Loading...
pc_04 24 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD APRIL 24, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney Present: John Schlereth Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Richard Massie William Ketcher Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones James Summerlin Ida Boles Dorothy Arnett Jim Sloan April 24, 1984 Item No. A - Z -4136 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: B.E. Hocott's Estate Joe Hocott Leander Street at Rock Creek Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "MF -24" Multifamily Multifamily Development 2.3 acres + Existing Use: Vacant STIRROTINDTNr. T.Awn TTRF. Awn 7.OMTNC,- North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2," and "PRD" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" ` I PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1: The proposal is to develop multifamily units on land that is unsuitable for the proposed use. The property has some very steep slopes and does not provide adequate land area for a higher density development. Only the southern portion of the tract could realistically be built on. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The site is heavily wooded and a majority of it has slopes in excess of 30 percent. The western end drops straight off from Leander Street to Rock Creek. There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. Leander Street is deficient in right -of -way. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. There are no legal issues. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. April 24, 1984 Item No. A - Continued 7. The request is in conflict with the adopted Boyle Park and Master Parks Plans. The Boyle Park Plan shows the site as part of an open corridor through the area. The Park Plan has identified Rock Creek as a Priority One stream for floodway, open space acquisition. The plan recommends a minimum acquisition width of 350 feet which would encroach substantially into the property in question. Staff feels the site should be left as "R -2" and acquired by the City for open space and flood control. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 13, 1983) The applicant, Joe Hocott, was present. Bill Clark also spoke on this matter. A 30 -day deferral was suggested to Mr. Hocott to determine the feasibility of incorporating his property with the land to the south and submitting a PRD for all the properties. Mr. Hocott agreed to requesting the 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 10, 1984) The applicant was not present. Ben McMinn, representing Mr. Joe Hocott, submitted a letter requesting a 30 -day deferral. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 14 -84) The applicant was not present. Staff requested a 60 -day deferral and stated that the applicant was in agreement with the request. A motion to defer the item to April 24, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 24 -84) The applicant was not present. A 30 -day deferral was requested by the staff to allow the owner to resolve some outstanding issues. A motion to defer the item to May 29, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. April 24, 1984 Item No. B - Z -4168 Owner: B.R. McGinty Applicant: Louis Wimbley Location: 4601 West 12th (West 12th at Adams, southwest corner) Request: Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to "C -4" Open Display Purpose: Auto Repair Garage Size: 14,400 square feet + Existing Use: Vacant Service Station SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "I -2" South - Church, Zoned "C -3" East - Multifamily, Zoned "R -4" West - Church, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to convert an existing service station to an auto repair garage. The station has been used as a car wash and detail shop. It has not been used for a service station for a number of years. The site is located in a "C -3" strip on the south side of West 12th that extends approximately four blocks to the east. The area has a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. This location is the west end of the "C -3" zoning. The north side of West 12th has a similar development pattern with a mix of commercial uses. The proposed use appears to be appropriate for West 12th which is classified as a principal arterial, but the requirement for "C -4" zoning is a concern. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a vacant service station. A majority of the property is paved except approximately the west 45 feet. This section is the location of a creek and separated from the remainder of the site by a retaining wall. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. West 12th Street is four lane, and'all necessary improvements are in place. April 24, 1984 Item No. B - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues other than establishing a "C -4" spot zone. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position relative to this site. The property has been zoned "C -3" for a number of years. 7. The staff is not necessarily opposed to the proposed use, an auto repair garage, but it cannot support the "C -4" rezoning at this location. There are a number of uses permitted under the "C -4" classification that would be undesirable for West 12th Street and the rezoning would be establishing a spot zone. Precedent would be set if this zoning is granted that could create some undesirable land use patterns along West 12th. A "C -3" zoning pattern is more appropriate for West 12th Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84) The applicant was not present. for 30 days was approved by a v 1 absent. (The staff was asked the applicant and inform him of a conditional use permit if the amended.) A motion to defer the item ote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and by the Commission to contact the possibility of utilizing Zoning Ordinance is PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84) The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the item for 30 days was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 24 -84) The applicant was not present. A motion to withdraw the item from the agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Z -4174 