Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3466 Staff AnalysisITEM 15 ANALYSIS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Both requests represent the second attempts to gain nonresidential zoning for these properties. The first case (Z -3294-A) is a direct repeat of the earlier request, and the second case (Z-3466) is a completely new application, with a new request (11C-2" and "0-3" instead of "PCD") by new applicants ( Safeway instead of McKay and Company) . The original applications were filed in December 1978, and both properties have been a continuing source of controversy since that time. At first, the 1990 Comprehensive Development Plan was restated, and both applications were denied. Several attempts have been made to arrive at a proper plan for the Highway #10 Corridor. The staff made an early attempt, which was rejected by the Board of Directors during the action described earlier. Team Four, Inc. made a proposal, based upon early information pulled from the Suburban Development Plan, and this too was partially rejected by the Board. Several meetings, brought about by the attempt to revive the request of the first Z-3294 application, resulted in several options being discussed (copies of which are attached). The Board selected Alternative #3 in a straw vote. All of the discussion came about primarily because of two factors: (1) The stated concerns of planners, citizens and elected officials about the prospect of having Highway #10 strip commercially developed for its entire length; and (2) The adamant demand of local residents that no commercial development be allowed in this vicinity. The latter factor was given a tremendous boost by the City's victory in the Charles Taylor Case in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Since the early outcry regarding commercial development in the area, there appears to be some softening towards acceptance of some commercial development, most clearly evident by the fact that David Henry, an opponent of the McKay proposal in 1978 and 1979, is now representing both the owner of that property and the applicant in the most recent commercial proposal for its development. It would be mistaken to say that all former opponents now look favorably upon either of these cases. The staff anticipates considerable opposition to be voiced, especially in connection with Case Z-3466. Staff concern at this time goes back to the original fear that Highway #10 might become another Asher Avenue, University Avenue or Rodney Parham Road. There is a considerable amount of commercial development along this route, all of which was developed prior to the time that the City could exercise any significant land use control. April 29, 1980 Item No. 15 - Continued The staff believes that some commercial development is appropriate along Highway #10, as indicated on the Suburban development Plan. One site could be covered by either of these two applications, and another is located west of Pankey, where the West Belt is proposed to connect. The key element is that a firm line must be clearly drawn, once policy has been firmly established. Based upon the information available through Team Four, Inc., the Master Street Plan, and accepted planning practice, the staff feels that the better site for major commercial commitment is the southwest corner of Highway #10 and Rodney Parham Road as proposed by Case Z-3466. The reasoning is as follows: 1. The proposal limits the development to one major store, a Safeway Super Store, and two office uses yet to be determined. 2. The proposed development commits to channel traffic to the intersection of Highway #10 and Rodney Parham Road, where adequate traffic controls can be established through turn lanes, channelization and signalization. 3. The proposal is of a scale which should have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding development. This would be accomplished through extensive buffering. 4. The proposed zoning district (C-2) does permit site plan review and will allow control of those items within the public interest. Admittedly, aesthetics cannot be monitored beyond buffering requirements and the Sign Ordinance. 5. Further, the proposed office development along the Highway #10 frontage and zoning establishes the scale of commercial development and sets a precedent for the remainder of the development within this area. The site proposed under Case Z -3294A appears less desirable for a major commercial commitment, but the staff is inclined to support acceptance of the established convenience commercial development at that location as envisioned in the plan (i.e., neighborhood convenience retail east of proposed relocation of Fairway Drive). Essentially, this recognition reduces to the following: April 29, 1980 Item No. 15 -.-Continued 1. The staff would recommend approval of "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial zoning on the property which is shown to the east of the proposed new aliqnment of Fairview Road. The remaining property proposed for "C-3" General Commercial, and "0-3" General Office, is recommended for "MF -18" Multifamily. 2. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the convenience neighborhood stores already located at this site. However, the staff is concerned that a larger scale commitment would generate traffic problems which could not be easily overcome, primarily because of the unfortunate alignment of Fairview Road and Southridge Road at their intersection with Highway #10. In summary, the staff recommendation with regard to these two issues becomes Altenative #1, as proposed by Team Four. This obviously is contrary to the preference stated earlier by the Board of Directors for Alternative #3. Primarily because of traffic and locational considerations, the staff believes that Alternative #1 is the preferred plan, and the staff hereby recommends the adoption of that alternative. It is imperative that whatever course of action is finally adopted, that the Suburban Development Plan be drawn to reflect the outcome of those actions. Alternative #3 remains an acceptable option, however, with the proviso that if the Fairview Road commercial location is selected, the other site should be precluded from that use. In either case, the staff will oppose commercial use of the Charles Taylor property and along the intervening area between the two cases now under consideration. April 29, 1980 Z -3294-A COMMISSION ACTION: The Chairman opened the public hearing, and the applicant, represented by Tom Wilkes, owner and general partner in Pleasant Ridge Development Company, presented the Commission with a letter written to Mayor Hubbell requesting a reconsideration of this zoning by the Board of Directors and a petition in support of the application containing 150 signatures. Mr. Wilkes then made a lengthy statement, which he provided to the Planning Commission in writing as well as verbally. There was one opponent present, Robert Gunther, who spoke primarily about traffic problems associated with the attempt to enter onto Highway #10. A lengthy discussion ensued, and finally the public hearing was declared to be closed. Z-3466 COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and submitted a petition containing approximately 30 signatures in support of the application and the plan for the Safeway Store development. He showed graphics indicating a landscaping plan, site plan and a rendering of the store that is proposed to be constructed. During the course of discus to amend the request ndr it was determined that it would be aPP P for "0-3" development on the front two parcels of the property to 110-1." The applicant also discussed with the Planning Commission a letter that he had written to the Planning Commission, through the Planning staff, wherein a commitment was made to build the street improvements indicated on the site plan, to site the building in accordance with the site plan, to landscape in accordance with the plan and to subdivide the property as required by City ordinance. A member of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association was present, supporting the application on behalf of the Owners Association. The only difference was that they were recommending, in accordance with the approval, that a stop light be erected at the entrance of Pleasant Forest Drive to Woodland Heights Road and another stop light be erected at the intersection of Highway 410 and Rodney Parham Road, and that a turning lane on Rodney Parham Road be constructed so that entrance in and out of the shopping area would be less conflicting with normal traffic flow. Nine objectors were present. John Tisdale, representing Fred Darragh and Mrs. Cluis, was present and made three statements in objection to the application. First, he stated that the Commission had withheld zoninq in anticipation of the plan for Highway #10, and suggested that further deferral was in order. Secondly, regarding strip zoning, he stated that in his view approval of this request would tend to enhance the possibility of strip zoning along Highway #10. Thirdly, regarding traffic, he stated his belief that increased truck traffic would occur on Rodney Parham because of the introduction of this commercial venture. Dick Patterson, representing Christ the King Church, was present and spoke in opposition to the zoning. Paul Callahan, Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, was present and, admitting that they had not formally seen the plan as yet, cited their opposition to the proposal. John Clayton, Longlea Property Owners Association, stated that he was representing only himself, and that he objected to the zoning. Carol Dunkle was present, citing that the support of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association was not unanimous, and expressed her support for the proposal in Z -3294-A. Charles Easley, a resident of Woodland Heights Road, cited his objection, based primarily upon traffic problems. Rogers Faust, Vice President of Owners Association, stated that was supporting the application, support by speaking for himself lengthy discussion followed, and was declared to have closed. General Discussion: the Pleasant Forest Property while the Owners Association he wished to add further in favor of the proposal. A finally the public hearing After the two public hearings on the request of Z -3294-A and Z-3466, the Commission, staff, and the applicants and residents of the area engaged in a lengthy discussion of all of the various components of the two requests, their relationship to each other, the impact on the sewer issue, the impact on the Suburban Development Plan, the perception that the Board of Directors had spoken in its straw vote on the Alternative #3 relative to the development of Highway #10, and a variety of