Loading...
pc_01 16 1990LITTLE ROCK PLANNING HEARING JANUARY 16,1990 4-.00 p.m. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being eight in number. II.Approval of the November 28,1989 Minutes. III.Members present:Martha Miller Walter Riddick,III Rose Collins Kathleen Oleson Fred PerkinsBillRector John Schlereth Connie Whitfield Members absent:Steven Leek John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson City Attorney present:Stephen Giles January 16,1990 Item No.A —Z-4776-A Owner:Lee and Mary Ann Phillips Applicant:Max Gavin Location:8424 Kanis Road Request:Rezone from "0-3"to "C-3". Purpose:Mobile telephone installation Size:0.3 acres Existing Use:Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single family,zoned "R-2" South —Vacant,zoned "C-3" East —Animal clinic,zoned "0-3" West —Office,zoned "0-3" STAFF ANALYSIS'he property in question is currently zoned "0-3"and the proposal is to utilize the site for the installation of mobile phones.To allow the proposed use,the location must be rezoned to "C-3"and issued a conditional use permit because the use is not by right in the "C-3"District.The intended use falls under the Zoning Ordinance's definition of "auto parts,sales with limited motor vehicle partsinstallation"which is a conditional use in "C-3". 8424 Kanis Road is situated at the northwest corner of Michael Street and Kanis Road which is approximately 1200 feet east of John Barrow Road.Land use found in the general area includes single family,multifamily,office,an animal clinic,a day care center,and commercial.Zoning is a mix of "R-2","MF-12","0-3"and "C-3"with the propertyabutting"0-3"on the west and "R-2"to the north.A high percentage of the land is still undeveloped,including the"C-3"parcel directly to the south.Also,there are several vacant buildings on commercially zoned tracts. 1 January 16,1990 Item No.A —Z-4776-A (Continued} The Boyle Park District Plan shows a commercial land usepatternalongKanisRoadtoRoseStreet.East of Rose,the adopted plan does not recognize the existing zoning andidentifiesthepropertiesforresidentialuse,including thesiteunderconsideration.Rezoning the property to "C-3"is in conflict with the land use plan and staff does not support the commercial reclassification.Another factorthatneedstobeconsideredisthelocationwhichisthe entrance to an established single family neighborhood. Therefore,"C-3"rezoning could have an adverse impact on the residential lots to the north."0-3"is the most appropriate zoning for the property and it should not be rezoned at this time. ENGINEERING COMMENTS'anis Road is classified as a minor arterial which has arightofwaystandardof90feet.The existing right-of-wayis60feet,so dedication of additional right-of-way will berequired. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3"rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION;(January 2,1990) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred to allowforadditionalreviewbythestaffandtoworkwiththeapplicant.A motion was made to defer the issue to the January 16,1990 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 16,1990) The applicant&Max Gavin,was present.There were noobjectors.Staff reviewed the issue and said that they had found two Boyle Park Plans,and the land use plan used during the staff's initial review was outdated.It was determined that the correct or current plan shows a mixed use pattern for the property in question;therefore,staff recommended a PCD for the proposed use.Staff said a PCD was more appropriate because it could restrict the use of the site and help protect the residential neighborhood to the north. 2 January 16,1990 Item No.A —Z-4776-A (Continued} Max Gavin then addressed the Commission.He presented somehistoryanddiscussedhisplansfortheproperty.Mr.Gavinsaidthatthreeexistingtaxofficeswouldremaininthe building and he would like to add his proposed use,mobile phone installation.He told the Commission that he was doing some interior remodeling and planned to build a newstructureforinstallingthephones.Mr.Gavin said that anexistinggaragewouldberemovedtomakewayforthenewbuilding. Next,the Commission discussed the property and utilizing the PCD for it.After some additional comments,Mr.Gavin agreed to a PCD and amended his request from "C-3"to PCD. A motion was made to recommend approval of the PCD as amended and to defer the item to the January 30,1990 meeting for a final vote.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. (Mr.Gavin was instructed to develop his PCD proposal with the necessary information and present it to the Subdivision Committee at its January 18,1990 meeting.) 3 January 16,1990 Item No.B —Z-5276 Owner:Ivey Mann Applicant:Ben McMinn Locationl Wanda Lane at South University Avenue Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "C-4"Purpose.'oat and camper sales Size:0.4 acre Existing Use:Boat and camper sales SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONINGt North —Single family,zoned "R-2" South —Vacant,zoned "R-2" East —Commercial&zoned "C-3" West —Commercial,zoned PCD STAFF ANALYSIS'he northeast corner of Wanda Lane and South University has"C-3"nonconforming status and small "C-3"uses haveutilizedthepropertyovertheyears.Several months ago,a"C-4"use,boat and camper sales,occupied the site and began displaying merchandise on the outside.Because of the"C-4"activity,an enforcement action was initiated and the rezoning application was filed.It is now the staff's understanding that the boat and camper sales company hasrelocatedandanothercommercialestablishmentisproposingtousetheproperty. The site is two platted lots with frontage on Wanda Lane and the South University frontage road.There is one nonresidential structure on the property with areas for parking and storage. Land use is made up of single family,multifamily,office, commercial,and a lodge for a fraternal organization with the nonresidential uses fronting South University.The single family residences are part of a well established neighborhood found along Denise Drive