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Smith Property Partnership Tom Rystrom Napa Valley at Mara Lynn (west side) Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Development Size: 10.1 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned 11R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The 10 -acre site in question abuts another 10 -acre tract zoned "MF -18," and the proposal is to combine the two parcels if the rezoning from "R -2" to "MF -18" is completed and develop the entire 20 -acre site for multifamily use. This property has no access to a dedicated public street, so for development to occur, the site must be incorporated into a project that has proper access. The site is located in part of Little Rock where substantial multifamily development has taken place or is under construction. There is also a number of areas zoned for multifamily that have yet to be developed. The primary issue is how much of the 10 acres can be utilized for multifamily development because of the terrain and the western portion of the property being adjacent to a detached single family neighborhood and approximately 1200 feet from Napa Valley Road. 2. The site is heavily wooded with some of the property having slopes in the range of 15 percent to 30 percent. The high point is located on the eastern portion of the site. The southern boundary of the property appears to be unsuitable for development because of the steep slopes. April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued 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 or history on this site. The residents of St. Charles have expressed some concern over the proposed density and the type of development. 7. The staff supports multifamily use on a portion of the 10 acres if a portion of the western one -third of the tract is left undeveloped and zoned "OS." The density for the "OS" area could be transferred to the developable land. A specific land combining the two tracts has not been submitted. A development concept should be undertaken for the total acreage to establish an overall density level and define the open space /buffer area. Because of these concerns, it is recommended that no action be taken on the rezoning until the plan is submitted and reviewed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a 30 -day deferral to allow the applicant to submit a development plan for purposes of reviewing the proposed density and the amount of developed land versus undeveloped land. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the request. Mr. Hathaway spoke in support of multifamily development on the site and offered a new zoning proposal. The amended request was for a "MF -12" reclassification for seven acres and "OS" for the western three acres adjacent to the St. Charles Subdivision. He also stated that the maximum density on seven acres would be 80 units and the developer would fence the open space area. Kent Brewster of the St. Charles Property Owners Association spoke in opposition to the multifamily development. He expressed concern over the remaining "R -2" parcel to the north and how its future would probably be determined by what occurred on the property in question. He then requested a 30 -day deferral because the property owners had not had an opportunity to view Mr. Hathaway's proposal. Jane Barron and Don Moore spoke against the rezoning of the "R -2" tract and were very concerned over traffic. Mr. Moore felt that April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued there were more than enough multifamily units in the area already. Jim Rhodes also spoke in opposition to the request and offered some conditions if the property was developed. He suggested that a "PRD" be used for the seven acres; restrict the density to eight units per acre; that the units, 56 total, be for sale; limit the height of the buildings; and deed the western three acres to the St. Charles property group. He also requested a 30 -day deferral. Mr. Hathaway then responded to the preceding remarks. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended to rezone seven acres to "MF -12" and three acres to "OS." The motion was not seconded. A second motion was made to defer the item for 30 days. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84) The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Joe Eh objectors present. M developer of the prop project. He explaine Property Owners Assoc which included a 200 - the buffer area to th construct a fence in that he had no proble if it could be assure The density on the 20 Mr. Ehrler explained in question, the proj over the maximum dens he had no problems wi something could be do units. Kent Brewster Association addressed (4- 24 -84) rler, was present. There were no r. Ehrler said that he would be the erty and described the proposed J that he had met with the St. Charles iation and reviewed the new proposal Eoot buffer left as open space, deed St. Charles neighborhood and the middle of the buffer. He stated ns with an "OS" zoning for the buffer 9 that it was left in a natural state. acres total would be 300 units. that on the west 10 acres, the property act was proposing 122 units which was ity allowed in "MF -12." He stated that :h "MF -12" on the west 10 acres if le to accommodate the two additional of the St. Charles Property Owners the Commission. He stated that the Property Owners Association supported the "MF -12" rezoning and that the new proposal in principal. The Property Owners Assoication was in agreement that the 200 -foot buffer should be left undisturbed and that the restrictions be placed on it in the deed, and split the buffer in half with the fence. Mr. Brewster felt that the "OS" zoning would be appropriate for the buffer. Don Moore, an adjacent property owner to April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued the west, expressed some concerns over the site plan and traffic in the area. Joe White, an engineer, then spoke to the density issue and amended the application to "MF -18" on the east 1001, "OS" on the west 200' and "MF -12" on the remainder of the property. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). April 24, 1984 Item No. D - Z- 3638 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Gary Dean Financial Centre Parkway at Shackleford Road NW Corner Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to "0 -2" Office and Institutional District Office 4.59 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Office, Zoned "C -3" East - Interstate, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2," 110 -3" and "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to construct a single office building not to exceed 120' in height and one parking deck. The 120' limit is the maximum height in the "0 -2" District. There will be additional surface parking. The site is located in an area that is rapidly developing as a major office center for west Little Rock. There is substantial office development directly to the south and to the north and northeast. This area is commonly referred to as the I -430 office corridor, and the proposed project is compatible with that land use pattern. The property has good access for high volumes of traffic and needed commercial services are also provided in the area. (The "0 -2" District requires a site plan review by the Planning Commission. The site plan has been filed for the Commission's April 12 meeting.) 2. The site is vacant with wooded areas. The property has some slope to it with the east side, the Shackleford frontage, being at 380' and increases in elevation to 410' at the southwest corner. The grade is fairly gradual and should not present any problems. April 24, 1984 Item No. D - Continued 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 was rezoned from "0 -3" to "C -3" as conversion adjustment. That action was accomplished in February 1981. At that time, the proposed use was a hotel. The neighborhood's position relative to mid -rise office buildings in the area is well documented. (The proposed height is permitted in the "0-2" District.) Staff has not received any comments from the neighborhood regarding this rezoning request at this writing. 7. The staff supports the request and views the rezoning as being appropriate for the location, the intersection of an arterial and an interstate. The Shackleford .-. frontage from Kanis to Markham is zoned for nonresidential uses, except an "R -2" piece directly north of this tract. The proposed use is compatible with the area and the existing land use patterns which includes a major office corridor to the south and a commercial strip to the north. Because of what is occurring along Shackleford, it appears that the long -term viability of the residential lots on Birchwood within 200' of Shackleford is questionable. The continue residential use at this location will probably have to be reevaluated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84) The applicant was not present but had requested a 30 -day deferral. Staff supported the request because the applicant also did not notify all the property owners within the required 2001. A motion to defer the item passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. April 24, 1984 Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 24 -84) The applicant, Gary Dean, was present. There were also two persons present that addressed the Commission about some concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Dean spoke in support of the request and stated that he had met with the neighborhood and had revised the proposed site plan based on those discussions. The building design had changed and the height of the building would not exceed 80'. This was a reduction of approximately 40' from the original proposal. He said that the new plan was a good compromise and should satisfy all parties involved. Dorothy Straton of the Birchwood neighborhood stated that they were not opposed to office use, but wanted quality development. She then described some of the neighborhood's concerns which included traffic on Shackleford Road, drainage, sewer capacity and the width of the proposed buffer. She requested that the City look into the traffic situation and provide some help. They were also concerned about the zoning changes occurring in the area and the staff's statement regarding the viability of long -term residential use on the western end of Birchwood. During this discussion, it was pointed out that the required site plan review for the "0 -2" district would address all of the design issues. Ms. Straton said that the neighborhood was pleased with the 80 -foot height. John Straton questioned the method of measuring the height of the building. The Zoning Ordinance definition of building height uses the central access of the building for this purpose. Mr. Dean then discussed some of the concerns raised by the representatives of the neighborhood. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 24, 1984 Item No. E - Z -4182 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Randy Henard Anna Street at Asher and West 33rd Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial to "I -3" Heavy Industrial Auto Salvage 1.0 acres + Auto Salvage (Nonconforming Use) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for an auto salvage operation. The site is currently occupied by a nonconforming auto salvage yard. This rezoning request is in response to a zoning enforcement notice informing the applicant that the existing "I -2" zoning does not permit an auto salvage yard. The "I -2" zoning in the area is working and has produced some desirable industrial uses for Asher Avenue. Long -range plans for the area envision a light industrial warehousing district. There currently is a mix of zoning and land uses, but an "I -3" use is not compatible with the area. Certain sections of Asher Avenue have been upgraded and an auto salvage yard fronting on Asher would not be aiding that trend. There also has been some new construction in the immediate vicinity. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a structure and a number of dilapidated automobiles. April 24, 1984 Item No. E - Continued 3. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the existing right -of -way is deficient. Asher Avenue is classified as a principle arterial on the Master Street Plan and is a state highway. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The general area has been zoned "I -2" for a number of years. There is no neighborhood position relative to the site. 7. The staff position is that the "I -2" zoning is working and should continue to be the most intensive zoning classification in the area. Uses permitted under "I -3" are uncompatible with the area and could create adverse impacts for the neighborhood. The existing residential uses have been affected by the industrial and commercial zoning, and the area will continue to lose its desirability as a residential neighborhood. An auto salvage yard or any other "I -3" use is inappropriate for property with frontage on Asher Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84) The applicant had submitted a letter requesting a 30 -day deferral to allow him to notify the property owners within the required time. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 24 -84) The applicant had submitted a written request for another 30 -day deferral. The applicant did not notify the property owners within 2001. This was the applicant's second request for a deferral. A motion to defer the item to May 29, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. ` -April 24, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z- 2037 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Jim Baldridge Same 7120 South University Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to "C -4" Open Display Used Car Lot 1.1 acre + Existing Use: Used Car Lot (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -4" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The site is currently occupied by a nonconforming used car lot. The proposed use is the same and the owner wants to be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the existing "C -3" zoning, expansion cannot occur because of the used car lot being nonconforming. The owner has indicated that some expansion may be necessary in the future to accommodate growth in the business, and would like to have the appropriate zoning in place. There are a number of auto dealerships zoned "C -3" or "C -4" along this portion of South University, so the continued use of this property as a car lot is compatible with the area. The "C -4" district is designed for arterials with heavy traffic flows such as University Avenue and auto related uses, so the reclassification is appropriate for the location. 2. The property is flat with a used car lot on it. There is one structure that is being used for an office. 3. There are no right -of -way or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. April 24, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property has been zoned "C -3" for a number of years. "C -3" was a conversion from the old "F" commercial district which permitted car lots. 7. The request is compatible with the area and is supported by the staff. The use and zoning will continue the development pattern that has been established over the years, and that is ideal for an arterial like University Avenue. The Suburban Development Plans shows a strip development district for this location and auto dealerships are usually associated with that type of land use category. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral to allow him to notify property owners within the required 200'. A motion to defer the item to May 29, 1984, passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. April 24, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z- 2746 -A Owner: United Cerebral Palsy Applicant: Bill McClard Location: West 12th and Cleveland Streets SE Corner Request: Rezone from "R -5" Multifamily to "0 -3" General Office Purpose: Office Size: 1.78 acres + Existing Use: Institutional /Quasipublic SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -5" South - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R -2" & "R -4" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -5" West - Quasipublic, Zoned "R -5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property in question-is located at the southeast corner of West 12th and Cleveland Streets and is currently occupied by the United Cerebral Palsy Center. The proposal is to rezone the site to allow a medical office building. No other specifics such as whether the building will be retained or a new one constructed have been provided at this time. The site is part of the University Urban Renewal Project which does not expire until June of this year. The City of Little Rock is currently operating under a 20 year agreement with HUD to maintain and enforce the land use plan for the project. The initial plan restricted the properties to certain types of land uses and office was not one of those uses at this location. Because of the Urban Renewal Project expiring in two months, the plan's land use restrictions are not a major concern at this time. A medical office is somewhat similar to what is on the property now and it appears to be compatible with the surrounding area. The primary issues is the immediate area and an overall change in the land use that is being proposed by this request and another rezoning request (Z -4103) for 11 acres to the east and southeast of this site. It appears that a coordinated effort is needed and the proposals should not be addressed separately. April 24, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued 2. The site is relatively flat and occupied by a single structure. There are additional areas for parking and playgrounds. 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. The one legal issue involved with this application is the University Urban Renewal Plan which does not expire until June 1984. The plan does include land use restrictions for properties within the project and identifies the site in question for medium density residential use. The City has a 20 year agreement with HUD to adhere to the Urban Renewal Plan. In May 1980, the City Board of Directors passed Resolution #6,339 "clarifying that applicability of its Zoning Ordinance to lands within the University Park Urban Renewal Project." That resolution states in part "that the Board of Directors reconfirm the Urban Renewal Plan for University Park Urban Renewal Project as it applies to land use and restrictions of the land within the project area, and specifically determines that this Urban Renewal Plan will remain in full force and effect and unchanged by Ordinance #13,777 until the expiration date of the Urban Renewal Plan on June 5, 1984." Ordinance #13,777 is the Zoning Ordinance. 