Loading...
pc_01 31 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 31, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members present: John Schlereth David Jones Richard Massie Betty Sipes Ada Boles William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rectors James Summerlin Dorothy Arnett John Clayton (after 1:00 p.m.) Members absent: None City Attorney: Jim Sloan January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - File No. 120 -A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Wally Green AREA: 1.06 acres Amber Oaks Planned Residential District Short Form West Side of Monroe Street at "B" Street ENGINEER: Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR NO. OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: "R -2" Single Family FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Request change to "PRD" Condominiums 12 units at 12 per acre VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions The 1.06 acres in this request are at present developed as a five lot single family subdivision with a cul -de -sac serving the lots off Monroe Street. Lots are buildable as is for single family. The access to this property at "B" Street is not the best, but the only available and should not present serious problems for the density proposed. The lot slopes down grade to the north and west about 25' to a creek running across the northwest corner. This creek drains a large area into Coleman Creek. The adjacent neighborhood is all zoned Single Family with 16 residences backing onto this site. All utilities and public services are available. B. Development Proposal 1. To reclassify the site "PRD" for construction of 12 condominiums. 2. To develop the units in a Williamsburg architecture. January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued C. D. 3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living space in four duplexes and one four unit building. 4. Provide 24 off - street parking spaces. 5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence. 6. The site will be landscaped to City Ordinance requirements. 7. Closure of the West 165 feet of the access street. 8. The project is proposed for construction beginning March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three buildings at the west end of the site. The remaining units constructed later in Phase II. Legal Considerations None evidenced at this writing. Engineering Considerations Entrance street is closed. Request that public access easement be established. E. Analysis The project proposed is somewhat similar to the previous proposal on this site titled Avance Square. That project was unsuccessful at all levels of review except the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plan by a six vote majority. Both the Subdivision Committee and staff recommended approval of that plan with certain modifications. The Board of Directors review resulted in denial on June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed offered two town house structures with six units east, four units east /west with a total of 18 parking spaces. The plan presented here is, in our estimation, an improvement over the concept of Avance Square and should reduce many of the objections offered prior. However, there are several points in addition to the Engineer comment we would like to offer. (1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly landscaped. (2) The four unit building should be reduced to thereby providing a total of 10 units on the site. (3) All landscaping or development in the street should be reviewed for franchise if retained as public thoroughfare. January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (4) All drainage work effected by this project be reviewed by the City Engineer (5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide all details of elevations sectioned through the site and landscape plans. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant stated his feelings that this project was an improvement over the previous one since it involved some detached structures. He was advised to prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were approximately 17 persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly, spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56 signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining to the previous proposal described the property as inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that would determine if there are any restrictions against considering this proposal, due to the previous court order. A motion was made and passed to defer the item until January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 31 -84) The applicant and his engineer were present. Persons from the neighborhood were in attendance. Staff reported that a revised plan had been submitted which reduced the units from 12 to 8, and that the City Attorney's Office had legally interpreted that there were no restrictions prior to consideration of this proposal: (1) since it constituted a separate application than that previously proposed, and (2) if the Zoning Ordinance is amended to "effectuate the interpretation," that there is no minimum size for a short form PUD. January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. He proposed five amendments to the plan: (1) no opaque fence, (2) no right -of -way abandonment, (3) the provision of buildable areas instead of floor plans, (4) name change to Monroe Manor and (5) no redesign of existing lot configuration. Since the result was a lot with no structure on it, the Commission raised questions about #5. Concerns expressed involved the possibility of the applicant selling or pursuing some other type of development on the property at a later date. Staff pointed out that the land would still be zoned PUD and any further attempt at development would necessitate Planning Commission review. Still, the general tone of the Commissioners was apprehensive. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included: (1) Mr. George Wimberly, (2) Mr. Gary Wimberly and (3) Mr. Carl Enhauser, who represented his parents that reside at 225 North Monroe. All speakers recognized that this plan represented a sincere and genuine effort on the part of the developer to reach a compromise with the neighborhood, and that the PUD process was the appropriate vehicle for developing this site. Mr. Gary Wimberly, however, still felt that the plan was too dense, not compatible with the area and lacking in proper setbacks. He submitted an alternate proposal which, in his words, "lessened the impact on the neighborhood" by providing a 25 -foot rear yard setback on the south. The Commission felt that a 25 -foot rear yard setback was not necessary since the area in question could be viewed as a side yard. Mr. Enhauser modified his previous opposing stand to accept the proposal, but expressed his preference for six units (due to increased traffic) rather than the eight proposed. He questioned plans for an unused portion'of right -of -way adjacent to his parents' home. He was informed that the right -of -way would remain public, leaving maintenance to the City. Finally, a motion was made and passed for approval of the plan and the first four amendments, with instructions that Lots 1, 2 and 3 be combined into one lot. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z- 2429 -A Owner: Belmont Shopping Center, Inc. Applicant: A.B. Speights Location: 5824 Geyer Springs Road Request: Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial and Retail Size: 3.83 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "C -3" and "I -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Commercial, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to develop a small scale commercial center at this location. The project will be done in phases with the first phase being the construction of an ice skating rink and secondary phases will include various retail facilities. The site appears to be suited for this type of activity and should create minimal impacts on the surrounding area. The large residential area to the east is separated from the property by Geyer Springs Road and the west side of Geyer Springs is primarily nonresidential. The western boundary of the property is adjacent to the commercial strip associated with University Avenue. 2. The site is vacant and flat. There are no unique physical characteristics associated with this location. 3. Geyer Springs Road is classified as minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. The required right -of -way is 80 feet so dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary. The existing right -of -way is 60 feet. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. January 31, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. The property was rezoned to "I -2" Light Industrial in 1973. The proposed use at that time was a warehouse. There is no indication that the neighborhood opposed the 1973 request. 7. Staff is in support of the rezoning in the proposed project. Commercial development at this location is more desirable than industrial because it should provide needed retail services for the residents of the area and be more compatible with the residential use. In the future, the commercial zoning should be restricted to the west side of Geyer Springs in this general area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion by the Commission, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z- 3025 -A Owner: Jimmy D. and Elza McClanahan Applicant: Same Location: Mabelvale Pike at West 65th (Blount Road) Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -4" Open Display Purpose: Make Present Use Conform Retail Sales Size: 16,500 square feet + Existing Use: Retail Sales - Motorcycles SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The existing use is a nonconforming motorcycle sales operation. The proposal is to make the present use conform. The property has been cited for a zoning violation, and this request is an attempt to resolve this issue. 2. The site is flat with three structures on it. There are no other unique physical characteristics found on this property. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. Mabelvale Pike is classified as a collector and the existing right -of -way is adequate. West 65th Street has been constructed to proper standards to a point just west of this property. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. The only legal issue associated with this application is the zoning violation. 6. In 1976 an attempt was made to rezone the property to "C -3" (F) Commercial. The request was opposed by the neighborhood. At that time, the existing use was nonconforming, and the proposed use was to be a January 31, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued convenience food store. The request was denied by both the Planning Commission and on appeal, the Board of Directors. 7. The proposed rezoning is in conflict with the adopted Suburban Development Plan which recommends that commercial land uses be restricted to the east side of Mabelvale Pike as part of the University Avenue commercial corridor. Mabelvale Pike should continue to be the extent of commercial use west of University Avenue. This rezoning, if approved, could create the only commercially zoned piece of property on the west side of Mabelvale Pike and could lead to the striping out of Mabelvale Pike. Currently, there are no other nonresidential uses, nonconforming or otherwise, on the west side. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request.. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present. Alston Jennings, Attorney, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Jennings pointed out that he was not representing the McClanahans, but was speaking as a friend. He gave the Commission some background and history on the McClanahan's situation. Rick Wilson, a property owner, voiced his opposition to the request. He was concerned with the possible noise associated with the motorcycle dealership. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The application was denied. January 31, 1984 - Vacant, Item No. 3 - Z- 3269 -A "MF -18" Owner: Napa Valley Apartments Applicant: Joe D. White Location: Napa Valley at Mara Lynn Request: Rezone from "MF -18" West to "OS" Open Space Purpose: Open Space Size: .5 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" South - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" West - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" nr.auMTMr_ rnN7CTnFDHTTr%W70 . 