and Wanda Lane.The property abuts a single family lot to the north and a 1 January 16,1990 Item No.B —Z-5276 (Continued} commercial use on the east side.Across Wanda Lane,thereisasmallcommercialcenterwithvarioustypesofretail uses.Zoning is a combination of "R-2","0-3","C-3"&"I-2","PCD"and "OS".The PCD parcel is the location ofthestripcenteracrossWandaLane. The Geyer Springs West Land Use Plan shows the property inquestionforcommercialusebutdoesnotspecifyazoningdistrict.However,because of the site's location,anentrancetoaresidentialneighborhood,staff is concerned with a "C-3"or "C-4"rezoning for the property.It can be argued that a commercial classification that does not provide for site plan review,such as a PUD,could have anadverseimpactontheresidencestothenorthandcreate problems for the neighborhood.A "C-4"rezoning is inappropriate because of the property's size and it permitsusesthatarequestionableforaresidentialneighborhood. Any proposed reclassification of the site should be submitted as a PCD to allow thorough review of the proposalaswasdonefortheprojectonthewestsideofWandaLane. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: This street intersection will be effected by proposedconstructionofmodificationstothehighway.As part of the 1988 bond issue,University-Chicot Connection,the City has requested that the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department modify the exit ramp off South University (U.S.67-70)at this location and close theaccesstoSouthUniversityfromthefrontageroad.This change has not been formally approved by the Highway Department but has been received favorably by the Engineering staff.The City's portion of this work may begin construction next year. In addition,we understand that consideration is being giventoconvertingthisfrontageroadtoone-way (southwest)as a part of the conversion of all interstate and divided highwayfrontageroadstoone-way as a traffic safety measure.We do not know of the timing of this change but it is part of anation-wide trend being encouraged by the Federal HighwayAdministration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-4"rezoning request. 2 January 16,1990 Item No.B —Z-5276 (Continued} PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (January 2,1990) The applicant,Ben McMinn,was present.There were noobjectors.Staff reminded the Commission of the petition with 60-plus names opposed to the "C-4"rezoning and submitted it to the Chairman. Mr.McMinn spoke and said he was representing the owner, Ivey Mann,who has owned the property for 30 years.Mr. McMinn went on to say that there had been a grocery store onthepropertyfor25yearsanditwasannexedasa nonconforming use.He then said a liquor store was the next occupant,also a "C-3"nonconforming use.After the liquorstore,a truck or camper top company occupied the property and not a boat and camper sales operation as mentioned in the staff's analysis.Mr.McMinn said the use vacated the property after receiving a notice from the City because of being a "C-4"use with outside display.He also said theexistingstructurewasacommercialbuildingandcouldnot be used for anything else. There was a long discussion about various issues,includingutilizingtheshort-form PCD for the site.At this point, Mr.McMinn amended the application to a short-form PCD forall"C-3"uses. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended request from "C-4"to PCD and to defer the item for two weeks to the January 16,1990 hearing.The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent. 3 January 16,1990 Item No.B —Z-5276 (Continued) STAFF UPDATE: After reviewing the amended request,staff supports a PCDforthepropertyinquestionwiththefollowingconditions: The PCD shall be for all "C-3"uses; Parking shall be provided in the front yard area and west of the building (the existing parking areas); An opaque screening fence shall be maintained along thenorthpropertyline; No outside storage or parking shall be permitted in the yard area to the north of the building (Lot 18);and The structural involvement shall be limited to onesinglestorybuilding.If the existing structure is destroyed by fire or natural causes,a new building can be constructed with the same footprint and squarefootage. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION'.(January 16,1990) The applicant,Ben McMinn,was present.There were fiveobjectorsinattendance.Staff recommended approval of the PCD as amended with several conditions.Mr.McMinn said he agreed with staff's position and the conditions. Pat Baldridge of 9 Wanda Lane said she was opposed to the rezoning and discussed the area.Ms.Baldridge said theexistingPCDwascausingproblemsandtrafficwasimpacting the neighborhood.She went on to say that parking was a problem and there would be too much traffic from two commercial corners.Ms.Baldridge also reminded the Commissioners of the petitions against the rezoning. Mary Carman opposed the rezoning and discussed the Shriner's property and the existing PCD.She said that robberies hadincreasedsincethePCDwasapprovedandaskedwhatwouldbe an appropriate business for the corner under consideration. Glenda Smith objected to the rezoning and said the existing PCD was creating problems for the neighborhood.Ms.SmithalsosaidthattheintersectionofWandaLaneandSouth University was very dangerous. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering office then discussed the proposed changes to the South University/Wanda Laneintersection.He said improvements would be made in stages and take several years to complete. 