other issues. Finally, it was determined that it was an appropriate time to vote on both proposals that deferral of either or both of the applications was not possible and that the Board did expect a decision on Z -3294-A. The Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion was passed: 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. On Z-3466, a motion was made to approve the application as amended. The motion failed on a vote of 5 ayes, 3 noes and 3 absent. Because of the Board's indiction it wished to deal with these cases in May, the Commission decided to forward both applications merely reflecting the vote for the Board's consideration. �W G January 30, 1979 Item No. 9 - Z-3295 - DEFERRED Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristic: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: Various Owners McKay & Company Request rezone to "PCD Planned commercial/office development "A" One Family Highway #10 west at Rodney Parham Sloping 7.76 acres + Vacant North - Single family and Vacant Zoned "A" South - Church - Zoned "A" East - Vacant - Zoned "A" West - Single Family Zoned "A" None Planned unit development ordinance 0 FACTUAL INFORMATION January 30, 1979 41Ite,n No. 9 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The requested zoning is required prior_ to initiation of a planned unit development as proposed. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS The only specific plan dealing with this location is the Interim Highway #10 Corridor Study prepared by the Staff in 1978 and now under consideration by the Planning Commission. The land use anticipated by that study for this property is shown as a combination of office and apartments/condominiums. This proposal is not fully compatible for that plan. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS As with most major developments, this project promises significant environmental change, chiefly in connection with impervious surface ratios. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION �b' No specific neighborhood opposition has been received, but Staff has been told that some can be expected. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON Water service would come from Woodland Heights Road, and on-site fire hydrants would be required. No sewer mains are presently available. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No adverse effect is anticipated. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS The reasonableness factor relates primarily to a policy issue, to wit: does the Planning Commission think it to be worthwhile to trade higher intensity development for site plan review? The requested zoning is appropriate for the proposed development. I tow N ,January 30, 1979 Item No. 9 Continued _4, il- 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY The applicant, in his supporting statement, says "through the use of wood and masonry exteriors, the residential atmosphere will be maintained". 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS Boundary street improvements will be accomplished under the subdivision process. Access to the site will be taken from Highway #10 and Rodney Parham, one each. No access is shown from Woodland Heights Road. A right-of-way form has been fiLed. ANALYSIS: All of the statements presented at the Deceinf�er meeting regarding the application further west on Highway 10 apply, except that this proposal lies within one of the areas designated for nonresidential development in the staff's Highway 10 corridor study. However, the specific proposal contained in this application represents a heavier mix of commercial development than envisioned by the staff. In view of the fact that the Planning Commission has decided to review the staff proposal for Highway 10 at its next work session, staff feels uneasy about recommending approval or denial on this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this item be deferred to February 27, 1979. COMMISSION ACTION Philip Kaplan, representing the applicant, stated the position that the proposed planned unit development offers the kinds of control which prevent strip commercial development along Highway 10, in that the proposal is compatible with the staff's Highway 10 Corridor Study. He further stated his client's desire to have this issue decided at the January meeting, and separate from any other case. r David Henry, a neighboring property owner representing himself and several other neighbors, presented a petition opposing the case, containing 111 signatures. He stated the points outlined in the petition: 1. The proposal's incompatibility with existing `� development. January 30, 1979 Item No. 9 Continued 2. Location of a service drive within 47.5 feet of an adjoining single-family residential street. 3. A lack of neer] for specialty shoppi.n�J facilities in this area. 4. The site plan's depiction of trees and foliage not presently in existence and which would take years to grow. 5. Their belief that another property on the southeast corner of the same intersection is more appropriate and compatible for the proposed use. 6. Their further belief that the Planning Commission should await the decision from the Supreme Court regarding the property mentioned in Item 5 above. 7. Their belief that this proposal will inevitably lead to strip commercial development along Highway 10. hw 8. Numerous traffic problems which will be created, in their opinion, by this proposed development. 