1. This request is being filed because of a requirement of the plat, Napa Valley Addition. The proposal is to maintain the tract as open space, and there are no outstanding issues associated with the rezoning. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with the application. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. This parcel is Tract A of the Napa Valley Addition Plat which was approved in 1983. 7. The staff recommended that the tract be down zoned to "OS" as part of the plat approval and supports this rezoning. OrPRVV nV0nAAUVX71- %AMTr%X7. Staff recommends approval of the request. January 31, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The Commission discussed the case briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z- 3369 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Point West - Joint Venture Same Kanis Road west of Bowman Road Rezone from "0-3" and "MF -24" to "C -3" Commercial - Small Retail Shops 4.44 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" South - Vacant, Zoned "MF -24" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "MF -24" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone approximately 4.5 acres to "C -3" for small commercial shops. The three tracts involved are part of the Point West Second Addition. The proposed rezoning, if approved, would create a commercial strip along Kanis Road for a distance of approximately 1200 feet. The location does not appear to be appropriate for intense commercial use. It is more suitable for multifamily or office development. If the immediate area is built out and demands are created for commercial services, those needs should be met by establishing a quality neighborhood commercial center at the intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads. There is some commercial development currently at that intersection. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The site slopes from north to south with the Kanis Road frontage being the high point. 3. Kanis Road is classified as minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right -of -way. The plat for Point West Second Addition will provide the needed right -of -way. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. January 31, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued 5. There appears to be no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on this site. The previous rezoning action on these parcels occurred in 1979. At that time, the request was for a total of 23.8 acres for various classifications. The rezoning changes were granted, including the "C -3" tract east of the proposed zoning on the north side of Kanis. 7. The request is not supported by the adopted Suburban Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that commercial uses should be concentrated at the intersection of Bowman and Kanis with the existing "C -3" parcel being the extent of commercial zoning west of that intersection. That amount of land should meet the demands for any needed commercial services for a number of years. A commercial strip would be established if this request is approved and that would produce an undesirable land use pattern for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Dick Giddings of the Danny Thomas Company. Forest Marlar, Engineer, was also present. Mr. Giddings described the existing single family development in the area and the future plans for residential use which will create a need for commercial services in the immediate vicinity. The population will be there to support commercial activities at the location in question according to Mr. Giddings. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. The Planning Commission supported the request because of improvements in the area, approximately 84 acres of existing and proposed residential development, and the request is reasonable because adjoining properties to the east are identified for commercial use on the Suburban Development Plan which is just a guide. January 31, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z -4137 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Helen McDonald Same Geyer Springs at Judy Lane - Northwest Corner Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -I" Neighborhood Commercial Beauty Shop 8,900 square feet + Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to permit the expansion of a nonconforming use in an "R -2" district. Currently, the property is occupied by single family residence with a portion of the structure being utilized for a beauty shop. The applicant would like to expand the beauty shop operation, but because of its nonconformity status, the property must first be rezoned to the appropriate classification. The beauty shop must have commercial zoning if more than one chair will be in operation. This application is the result of the Zoning Enforcement Office determining that the proposed expansion cannot first occur without the proper zoning. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one single family structure on it. One unique feature of the lot is that it has a curved driveway which takes access both Geyer Springs and Judy Lane. 3. Additional dedication of right -of -way on Geyer Springs Road will be necessary because it is classified as principal arterial which requires a minimum of a 100 -foot right -of -way. The existing right -of -way is deficient. January 31, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. The request appears to be spot zoning in nature. The immediate vicinity is zoned "R -2" except for a "C -2" tract at the intersection of Geyer Springs and Mabelvale Cutoff, approximately 1 1/2 blocks to the south. 6. There have been some neighborhood complaints about the existing beauty shop. The property was part of a large annexation that occurred in 1981. The beauty shop was in operation at the time the property was annexed according to the applicant. Some of the neighbors have stated otherwise and this disagreement is becoming a major issue. 