4 January 16,1990 Item No.B —Z-5276 (Continued} Next to speak was Dwaine Smith who said the neighborhood wasnice,but it was having problems because of the existing PCD.Mr.Smith said homes were being broken into andscreeningfenceswerenotbeingmaintained. Ben McMinn spoke and said the problems were not caused bytheMannproperty,and the owner has the right to use it forall"C-3"uses because of the nonconforming status.Theobjectorssaidtheyunderstoodthenonconformingstatus buttheywereconcernedwithliquorstoresusingthesite. There was a long discussion about the property and varioususes.Commissioner Oleson offered a motion to amend the PCDtoexcludeabeverageshopandbarortavernfromthepermitteduses.Mr.McMinn said that he could not amend therequesttoexcludetheuseswithoutfirsttalkingtotheowner.The motion failed to receive a second. Some comments were made about a pending liquor license forthepropertyanditsscheduledhearingonJanuary17,1990.Mr.McMinn said he was unaware of the liquor license request and he had no problem with deferring the item.Theresidentssaidthattheydidnotobjecttoadeferral. A motion was made to defer the PCD request to the January 30,1990 meeting.The motion was approved by avoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 5 January 16,1990 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 —1990 Ordinance Amendment Package Request:Planning Commission review of the first ordinance amendment packagefor1990. STAFF REPORT: The package consists of: Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1.A change to permit bulk storage of hazardous material (liquids)in "I-3"Districts by right. 2.Broadened language in ordinance permitting zerolotlinedevelopment. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments 1.Delete requirement for platting building lines.2.New definition of subdivision.3.Subdivision site plan review.4.Zero lot line standards for platting.5.Definition change on jurisdiction of zoning ordinance.6.Remove City limits from control of setback line numbers unless platted building lines are to bedeletedfromplats.7.New language to deal with staging and preliminaryplatfiling.8.New language to jurisdiction allowing mortgage property exemption from platting for certain time.9.Allow land surveyors to file plats not involved in design of improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 16,1990) Richard Wood of the Planning staff offered a brief explanation of the several items included within the 1990 proposals.He identified each as to its source and theresultstobeexpectedoftheordinancemodification.The time table proposed for the Planning Commission's public hearing was identified as approximately 9-10 months with alatefall1990approvalbytheCityBoard,Staff requested that the Commission identify any problems with the ordinance or issues which were felt to be appropriate for inclusion 1 January 16,1990 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 (Continued) within this ordinance.Staff indicated it would return to the agenda in approximately 6-8 weeks with the first fulldraftoftheordinancesforCommissionreview. A brief discussion was then held concerning the bufferordinancewhichwasdeferredfromthepreviousPlanning Commission meeting.Staff identified the approach taken bythecommitteeappointedbytheCommissionchairmanandstatedthatthecommittee's recommendations should return totheCommissiononthe30thofJanuary,barring problems withcompletingthedevelopmentoftheserecommendations. A motion was made to continue the deferral of the bufferordinanceelementoftheordinancepackagetoJanuary30,1990 with the potential for continuance to the first meetinginFebruarywhichwillbeFebruary13.The motion passed byaunanimousvote. 2 January 16,1990 PLANNING HEARING Item No.2 —Amendment to Pleasant Valley Land Use Plan Source of Request:Walnut Valley Home Owners Association Reques t l Change an area from multifamily to single family Iocation:Between Shackleford Road and I-430 north of Kroger STAFF REPORT: The property is currently vacant with single family development on two sides,I-430 to the east and Kroger to thesouth.The property is owned by the State of Arkansas —StateHospital.The neighborhood association is opposed to the multifamily designation of this property due to concerns of the impact a development might have on their neighborhood. The request was formally made to the City in mid-November as aresultofaCitymeetingwiththeneighborhood.(The State Hospital was notified by phone on December 7 and by mail on December 13th.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval;the request appears to be reasonable and the owner has not expressed opposition. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 16,1990) Walter Malone of the Planning staff presented the proposed amendment from multifamily to single family.There were no persons present to speak either for or against the proposal. After some discussion about the need to assure notice was given and received by the State,and the possibility of amending the plan to public/quasi-public rather than single family,the question was called.By unanimous vote,8 for, 0 against and 3 absent,the amendment was approved. Staff was instructed to send the State another letter informing them of the plan change and this letter was to be sent "Return Receipt Requested". 1 January 16,1990 PLANNING Item No.3 —Amendment to Geyer Springs West Land Use Plan Source of the Request:City of Little Rock Request:Change four parcels from single family to office. Location:West side of Geyer Springs Road south of Harvest Foods to Parkview Christian Church. STAFF REPORT: This request is designed to make the adopted land use planfortheareamorecurrentandviable.Geyer Springs is a major traffic artery in southwest Little Rock and three of the four parcels already have "0-3"General Office zoning. Though staff still believes it is important to err on the side of single family use in this area,office use is the current and likely future use of the parcels in question. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 16,1990) Walter Malone of the Planning staff presented the proposed plan change of four parcels from single family to office. The Commission was informed that the four parcels in question are either zoned or used for office at the current time.The amendment was approved unanimously by a vote of 8 for and 0 against. 1 January 16,1990 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission,the Planning Commission adjourned at 2:10 p.m. D.~,:~gJ-4 L'Ff P Chairman ecr ry