as designed to fail. The intersection should be moved to the east a minimum of 200 feet and preferably 400 feet to provide ample left turn storage and weaving section to access the development. Another option would be to extend the median island to restrict left tum movements from the unnamed collector. The intersection should be within 15° of a 90° intersection. The private street should be 36 feet in width and have sidewalks on both sides. The private street should not connect two public streets and be limited to short loop or cul-de-sac alignments where the development served contains less than 5 acres, per Section 31-207. b(2). 3. Stormwater detention will be required for site. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual, if ditches are planned, they must be shown on the plan and be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval. 4. The location of the unnamed collector is recommended to be moved South of the dam. Public liability for the dam would be required if the dam is a part of the public right~f-way. The dam construction shall be certified by a geotechnical engineer with experience in dam construction. 5 A sketch plan identifying the floodplain and floodway is required before Planning Commission action. Base flood elevations are required. Dedication of floodway is required. a grading and excavation plan and permit are required. A Development permit is required. Contact USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work. All drainage structures for the fioodway including the spillway of dam shall be designed for the 1 00 year storm. S-969-8 Chenal Park Apartments Chenal at Venture Drive 1. A grading and excavation permit is required. Contact ADPC&E for permit prior to starting construction. 2. Widen drives to 27 foot and provide sidewalks. Reference Section 31-287(2). The drives should be 36 feet at the intersection with Venture Drive and provide minimum 100 foot stack space for left turning vehicles. 3. The address for Chenal Park Apartments is 15000 Venture Drive. 4. Stormwater detention and internal drainage system shall be submitted for approval. 5. The construction of Venture drive will require approval. The construction of the large drainage way including the box culvert under Venture Drive will require approval. If an open ditch is planned the ditch may require concrete lining and fencing to protect the public. ZONING Z-2638-8 5502 West 65th Right~f-way requirement for 65th Street (minor Arterial) is 45 feet from centerline. Dedicate additional right~f-way or seek waiver of MSP right-of-way requirements. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Z-4423-8 Chenal Car Wash Submit plans for review of any construction within the public right~f-way. Z-6012 5423 w. 65th .. 07117195 16:05 '5"501 37712.U l..RM ~ATER WORKS ~ 002/003 A. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. PLANNING CO:MMISSION REVIEW LITfLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS NAME KINGWOOD PLACE ADD JIME.RSON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND BII<EWA Y PROMISED LAND ARKANSAS SYSTEMS OFFICE PARKSUBD SADDLE CREEK. RET AD.. C.a."TER I NE COR CHENONCEAU & RANCH DR COMMUNI1Y BAKERY I MAIN & 12TH CHENA.L PARK APTS ARKANSAS SYSTEMS DOLLAR GENERAL STORE I 6STH STW#S423 SOUTH LITILE ROCK ALERT CENTER/33RD ST W #1100 IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH I CANffiELL RD #18020 Tues~.AugustO~ 1995 TYPE ISSUE PRELIM PLAT 5-1 059-A CUP Z·oOOO PRELIM PLAT S·l 071 PRELIM PLAT 5·1 073 PCD Z-4343·1 PCDZ4563-A SITE PLAN S-969-B SITE PLAi~ Z-6015 CUP 5423 CUP Z...6013 CUPZ...6014 COMMENTS Main e>.."tension required. Water availability will be a problem. A water main extension will be required to serve Lot2. Water main extension and possibly on-site fire protection will be required. A pro rata front footage charge of S 1 S/foot applies along Chenal Pky. and an acreage charge ofS3001acres also applies. Annexation to City required. On site fire protection will be requited. Meters wiil be off public water mains. An acreage charge ofS150 per acre may apply. No objection. Water main extension and on·site f1te protection ..,;u 'be required. Meters