9. The long-term expectation that blighting will occur as a result of this proposal. 10. That the PUD process does nothing to minimize the impact of high density development in a single-family area. Charles Maynard, representing Christ the King Church, stated the position that "E-1" Quiet Business is more appropriate for the area and that a domino effect is likely to occur should this proposal be approved. He further stated that traffic problems would be worsened in the area and that the proposal lacked sufficient specificity with regard to the proposed uses on the property. in addition he stated that the proposal would have a negative limpact on the church's proposed expansion, and that the proposal would have detrimental environmental consequences. He stated that the church opposed the rezoning. Philip Kaplan, rebutting those in opposition, stated that the Supreme Court decision might be delayed for a month. He W cited the expenses and effort which had been invested in the plans for the proposal, and restated his client's desire for January 30, 1979 t Item No. 9 Continued Planning Commission action in January. The Commission moved to defer the case to February, and the motion failed on a vote of 3 ayes, 6 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. George Wittenberg abstained. The Commission then moved to approve the petition as filed. The motion passed: 7 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention -- George Wittenberg abstaining. n I i W' April 29, 1980 Item No. 15B - Z-3466 Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: Dan Phillips, Et Al David Henry Rezone to "0-3" General Office and "C-2" Shopping Center Safeway Grocery Store and Office Development "R-2" Single Family Southwest Corner, Arkansas Highway #10, at Rodney Parham Road Open, Gentle Slope 7.76 Acres + Vacant North - Residential - Zoned "R-2" South - Church - Zoned "R-2" East - Residential - Zoned "R-2" West - Residential - Zoned "R-2" Planned Commercial Development request was denied in 1979. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 4 FACTUAL INFORMATION April 29, 1980 Item 15B 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant states the intention to construct a Safeway Grocery Store and to market the two tracts along the Highway 010 frontage for office use. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS City plans for this area are in preparation. See Analysis. 3. EFFECTS ON ENVIRONS Proposed use should produce no particular environmental impacts, and the applicant has shown plans to attempt to minimize neighborhood impact even further through landscaping and special buffering. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION The staff is aware of some neighborhood opposition, but has had only one or two direct contacts to this point. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON The Wastewater Utility commented that a sewer main would have to be run at the developer's expense for service of this property. No other comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No major impact is expected. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS See Analysis. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY The applicant has presented plans showing proposed building construction, _landscaping and buffering, all of which indicate an attempt to minimize neighborhood impact. April 29, 1980 Item No. 15B - Continued 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Both Rodney Parham and Highway #10 are arterial streets. The applicant proposes street improvements to both, plus a reroutinq of part of Woodland Heights Road, which should improve traffic patterns in the area. TTFM 1 5 ANALYSIS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Both requests represent the second attempts to gain nonresidential zoning for these properties. The first case (Z -3294-A) is a direct repeat of the earlier request, and the second case (Z-3466) is a completely new application, with a new request (11C-2" and "0-3" instead of "PCD") by new applicants (Safeway instead of McKay and Company). The original applications were filed in December 1978, and both properties have been a continuing source of controversy since that time. At first, the 1990 Comprehensive Development Plan was restated, and both applications were denied. Several attempts have been made to arrive at a proper plan for the Highway #10 Corridor. The staff made an early attempt, which was rejected by the Board of Directors during the action described earlier. Team Four, Inc. made a proposal, based upon early information pulled from the Suburban Development Plan, and this too was partially rejected by the Board. Several meetings, brought about by the attempt to revive the request of the first Z-3294 application, resulted in several options being discussed ( copies of which are attached) . The Board selected Alternative #3 in a straw vote. All of the discussion came about primarily because of two 44W factors: (1) The stated concerns of planners, citizens and elected officials about the prospect of having Highway #10 strip commercially developed for its entire length; and (2) The adamant demand of local residents that no commercial development be allowed in this vicinity. The latter factor was given a tremendous boost by the City's victory in the Charles Taylor Case