7. Staff views the request as spot zoning and as inappropriate for the area. The lot is part of a well established single family area with good housing. The "C -1" district does permit other uses which may have a negative impact on the stable single family area. A spot zoning, such as this one, may cause disruption of a good neighborhood. The request is also in conflict with the Suburban Development Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Helen McDonald, was present. Mrs. McDonald requested for a deferral because her attorney had not had proper time to prepare for the hearing. The request was not granted. Mrs. McDonald then spoke in support of her request. There were 13 persons in attendance objecting to the application. Mr. C.L. Griff and Mr. Robert Burns spoke for the residents present and the entire neighborhood. A petition with 213 signatures opposing the request was presented to the Commission. Ken Scott of the City's Zoning Enforcement Office gave the Commission a history of the various issues and violations associated with the application. The case was discussed at length by the Commission. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The application was denied. January 31, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z -4147 Owner: L.D. Stone Company Applicant: William C. Hamilton Location: 11,127 New Benton Highway Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -4" Open Display Purpose: Retail Building Material Sales Size: 2.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Interstate, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Commercial, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to develop an open building material sales lot. The site is part of the I -30 strip which has a number of different commercial uses all oriented toward the interstate. This location is suitable for "C -4" zoning and use. 2. The site is vacant and flat. Some dirt work and fill has already taken place on the property. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was part of a large annexation that occurred in 1979. The property was annexed to the City as "R -2." Some properties in the immediate area have already been rezoned to the appropriate classifications. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies this area for commercial development. Staff supports the proposed use for the site and views the request as being compatible with the surrounding area. January 31, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, William C. Hamilton, was present. The staff recommended that the application be amended to only rezone the land that is outside the floodway. This would exclude approximately the southern one - fourth of the property. Mr. Hamilton questioned whether the floodway could be used for storage of the building materials. Mike Batie of the City's Engineering Division addressed the floodway issues and stated that the area in the floodway could not be used for storage. The applicant agreed to the amended request. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended application zoning only the land out of the floodway. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z -4149 Owner: Steve B. Lehoczky Applicant: Same Location: West 36th Street at Malloy St. Northwest Corner Request: Rezone from "R -3" Single Family to "I -2" Light Industrial Purpose: Auto Repair Garage - Expansion of a Nonconforming Use Size: 13,110 square feet + Existing Use: Auto Repair Garage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property is occupied by an auto repair garage which is a nonconforming use. The proposal is to expand the existing building which requires proper zoning; expansion of a nonconforming use is not permitted. A portion of the building was destroyed when a tornado went through the area in December 1982. The property has had a number of different uses on it and has been nonconforming for years. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single building. A portion of the property is used for storage of vehicles. 3. West 36th Street is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan so dedication will be required because the existing right -of -way is only 40 feet. The minor arterial requires 80 feet of right -of -way. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. January 31, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued 5. The request appears to be spot zoning. There is no other industrial zoning within a half mile of the location in question. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property has had a nonconforming use on it since the area was annexed approximately 25 years ago. The uses have varied. 7. The staff views the site as inappropriate for industrial or any nonresidential zoning, and the request is not supported by the adopted Boyle Park Plan. The property is surrounded by single family use, and that land use pattern will continue. Creating an industrial zone at this location could produce some undesirable impacts in the future because of some of the "I -2" permitted uses. The industrial zoning would not have any relationship to the adjacent properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Steve Lehoczky, was present and spoke in support of the request. Mr. Chuck Rhodes, representing the John Barrow CDBG Committee, was also in attendance. Mr. Rhodes stated that the CDBG Committee had voted 12 to 1 against the rezoning. He also reminded the Commission that the request was not supported by the adopted Boyle Park Plan. Ken Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office addressed the question of a possible illegal storage of vehicles on the property. The Commission held a lengthy discussion on the case. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The application was denied. January 31, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z -4150 Owner: Van Larr, Inc. Applicant: Same Location: 9508 Geyer Springs Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family and "R -4" Two Family to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial Size: 1.1 acres + Existing Use: Commercial (Nonconforming Use) SURROUNDTNn T.ANT) T1SR ANT) 70NTNr North - Vacant, Zoned "C -1" South - Office and School, Zoned "O -1" East - High School, Zoned "R -2" West - School, Zoned "O -1" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property is currently occupied by a commercial structure which is a nonconforming use. The rezoning request was initiated because of the expansion to the building which is a violation. The Zoning Enforcement Office has given the property owners notice of the violation. The proposed uses will remain the same. 2. The site is flat with one building situated on the front of the property. The remainder of the property is vacant. Parking areas are not adequately paved. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The site has been in the City for a number of years. The property is part of the Roper School Addition. The preliminary plat has been approved, but only one lot has been finaled. The plat provided the necessary right -of -way dedication. January 31, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued 7. The request is not supported by the Suburban Development Plan and the staff. The staff's primary concern is that granting of this rezoning could lead to the potential striping out of Geyer Springs south of Baseline Road. Suburban Development Policy No. 65 states: "Prevent the occurrence of uncontrolled strip commercial development with its attendant traffic, land use and visual conflict through ongoing planning and careful administration of City land use controls." Commercial uses should be restricted to the locations identified on the Suburban Development Plan, the major intersections with Geyer Springs Road. The development pattern found along Geyer Springs north of Baseline Road should be avoided. The "C -1" zoning directly to the north was a conversion adjustment accomplished in 1981. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Chris Barrier, Attorney. Mr. Barrier offered many comments in support of commercial zoning on the property in question and then amended the application to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial. There were approximately 10 persons present in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Robert Burns spoke for the group. He pointed out to the Commission that the residents were opposed to any strip commercial zoning along this section of Geyer Springs and that the request was not compatible with the Suburban Development Plan. Mr. Gus Albright also spoke against the request. He stated that commercial zoning should be kept north of Baseline Road. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as amended. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 3 ayes, 7 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). The request was denied. January 31, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z -4151 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Mrs. C.E. Childres Same 6500 and 6504 Baseline Road East of Bowman Road Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office Office 1.14 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Church, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East -- Multifamily, Zoned "R -5" West - Office, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone approximately 1.15 acres for general office use. No specific development plans have been submitted for the property. The request is just east of an existing office zoning and use. Also, it is part of a section of Baseline Road that has a concentration of office use so the site appears to be appropriate for office rezoning. 2. The site is flat and occupied by two single family structures. 3. Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial which requires a 100 -foot right -of -way. The existing right -of -way is deficient so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on this site. January 31, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued 7. Staff views this location as being suitable for office use and supports the request. Both the Suburban Development Plan and a land use study of the Baseline Road Corridor identified the site for office development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. A deferral was requested by the staff because proper documentation of notification to the property owners had not been submitted prior to the hearing. A motion to defer the item to February 28, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 10 - Z -4152 Owner: B.G. Coney Applicant: Same Location: Valley Club at Pebble Beach Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "R -2" Single Family Purpose: Single Family Size: 1.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4" East - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4" West - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to construct three single family structures on three lots. A preliminary plat has been approved. 2. The site is vacant and relatively flat. 3. There are no right -of -way issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are legal issues attendant to the request. 6. The property is currently part of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course which is zoned "R -4." 7. Staff is in support of the application and did request at the time of the preliminary plat approval that the lots be down zoned to "R -2." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reommends approval of the request. January 31, 1984 Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The Commission held a brief discussion. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 11 - Z -4153 Owner: Joe E. Hawkins Applicant: Same Location: Valley Club at Buff Lane Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "R -2" Single Family Purpose: Single Family Size: 1.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4" East - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4" DT AMMTMO 0nW70TT'%VnA ITnW70 . 1. The proposal is to build two single family units on two lots. A preliminary plat has been filed and approved. 2. The site is vacant and flat. 3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan requirements. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no history on this site. 7. Staff is in support of the request. As with Z -4152, down zoning to "R -2" is a requirement of the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application. January 31, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The Commission discussed the case briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 12 - Z -4157 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Mrs. Charles B. Linzy, Jr. Same West 26th Street at Howard St. Northeast Corner Rezone from "R-3" to to "C -3" General Commercial Craft Shop and Residence 13,200 square feet + Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "C -3" South - Fairgrounds, Zoned "R -3" East - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "C -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to permit a craft shop on the property. The site is situated in an area that has been heavily impacted by the State Fairgrounds to the south and west and Roosevelt Road just one block to the north. The majority of the immediate vicinity is zoned "C -3," and that appears to be developing pattern for the remaining properties that are zoned "R -3." The residential environment of the two -block area is being affected by the surrounding nonresidential uses. 2. The site consists of two standard residential lots. One lot has two structures on it, and the other lot is vacant. 3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with the request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position. January 31, 1984 Item No. 12 - Continued 7. The staff supports the rezoning. It is anticipated that an entire area from Roosevelt to the Fairgrounds and from the Fairgrounds to Schiller will be zoned for commercial uses. Some "C -3" is already in place and with the Fairgrounds being the dominating use, commercialization of the area appears to be the trend. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the case briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 13 - Z -4158 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Don Hughes G.P. Thomas 1102 Woodrow Street Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "C -3" General Commercial Beauty Shop 7100 square feet + Duplex SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Duplex, Zoned "R -4" South - Single Family, Zoned "0 -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The site is presently occupied by a duplex, and the proposal is to convert the structure into a beauty shop. The property is located in an area with mixed uses in zoning. Because of the existing uses, it is difficult to determine what the predominant development pattern or trend is. The existing "C -3" zoning has been restricted to properties with West 12th Street frontage except for the southwest corner at Woodrow and West 13th Street. 2. The site is a flat, standard, residential lot with a duplex on it. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no apparent legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property has been zoned "R -4" for a number of years. January 31, 1984 Item No. 13 - Continued 7. The staff does not support this request. Commercial uses and zoning should be limited to West 12th and Woodrow as recommended in the proposed Stephens School Plan. The Plan shows the commercial use to be just one -half block north of West 12th and recommends low density use north to I -630. Allowing commercial zoning beyond this point would result in the striping out of Woodrow from West 12th to I -630. The current commercial zoning pattern should be reinforced by denying this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, G.P. Thomas, and the owner, Don Hughes, were present. Both offered comments in support of commercial zoning for the location in question. Mr. Thomas then amended the application to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial. There were no objectors present. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. The Planning Commission supported the "C -1" request because of existing uses in the immediate area, there were no objectors present, and Woodrow having immediate access to I -630. January 31, 1984 Item No. 14 - Z -4159 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: W.L. Thomas Location: 8100 New Benton Highway Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -4" Open Display Purpose: Manufactured Home Sales Lot Size: 2.5 acres + Existing Use: Used Car Sales Lot (Nonconforming Use) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" East - Interstate Right -of -Way and Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to allow a manufactured housing sales lot. The site is currently occupied by a used car lot, a nonconforming use. The property is located on the I -30 Frontage Road which has high visibility and is an appropriate location for a "C -4" zoning and use. There is some "C -4" zoning to the east, and the parcel is adjacent to an "I -2" tract to the west. 2. The site is flat and vacant with the exception of a trailer which functions as the sales office. There are some trees along the west side of the property. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues relative to this application. January 31, 1984 Item No. 14 - Continued 6. The site was annexed to the City in 1979, and was brought in as "R -2." There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff supports the request and views the site as a suitable location for a "C -4" use. Because the property is adjacent to a single family neighborhood, some adequate buffering or open space strip may be needed to minimize any potential impacts on the neighborhood. A screen fence is required between the properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that two letters were submitted objecting to the rezoning request. The Commission discussed the case briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 15 - Z- 3954 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: R. E. Jones City of Little Rock West 65th at Wakefield Drive Southwest Corner Rezone from "1-2" to 11C -4" Open Display Motorcycle Dealership 22,500 square feet + Existing Use: Service Station SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" East - Industrial, Zoned "C -3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: This down zoning, initiated by the City of Little Rock, is the result of an appeal of a Planning Commission zoning denial on the tract directly to the south (Z -4112 from "C -3" to "I -2 "). The request was opposed by the staff and the residents of the Wakefield neighborhood. The Board of Directors at its public hearing on the appeal suggested that "C -4" zoning on both tracts would be more