wlll be off public mains. AJl acreage charge of$300 per acre applies in addition to other costs. Care must be taken to protect the 3 9" raw water line that crosses this property. Water main extension and possibly on-site fire protection will be required. A pro rata front footage charge of S 1 51 foot applies along Chenal Pk-y. and an acreage charge of$300/acres also applies. Annexation to City required. No objection. No objection. Front foot charge of S 1 Sift applies for domestic services larger than 3/4" and fire services larger than 4" Acreage charge of S ISOiac applies to part of the propeny. On site fire protection is required for the 2nd phase. Annexation to City required. 1 .Oi:1i~95 16:05 "5'501 3ii12.U NAME 1 L FAIRVIEW ADD BLKS 1·16/ GRANITE MOUNTAIN 12. VISTA DR/ SPRING VALLEY MANOR 13. 65TH ST W #SS02 .l LRM W:\TER WORKS ~ 0031003 TYPE ISSUE COMMENTS ABANDON PLAT G-23-236 No objection. ABANDON R/W G-23-238 No objection. REZONE Z-2638 The LRFD needs to evaluate this site to determine whether an on-site f1re hydrant will be required. 2 . - £ ..... . . -.... ------------- ------, City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR USE CHANGE OR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TO: Wakefield Neighborhood Association PC-l 3 Planning Zoning and Subdivision ATTENTION: __________ ~J~·~R~·~P=u=r~i=f~o~v~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDRESS: _______________ ~P~.O~.~B~o~x~l~9~1~8~9~2~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Little Rock AR. 72219 REQUEST: To Rezone the former Chrysler-Plymouth dealership land from C-3 Commercial to I-2 Industrial for purposes of moving Hillcrest Service Inc. GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: 5502 West 65th St. OWNED BY: _______________ ~N~o~a=h=-~B=a~t~e~s~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE IS HEREBY CIVEN THAT an application for Rezoning of the above property has been filed with the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. A public hearing will be held by the L.R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on August 8, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that neighborhood associations are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning staff at 371-4790. Jim Lawso~, Director / .. • . APPLICATION FOR REZONING ZONING CASE FILE NO. Z-.a~ 3[-f3, PLANNING COMISSION MEET~GJ>OCKETED FOR 19 'lS' ,AT 5:00 tf=tf\M. Application is .hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors, through the Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Act 186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code {1988), as amended, petitioning to rezone the following described area : 55"01 Wcr:.t t,~+h S.frtd·· of~uw;St k.-.ow h ~~ Lo.f-J, ' Title to this property is vested in: ___ _.tJ~o=A =6--&~CI...uh...:~:...__ __________ _ The subject property is/is not currently covered by a Bill of Assurance. County Recorder Instrument No. __ It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be amended and that this area be reclassified from the present "C-3 .. to t.-1 ....,t., ti<: I District to ··I-2 " [ Vld "'-~ td~ I District. (l., ... ,p le~ l Pf'f~ovfl, 1}z.ft, ~/..,'p J ~. Suvt'tt , !M. I C«t'lf~ "-"ff ft i:wlfJt, /~:;vi~~~ \ r \:: £o""P"~'1 } Present use of property VlltAtJ{ ( ~ .foe..., t..- Proposed use of property H; lie''~ t (.. t-1s k-. ft It is understood that notice of the public hearing hereon must be sent to owners of properties which lie within 200 feet of the subject property in accordance with the requirements set forth in the instructions given with this application. It is further understood that the cost of such notice is borne by the applicant. I, ktv i Vl IAvh i rJ .so.,.., , acting as owner/jg;;tjor this application, ce lfy that the subject property does/does not contain uses/struc ur s that are certifiable as nonconforming within the definition section of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. Nonconforming land use status has been explained to me and I understand that false statements by me may be cause for revocation of the rezoning ordinance. APPLICANT/OWNER ~ -It Ji4o...,c J art 1~ Utl(lt->1 ("'.._.st,,.Pt s,,v,·u J r ... (, MAILING ADDRESS : P. 0. Bo)C 3~t./ 6 Ldf/f gocd,._ 1 A~ 7220 3 ~2 r 0 . o.e. FILING FEE: __ __;__=>.:__ ____ _ TELEPHONE: 372-~I b { PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVED: v/ eENff&. __ _ DATE :____..:OI,.L....U-8'_-..L..o::::O __ f _--___.