6. This property is part of the University Urban Renewal Project /Plan which was adopted in 1964. The plan has been revised since adoption, but no land use changes were made at this location. The site has always been identified for medium density residential use. The property was rezoned from "A" Single Family to "D" Apartment in 1973 at the request of the Little Rock Housing Authority. Under the old Zoning Ordinance, a charitable organization was permitted in the "D" zoning district. 7. Staff views office use as being reasonable for the location and should not create any problems for the area. The proposed use is in conflict with both the Urban Renewal Plan and the Boyle Park District Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan is not an issue because of its June expiration date. The Boyle Park Plan identifies the location for "public and institutional" uses as the April 24, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued site is currently being used. Because of an apparent new interest for redeveloping this area with the two rezoning requests before the Planning Commission, it appears that the Boyle Park Plan will have to be reevaluated. The plan shows most of the immediate area for single family use with some commercial and institutional uses. If these rezonings are granted, an amendment to the Plan will be required. Office uses appear to be compatible with the area if properly integrated with each other and the surrounding neighborhoods. The staff can support office use in the area, but because of various concerns such as overall circulation, suggest that the two rezoning issues should not be addressed separately and that the item should be deferred. Staff has continuously supported deferrals for Z -4103. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral until May 29, 1984, when Z -4103 is also on the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Bill Putnam, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Putnam spoke in support of the request and asked that the Commission not defer the item. He stated that a deferral would create hardships for all parties involved. Mr. Putnam explained that the City Manager's Office had agreed to place the item on the Board of Directors agenda for May 1 if the Commission recommended approval. Also because of the Urban Renewal Plan issue, the ordinance would not be effective until June 6, 1984. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). April 24, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z- 3272 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Richards Inc. Ron Boyeskie 6620 South University Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to 11C -4" Open Display District Auto Dealership 1.39 acres + Used Car Lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -4" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -4" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to expand Richard's Honda, an auto and motorcycle dealership, which is located on the site directly to the north of this property. The existing "C -3" zoning does not permit an auto dealership. The site is located between two auto dealerships, so the proposed use is compatible with the area. Currently, the property is being used for a small used car lot. This section of University Avenue from West 65th Street to Forbing Road has developed as an auto dealership strip and "C -4" is a predominant zoning classification. The only non -auto related dealership use on the west side of University between these two streets is located at the southwest corner of University and West 65th. The "C -4" district is designed for arterials such as University Avenue, and the request is appropriate for the location. 2. The site is flat with three buildings and some used cars on it. The property does not feature any unique physical characteristics on it. April 24, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued 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 property was zoned "C -3" (F) in 1979 and has been a nonconforming car lot since 1980. The location was an auto sales lot at the time of the first rezoning. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies this portion of University Avenue for strip commercial development. An auto dealership is very compatible with this type of land use pattern, and in this situation, the request would be just expanding an existing use. The property in question is not well maintained, so it appears that the proposed expansion will upgrade the property and improve the visual appearance and the University Avenue frontage. Before a building permit can be issued, further review and approval by the City will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z -4209 Owner: Jim Dixon Applicant: Kenneth Vernon Location: 1510 South Schiller Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Purpose: Boarding House Size: 7,800 square feet + Existing Use: Boarding House (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" West - Single Family and Duplex, Zoned "R -4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property in question for a boarding house which is the current use. A boarding house is not permitted in an "R -4" district so the Zoning Enforcement Office issued a violation notice on February 27, 1984. This rezoning request is a follow -up to that notice. The property is situated in a neighborhood of primarily "R -4" zoning with some "R -5," "C -3," "0-3" and "I -2" locations. Even with the m -iced zoning pattern, the predominant land use is still single family. Some houses in the immediate area are in the process of being upgraded and other structures have been completely renovated. This activity indicates that the neighborhood is being stabilized, and it appears that the area will continue to be a single family neighborhood. A boarding house is not compatible with this type of a neighborhood and does introduce a more transient population to the area. Because of the direction the neighborhood is going and in the process of becoming more stable, a boarding house and necessary zoning is viewed as being inappropriate for the location. The request is also spot zoning. ,April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story residence on it and a small accessory building on the rear lot line. 