in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Since the early outcry regarding commercial development in the area, there appears to be some softening towards acceptance of some commercial development, most clearly evident by the fact that David Henry, an opponent of the McKay proposal in 1978 and 1979, is now representing both the owner of that property and the applicant in the most recent commercial proposal for its development. It would be mistaken to say that all former_ opponents now look favorably upon either of these cases. The staff anticipates considerable opposition to be voiced, especially in connection with Case Z-3466. Staff concern at this time goes back to the original fear that Highway #10 might become another Asher Avenue, University Avenue or Rodney Parham Road. There is a considerable amount of commercial development along this route, all of which was developed prior to the time that the City could exercise any significant land use control. 4• April_ 29, 1980 Item No. 15 - Continued The staff believes that some commercial development is appropriate along Highway #10, as indicated on the Suburban development Plan. One site could be covered by either of these two applications, and another is located west of Pankey, where the West Belt is proposed to connect. The key element is that a firm line must be clearly drawn, once policy has been firmly established. Based upon the information available through Team Four, Inc., the Master Street Plan, and accepted planning practice, the staff feels that the better site for major commercial commitment is the southwest corner of Highway #10 and Rodney Parham Road as proposed by Case 7,--3456. The reasoning is as follows: 1. The proposal limits the development to one major store, a Safeway Super Store, and two office uses yet to be determined. 2. The proposed development commits to channel traffic to the intersection of Highway #10 and Rodnev Parham Road, where adequate traffic controls can be established through turn lanes, channelization and signalization. `tel 3. The proposal is of a scale which should have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding development. This would be accomplished through extensive buffering. 4. The proposed zoning district (C-2) does permit site plan review and will allow control of those items within the public interest. Admittedly, aesthetics cannot be monitored beyond buffering requirements and the Sign Ordinance. 5. Further, the proposed office development a]-ong the Highway #10 frontage and zoning establishes the scale of commercial development and sets a precedent for the remainder of the development within this area. The site proposed under_ Case Z -3294A appears less desirable for a major commercial commitment, but the staff is inclined to support acceptance of the established convenience commercial development at that location as envisioned in the plan (i.e., neighborhood convenience retail east of proposed relocation of Fairway Drive). Essentially, this recognition reduces to the following: �&V' 9 April 29, 1980 Item No. 15 - Continued 1. The staff_ would recommend approval of 11C-1" Neighborhood Commercial zoning on the property which is shown to the east of the proposed new alignment of Fairview Road. The remaining property proposed for "C-3" General Commercial, and "0-3" General Office, is recommended for "MF -18" Multifamily. 2. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the convenience neighborhood stores already located at this site. However, the staff is concerned that a larger scale commitment would generate traffic prohlems which could not be easily overcome, primarily because of the unfortunate alignment of Fairview Road and Southridge Road at their intersection with Hiqhway #10. In summary, the staff recommendation with regard to these two issues becomes Altenative #1, as proposed by Team Four. This obviously is contrary to the preference stated earlier by the Board of Directors for Alternative #3. Primarily because of traffic and locational considerations, the staff believes that Alternative #1 is the preferred plan, and the staff hereby recommends the adoption of that alternative. r It is imperative that whatever course of action is finally adopted, that the Suburban Development Plan be drawn to reflect the outcome of those actions. Alternative #3 remains an acceptable option, however, with the proviso that if the Fairview Road commercial location is selected, the other site should be precluded from that use. In either case, the staff will oppose commercial use of the Charles Taylor property and along the intervening area between the two cases now under consideration. a a 4� April 29, 1980 �L z-3294- A COMMISSION ACTION' The Chairman opened the public hearinq , and the applicant, represented by Tom Wilkes, owner and general partner in Pleasant Ridge Development Company, pres('!1tc>(1 the commission with a letter written. to Mayor Hubbell requesting a reconsideration of this zoning by the Board of Directors and a petition in support of the application containi:nai 150 signatures. Mr . Wilkes then made a .lengthy statement, which he provided to the Planning Commission in writing as well as verbally. There was one opponent present, Robert Gunther_, who spoke primar.il.y about traffic problems associated with the attempt to enter onto Highway #1-0. A lengthy discussion ensued, and finally the pui:)lic