<[_!...='5==---DATE:. __ _ ORDINANC t ------------------------------- \' .. ' I APPLICATION FOR REZONING ZONING CASE FILE NO. Z-.aft; 3[-6 PLANNING COMISSION MEETWG.POCKETED FOR 19 qs ,AT c;:oo tf::AM. Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors, through the Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Act 186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code (1988), as amended, petitioning to rezone the following described area: 55"01 Wt'>+-l,~+h Sfruf 7 o+~uw;St l="'own "-~ Lofl) Title to this property is vested in: ___ -jrJ~o.;.;..A =6-&~a....,fe""'\=------------- The subject property is/is not currently covered by a Bill of Assurance. County Recorder lnstr1,1ment No. __ It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be amended and that this area be reclassified from the present "C-3 .. eotvt ~t.r e.i?: I District to .. I-2 " r V\d,...!; td~ I District. (h.-•p le ...... / P/'t.,_..,.,.fJ.. ]}~J~,~L..r 'p) L.. ~ .. vt't:t , !M . fca.NS 1-.,.H fc ~.,lfJt, / ~t<'vi~~~ \ Present use of property VACAt-~.£ ( ~ hc"1 v Proposed use of property 1-l; lluH t c.,....,s~-.ft r t lii~P""''1 } It is understood that notice of the public hearing hereon must be sent to owners of properties wh ich lie within 200 feet of the subject property in accordance with the requirements set forth in the instructions given with this application. It is further understood that the cost of such notice is borne by the applicant. I, ftv i VI ~A-vh i rJ ..so.,..., , acting as ownert(g~ntjor this application, ce ify that the subject property does/does not contain uses/struc ur s that are certifiable as nonconforming within the definition section of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. Nonconforming land use status has been explained to me and I understand that false statements by me may be cause for revocation of the rezoning ordinance. APPLICANT/OWNER ~ JI.Ji~ , ~ 1'" /klf,,_>f ((!.NS hAPf Sftvr'tt 1 T~c. MAILINGADDRESS: P.O. Boy 3~tJG, Ldf/( Roch_ Af?-722-03 I FILING FEE: 4( 2S 0 . ~ TELEPHONE: 372-~I b { ,. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BOARD OF DIRECTORS' ACTION: APPROVED: __ _ DENIED: __ _ APPROVED: __ _ DENIED: __ _ DATE:, ___________ _ DATE: __ _ ORDINANCE: __ _ JUL 0 5 1995 :. DOCUMENTING OFFICIAL SIGNATURE CASE NO. Z-2(,3 8-6 DATE 7 {?> /t:t S"" STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT LOCATION/ADDRESS DOCKETED FOR MEETING ON --~A-=~~Lt=s.-=-f_2_2-.~-,_/_~_~ _S ______ _ I, v·~ ,..chi,.. SoVl I do hereb~isagree to dedicate to the public any needed right-of-way as req ired by the Master Street Plan for a public street abutting property on which I am requesting zoning. I, e.,,·"' U. 11\CL-"' So"" ~agree to provide at my expense an easement deed and/or other d cuments as necessary conveying such right-of-way to the public. APPLICANT/OWNER (.;_ i_J/.4,,.,_ , "-j~ ~ DATE 7/' b s; J.l,·J wsf ~,Ji. <Jt;v,'ct 1 JN. (IF THE ABOVE SIGNATURE REPRESENTS AN APPLICANT , ATIACHMENT OF A LEDER IS REQUIRED AUTHORIZING THIS PERSON TO ACT IN BEHALF OF THE TITLE-HOLDER.) ----- \• --- 'CITY DF LITTLE ROCK NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING -PERMITS DATE 7-7~ 9') I f.' r-5 TYPE PERMIT BUILDING 2210 PLUMBING 2240 ELECTRICAL - 2230 SIGN 8309 ST REPAIR 3340 ST SUNDRY 5350 REZONING 3010 OTHER ~ PERMIT NUMBER FEE $ ______ _ $ ______ _ $ ______ _ $ ______ _ $ ______ _ $. ___ _ c203R=-t $ ,-9c50.W ------------$ _______ _ NO. 69 G3 9 TOTAL THIS RI;CEIPT ?' $ , ~,5Q ,C/U CK. NO. 0 () ~ {Q J FIRM ~fiefd<~~ ADOR ES . (}1, (} )<: 3~ £f, /4-Cj;Ld-o) 7----/---, PHONE NO . J 7;2_-~({p j I REC'DBY ~\ GARY PRINCE CITY COLLECTOR 0 0 0 0 ~ D o [S [? lJ [f [] 0 lJ D l] 0 SJ .ern ITDOO! [])tltJ G [J D lJ 0 ~ SJ D DQDC;::u:::;:D O D c;)CJ D [] 1J 0 • 0 Area Zoning Z-2638-B 5502 W. 65TH Street [] o·lJ 0 D c:J 0 CJ ;:=~:::::::::~~ [] •o D I '~ «ll • ItemNo. 13