desirable and still allow the applicant to develop the property for a motorcycle dealership. The Ordinance was left on the first reading to allow the Planning Commission time to review and act on this suggestion. The site is occupied by a service station with some storage of vehicles. One primary concern of the neighborhood has been this existing use and what happens to it if the "C -3" tract zoning is changed. The applicant has stated he does not plan to occupy the property for four or five years. The neighborhood is concerned that the service station and its use will move closer to the residential area if the southern tract is rezoned from "C -3." It is the staff's impression that the neighborhood is in support of the down zoning to "C -4" but would like to see the "C -3" tract remain as such. They view the "C -3" parcel as protecting them from any undesirable uses located on West 65th Street, which is a valid argument. They have also expressed some reservations about the proposed use, the motorcycle dealership. January 31, 1984 Item No. 15 - Continued The owner's attorney has indicated that they are in agreement with the down zoning to "C -4" only if the "C -3" tract is rezoned to "C -4" to permit the dealership. They want the zoning changes to be considered as a total package only and not separate. The resolution of the "C -3" tract appears to be the overriding issue. (The 11I -2" Rezoning Ordinance can be amended to "C -4" at the Board of Directors level.) Staff supports the down zoning to "C -4." At Wakefield Drive, the industrial zoning should be located north of West 65th Street to protect the entrance to the subdivision. The location would be ideal for a neighborhood commercial center. Staff can support "C -4" reclassification on the "C -3" tract if the two tracts are combined and are used for the motorcycle dealership. This will provide the dealership West 65th frontage and allow an adequate planted buffer strip on the south. A separate 11C -4" tract on Wakefield Drive is not appropriate. There are some concerns with the motorcycle dealership and its potential impacts on the residential neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the down zoning from "I -2" to Of C-4. " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The owner of the property in question was represented by William Crow, Attorney. There were no objectors present. Both Mr. Crow and the staff explained to the Commission how the down zoning of this tract came about. Mr. Crow stated that the owner, Mr. E. Jones, had agreed to the down zoning if the "C -3" tract and the "I -2" parcel were considered as a package and a "C -4" reclassification is approved for both tracts. The Commission was informed that the neighborhood is still opposed to the "C -3" property being rezoned. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the down zoning request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. e n January 31, 1984 Item No. 16 - Alley Closure Name: Coleman Block 33, Original City of Little Rock Location: The entire length of the east and west alley between Scott and Cumberland Applicant: Jim Moses Request: Closure of the described right -of -way STAFF REPORT No adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies have been received as of yet. The property is currently used as open space for the Arkansas Territorial Restoration Commission and a parking lot. The proposed use of the land obtained will be in conjunction with adjoining office buildings. Both ends of the alley will remain open for emergency access. Staff would not like to take a definite position on this until full development plans relative to curb cuts, parking and drives are submitted by both parties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deferral until submission of more information. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Mr. Jim Moses presented a site plan for review. Mr. Bill Worthen of the abutting property stated that they were aware of the alley closure and had no objections; also that they were unprepared at this time to present site plans for future development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Both Mr. Jim Moses, the applicant, and Mr. Bill Worthen of the Territorial Restoration, were present. No objections were raised. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 31, 1984 Item No. 17 - Suburban Plan Amendment, I -30 at Chicot Road Area This Suburban Development Plan amendment was proposed due to the recent rezoning activity by the property owner. The rezoning activity involved a change from "R -2" and "MF -18" to "C -4" and "MF -12." The Suburban Development Plan currently shows this property area as "LI" Light Industry. The staff recommends that the Suburban Development Plan be amended to show "SD" Strip Development along the I -30 frontage, "MF" Multifamily to the north with a "SF" Single Family buffer along the northern end and a portion of the eastern boundary. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Jim Lawson explained that this proposed Suburban Plan amendment is in support of a previous rezoning action by the Commission. There was no discussion of the item and it was approved: 11 ayes and 0 noes. r-. January 31, 1984 Item No. 18 - Suburban Plan Amendment, NE Corner, Vimy Ridge and County Line Roa A recent rezoning at the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge Road and County Road prompted this amendment. The "C -1" rezoning was approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 1983. At the time of the rezoning, the staff recommended that the Suburban Plan be amended. The Suburban Development Plan presently shows this property as single family. The staff recommends that the Suburban Development Plan be amended to show neighborhood convenience commercial at the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge and County Line Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Jim Lawson reminded the Planning Commission that this proposed amendment is a result of a recent rezoning request by the applicant. There was no discussion by the Planning ,-� Commission and it was approved: 11 ayes and 0 noes. 1 January 31, 1984 Item No. 19 - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Minimum Size PUD The intent of the short form Planned Unit Development was for infill type development on small parcels of land. The staff and Planning Commission's intent was to not have a minimum size requirement for the short form PUD. A short form PUD development was reviewed at the Planning Commission's meeting on January 10, 1984, which raised the question of the minimum size requirement. The sentiment of the Planning Commission and staff was that Section 9 -101 C3 dealing with the minimum size was unclear in its wording. This proposed amendment is an attempt to clarify the ordinance by simply stating: "There is no minimum size for the short form Planned Unit Development applications." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Item No. 19 was taken out of order and was acted on by the Planning Commission first to clarify a later PUD application. The Chairman identified this ordinance amendment as a clarification to the minimum size requirement for the short form PUD. There was no discussion of the item by the Planning Commission. The vote was: 11 ayes and 0 noes. � t t January 31, 1984 Item No. 20 - Discussion Matter Request for review of boundary street improvements along State Highway No. 10 and staff report on appropriateness of such requirements in light of the eminent state project. Memo on Above Subject From the City Engineer TO: Nathaniel Griffin Director of Comprehensive Planning FROM: Don McChesney, City Engineer SUBJECT: Boundary Street Improvements on Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) The Planning Commission at its last meeting raised several policy questions concerning the waiving of boundary improvements where a roadway improvement project is underway with specific concern being focused on a development project on Highway 10. As requested, this memorandum attempts to answer both the general policy issues and the specifics of this particular case. City Policy Long- standing City policy concerning boundary improvements where roadway improvements are planned is embodied in the recently adopted boundary improvement ordinance. Section 6, Article (e) stipulates: where a public project is planned, construction of improvements or in lieu cash contributions shall be required until the day of bid opening for public improvement. This policy has proven to be both fair and practical. In a practical sense, the amount of money available for funding arterial improvements in Little Rock is relatively fixed. If boundary improvements are waived for any reason, the net effect is to reduce the amount of public funds available for needed roadway improvements at other locations in the City. Also, there is never any assurance that a roadway improvement project will not be delayed or dropped altogether until the construction contract is awarded. Status of Highway 10 Project The Highway Department has considered the improvement of Highway 10 west of Interstate 430 as a high priority for several years, but it was not until last year that such a project was given official status. This was accomplished in response to a direct appeal from area residents to the Highway Commission on March 30, 1983, at which time the Commission passed Minute Order 8,393 which directed the department to "proceed with surveys, plans and construction as funds become available." January 31, 1984 Item No. 20 - Continued This action by the Highway Commission makes the project an "active" project, but does not provide any funds for the work to take place. At this time, however, no detailed work has been initiated due to a lack of available funds and a long backlog of committed projects. Reduction in Highway Revenues The Highway Department is hard pressed to provide matching funds to accommodate federal projects which have been designed "on the shelf" for several years. An example is the University Avenue rehabilitation project which has been delayed the last three years. Summary Even if there was no shortage of public funds available for the Highway 10 project, it would still take several years to go through the necessary phases of engineering design, environmental review and right -of -way acquisition and utility relocation, all of which must be accomplished prior to construction. If right -of -way acquisition and utility relocation is delayed until after development occurs, the ultimate cost would become prohibitive. The truth is that there is a critical shortage of public funds at federal, state and local levels for constructing the needed improvements on Highway 10. It is essential, therefore, that the City make maximum utilization of developer contributed boundary street improvements and to control land development in such a way as to protect the capacity of the existing facility. P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE JA s J' , 178+ ZONING. SUBDIVTSTnN V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS MEMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 r 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 J• S m li ✓ ✓ ! ✓ ✓ 0 ✓ 0 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J. Schlereth ✓ ✓ 0 !✓ ✓ 0 ✓ 0 ✓ we ✓ ✓ ✓ we ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ R. Massie ✓ ✓ • ✓ A A ✓ 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ w/ B. Sipes ✓ ✓0✓•• ✓• we we ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J. Nicholson ✓ ✓ ✓ 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ or �✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ w W. Rector ✓; ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �% ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Vol ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1• W. Ketcher ✓ ✓ 0 ✓ ✓ 0 wee 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 0 D. Arnett ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ . .o-, ✓ ✓ ✓ we ✓ we ✓ ✓ / ✓ , D. J . Jones ✓ ✓ 0 ✓ v; ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ /✓ ✓ r/ I. Boles ✓ ✓ 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ S/ we ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ v/ ee ✓ Q J: Clayton ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓.. ✓ 400- &o#-- P000- A 1 AYE ®NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN r January 31, 1984 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Date