hearing -:a.s declared to be closed. z-3466 COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and submitted a petition containing approximately 30 signatures in support of the application and the plan for the Safeway Store development. He showed graphics indicating a landscaping plan, site plan and a rendering of the store that is proposed to be constructed. During the course of discussion, it was determined that it would be appropriate to amend the request for "0-3" development on the front two parcels of the property to 110-1." The applicant also discussed with the Planning Commission a letter that he had written to the Planning Commission, through the Planning staff, wherein a commitment was made to build the street improvements indicated on the site plan, to site the building in accordance with the site plan, to landscape in accordance with the plan and to subdivide the property as required by City ordinance. A member of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association was present, supporting the application on behalf of the Owners Association. The only difference was that they were recommending, in accordance with the approval, that a stop light be erected at the entrance of Pleasant Forest Drive to Woodland Heights Road and another stop light be erected at the intersection of Highway #10 and Rodney Parham Road, and that a turning lane on Rodney Parham Road be constructed so that entrant -e in and out of the shopping area would be less conflicting with normal traffic flow. Nine objectors were present. John Tisdale, representing Fred Darragh and Mrs. Cluis, was present and made three . statements in objection to the application. First, he L stated that the Commission had withheld zoning in anticipation of the plan for Highway #10, and suggested that further deferral was in order. Secondly, regarding strip zoning, he stated that in his view approval of this request would tend to enhance the possibility of strip zoning along Highway #10. Thirdly, regardinq traffic, he stated his belief_ that increased truck traffic would occur on Rodney Parham because of the introduction of this commercial venture. Dick Patterson, representing Christ the Ki.nq Church, was present and spoke in opposition to the zoning. Paul Callahan, Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, was present and, admitting that they had not formally seen the plan as yet, cited their opposition to the proposal. John Clayton, T,oncllea Property Owners Associatinn, stated that he was'representing only himself, and that Ine ob ected to the zoning. Carol Dunkle was present, citing that the support of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association was not unanimous, and expressed her support for the proposal in Z -3294-A. Charles Easley, a resident of Woodland Heights Road, cited his objection, based primarily upon traffic problems. Rogers Faust, Vice President of Owners Association, stated that was supporting the application, Support by speaking for himself lengthy discussion followed, and was declared to have closed. General Discussion: the Pleasant Forest Property while the Owners Association he wished to add further in favor of the proposal. A finally the public hearing After the two public hearings on the request of Z -3294-A and Z-3466, the Commission, staff, and the applicants and residents of the area engaged in a lengthy discussion of all of the various components of the two requests, their relationship to each other, the impact on the sewer issue, the impact on the Suburban Development Plan, the perception that the Board of Directors had spoken in its straw vote on the Alternative #3 relative to the development of Highway #10, and a variety of other issues. Finally, it was determined that it was an appropriate time to vote on both proposals; that deferral of either or both of the applications was not possible and that the Board did expect a decision on Z -3294-A. The Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion was passed: 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. ' On Z-3466, a motion was made to approve the application as amended. The motion failed on a vote of 5 ayes, 3 noes and 3 absent. Because of the Board's indiction it wished to deal with these cases in May, the Commission decided to forward both applications merely reflecting the vote for the Board's consideration. 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 t : Address: General Owned by NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for rezo of tn�ov proVeruy requesting a change of zone class ficationam " District to " -f� "- I� <<District has been filed with. the Office of Comprehensive Planning, C_ty Hall. A public hearing on said application will be held by the Little Rock P1 ing Gom�ission in Board of Directors Chamber, 2nd Floor, City Hall on I 19_at 2:00p.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 Office of Comprehensive Planning, City Hall, 371-4790, and to review the application and discuss same with the planning staff. AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that I have notified all the property owners of record within 200 feet of the above property, that subject property is being considered for rezoning and that a Public Hearing will be held by the Little R k Pl nning Commission at the time and place described above. Applicant (owner or authorized agent): •�,•�/i/ (name) (date) i