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. The issue of spot zoning should be addressed when discussing this request. The rezoning of this lot would create a spot zone at this location. 6. There is no documented history on the site. In the past, the neighborhood has expressed some opposition to similar rezoning requests. It is the staff's understanding that a petition is being circulated in the neighborhood opposing the request. 7. The staff does not support this request and feels that allowing a boarding house at this location could have a negative impact on the area. The neighborhood is in the process of upgrading itself and going through a period of stabilization. The land use such as is proposed with this request could impose some undesirable influences on the area and possibly, could reverse the trend that is now occurring. Staff is also concerned that if the rezoning is approved, there would be very little control over the number of people residing at the location. The Zoning Ordinance permits the use, but does not regulate the number of persons. One controlling factor may be the parking requirement which requires one space per sleeping accommodation. It appears that the lot may be able to accommodate only a portion of the required parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Tim Geary, an attorney. There were six to seven objectors also present. In addition, two petitions with a total of 41 signatures opposing the request had been submitted to the staff prior to the public hearing. Mr. Geary requested a deferral because he had not had adequate time to prepare for the hearing. A motion to defer the item was made and seconded. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued Muskie Harris of the Central High Neighborhood Association asked that the deferral be denied. The motion was defeated. Mr. Geary stated that the property had been used as a boarding house for 11 years and questioned if this did not in fact create a nonconforming use. He pointed out that 13 persons were residing in the house and 8 of those were family members, and that the neighborhood had a mixed land use pattern. The nonconforming use issue was discussed, and it was determined that the property would be nonconforming if the use was in existence prior to 1937. Kenny Scott of Zoning Enforcement stated that his office had issued a notice and was unaware of the property being a nonconforming use. Muskie Harris then spoke against the request. He described the neighborhood as in the process of upgrading itself and becoming a stable single family neighborhood. He stated that the property in question had caused problems for years and would be an undesirable use in the neighborhood. Ethel Ambrose also spoke in opposition to the request. She described the residence as having 14 to 15 persons with only 3 of those being family members. She felt that the site could not provide the needed parking, and she indicated that her residence and the property at 1510 Schiller shared a common driveway. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. April 24, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z -4210 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Fred Hunt E1 Dorado Drive West of Valley Club Circle Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "R -2" Singlefamily Single Family 2.52 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: A preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission in February of this year. This rezoning request is a follow -up action to that plat approval. The request is for "R -4" to "R -2," and the proposed use is single family. There are no outstanding issues, and the staff supports the rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. -April 24, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z -4213 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Joe White for R.P.M., Inc. Location: Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road NW Corner Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "0-3" and "C -3" (property is outside the City limits) Purpose: Office and Retail Size: 25.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Single Family and Commercial, Unclassified East - Vacant, Zoned "C -2" West - Vacant, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property for office and commercial uses, but no specific plans have been submitted at this time. The entire site is currently outside the City with the current city limits abutting the property on the east and on the north. It's the staff's understanding that an annexation petition will be filed in the near future. The property is located at the intersection of two arterials, Bowman and Colonel Glenn Roads, and approximately one - quarter mile west of I -430. Directly to the east of this site there is a substantial "C -2" parcel, and south of Colonel Glenn adjacent to the interstate, the property is also zoned "C -2." On the east side of I -430, north of Colonel Glenn, the area is zoned for multifamily, office and commercial uses. Large tracts of nonresidential zoning are in place and this request would not establish a new precedent for the area. The proposed rezoning is compatible with what has occurred through approved rezonings of the other sites and maintains the zoning pattern for nonresidential uses on Colonel Glenn Road on either side of the interstate. The request proposes 14.5 acres of office use and 10.0 acres of commercial uses. April 24, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. At the southeast corner of the property is the low point and increases in elevation from east to west with the northwest portion being the high ground. The west side has some slopes that may present some problems for office development. Topography maps indicate that on the western boundary there are slopes of 30 percent or more. 3. Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a principal arterial and Bowman Road is identified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. The existing right -of -ways of both streets are 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 the site. The property is within the City's referendum area. 7. The staff is in support of the proposed uses at this location, but recommends that the commercial property be rezoned to "C -2," not "C -3" as requested. The "C -2" district would be in keeping with the commercial zoning pattern established by previous approvals and also "C -2" would provide site plan review. An additional 10 acres of commercial zoning should not create an excessive amount of commercial property in the area because of a recent acquisition of the "C -2" property to the south of Colonel Glenn Road. It is possible that site on the south side may be used for something other than commercial uses. Staff does suggest that the "0 -3" property be the extent of nonresidential zoning on the north side of Colonel Glenn. The recently adopted I -430 Plan identifies the property for office uses so a plan amendment will be necessary if the commercial rezoning is approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "0 -3" request and "C -2" as a more appropriate district for the commercial tract. ,April 24, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Joe White, was present. Bill Hastings of R.P.M. was also in attendance. There were no objectors present. Mr. White stated that they were in agreement with the staff's recommendation and amended the application to "C -2." Bob Lane of the City's Engineering staff discussed Colonel Glenn Road and a proposed new alignment for a portion of it just west of Lawson Road. The new alignment would encroach into the proposed "0 -3" tract, and Mr. Lane requested that the Commission exclude the needed land for the alignment from the request. He asked that the City be given the opportunity to formalize an agreement with the property owner for the land prior to rezoning. Mr. White stated that he did not object to that and would work with the City to reach a satisfactory solution. A new legal description will be provided once the alignment has been finalized. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended application to "C -2" and "O -3" except that portion needed for right -of -way. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). NOTE: This item will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until the annexation petition is on their agenda. April 24, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z -4215 Owner: Louise and Katherine Isgrig Applicant: Maury Mitchell Location: Fourche Dam Pike East of Fourche Creek Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "I -2" Light Industrial Purpose: Truck Repair Size: 19.2 acres + Existing Use: Single Family (Formerly Isgrig's Plant Nursery) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Unclassified South - Vacant, Unclassified and "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for a truck repair facility. The site is in question was formerly occupied by Isgrig's Plant Nursery, a large greenhouse operation, which can be considered a heavy commercial or a light industrial use. The greenhouses are not in use at this time, but there are some single family residences on the front portion of the property. The nursery was in operation for a number of years, so a large nonresidential use at this location was present in the area for sometime. A plant nursery's impact on an area like this would probably have been minimal, but a truck repair facility does raise some concern in terms of its effect on the residential area to the east. Because of the size of the parcel, 19.2 acres, it would appear that the proposed use could be situated on the property in a way as to reduce any impacts the proposed operation could have on the area. With proper buffers on the east side and locating the use on the west side of the property, this could be accomplished. Noise and pollution from the truck facility could have a harmful effect on the livability of a residential neighborhood. April 24, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued 2. The site is a large relatively flat parcel of land. There are currently nine structures on the property with five of those being large greenhouses. The western boundary is Fourche Creek, so some of the property is located in the Creek's floodplain. This should not impact the use of the site. 3. The Master Street Plan is in the process of being amended to show a north /south collector running through this property. Dedication of the necessary right -of -way will be provided by the plat. The action on the amendment should be accomplished by the time of this hearing. There are no issues associated with Fourche Dam Pike which is classified as a collector on the street plan. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. One issue that needs to be mentioned is that a portion of the property, the southwest corner, is outside the city limits (the request /legal description is for the entire ownership). The City has land use jurisdiction in this area through its "river zoning powers," which permits Little Rock to exercise zoning control over lands within so many miles of the Arkansas River. By the time of this public hearing, the Board of Directors will have zoned those areas outside the City to "R -2" through the East River Island Plan. The Board of Directors is to act on that ordinance at its April 17 meeting. If this request is approved, the Rezoning Ordinance will be presented to the Board of Directors in May, and there should be no complications with recommending approval of the application as filed. 6. The property was part of a large annexation that took place in 1979, and came into the City as "R -2." The greenhouse operation was a nonconforming use since that time. 7. The property is part of the East River Island Plan. The Plan has not been formally adopted by ordinance, but that action should be completed by the time of this hearing. The site in question is identified on the Plan for light industrial and research /business uses. The "I -2" district is the appropriate zoning for this type of land use pattern, and the staff does support the rezoning to permit these uses. One concern that the staff does have is that certain industrial uses April 24, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued could have an adverse impact on the residential area to the east so that should be taken into consideration when locating a facility or buildings on the property. The Plan does recommend a buffer strip adjacent to the residential neighborhood, so that could be one method of minimizing any potential problems. The buffer is recommended to be at least 50 feet. One other plan element that needs to be mentioned is Fourche Creek and the Master Parks Plan. Fourche Creek is identified in the Plan as a "priority 2 stream" for floodway open space acquisition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Chris Barrier. There were five objectors also present. Mr. Barrier spoke in support of the request and discussed the issue of an industrial use adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He indicated that the proposed use, a truck refrigeration repair facility, would actually be less intense than the former nursery operation. He also stated that the new owner would only use about five acres out of the 19 total. Ben Thompson, the new owner, described the proposed use as being clean and that it would not create any problems for the neighborhood. At this time, a letter objecting to the request was presented to the Commission. Donna McCracken, a property owner on Fourche Dam Pike, objected to the request. She said the neighborhood was concerned with the noise and pollution associated with the proposed use, drainage and the amount of truck traffic that would be generated by the use. Another property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning and reinforced Ms. McCracken's concerns. She also questioned that the adequacy of the recommended buffer and how the rezoning would effect property values and taxes in the area. Both property owners felt that the proposed use would generate a heavier amount of truck traffic than the previous operation did. Mr. Barrier stated that the proposed facility was not a 24 hour operation and would have 10 to 15 trucks coming in daily. Ms. Louise Isgrig spoke and said that heavy truck traffic had been in the area for sometime. The Commission discussed the issue at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" request with a 50 -foot "OS" buffer on the east side as recommended in the East River Island Plan and that an annexation petition be filed for that portion of the property that is currently outside the City. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). April 24, 1984 Item No. 8 - Amendment to the Suburban Development Plan This amendment to the Suburban Development Plan is located at the intersection of Colonel Glenn and Bowman Road. The plan currently shows that specific area as "SO" Suburban Office. The landowners of the tract in question are requesting a "C -3" zoning on that tract of land with "0-3" to the west. The staff has reviewed the rezoning proposal and feel that it is consistent with the intent of the plan and, therefore recommend that the Suburban Development Plan be amended from "SO" to "CS" for the land immediately west of Bowman Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jim Lawson explained the amendment to the Suburban Development Plan. He explained that this change from "SO" to "CS" is necessary to conform with other rezoning action on the property. There was no discussion on the item. The Planning Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention to recommend to the Board the approval of the amendment. April 24, 1984 Item No. 9 - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance This package of Zoning Ordinance amendments was deferred from the March 27, 1984, meeting. Since that meeting, the staff has worked on clarifying several definitions contained in the ordinance. The revised proposals contain two types of uses for service stations. One use is a service station for the dispense of oil and gasoline only. The second classification is a service station with motor vehicle repair. since a large percentage of service stations do repair, the second classification should be helpful in making them conforming. A few other minor changes have been made to the package. One change that has been suggested is to include barber and beauty shops as a conditional use in the office districts. Another change has been to eliminate plumbing, electrical, air conditioning and heating shops in "C -3." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jim Lawson explained the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the amendments had been discussed several times previously and asked if the Commission had any questions. There were no questions from the Commission regarding the amendments. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to recommend to the City Board of Directors the approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS SUMMARY SHEET I. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS 1. Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Installation 2. Auto Repair Garage 3. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps 4. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair II. ADDITIONAL USES 1. Barber & Beauty Shop - Conditional in 110 -111, 110 -211, 110 -3" 2. Food Store with Gas Pumps - Conditional in "C -1 ", Permitted Use in "C -3 ", "C -4" 3. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair - Conditional in "C-211, "C-311 4. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair - Permitted Use in "C -4" 5. Service Station as Permitted Use in "C -3" 6. Auto Repair Garage, Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Motor Vehicle Part Installation - Conditional in "C -3" III. ELIMINATE USE 1. Plumbing, Electrical, Airconditioning and Heating Shops in "C -3" (Permitted Use) IV. ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RESTRICTIONS 1. Accessory Uses 2. Accessory Structures PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS SECTION 2 -101B. DEFINITION OF USES Add: p. 19 18.a. Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Motor Vehicle Part Installation A facility primarily for the sales of auto parts with the accessory function of installation of parts. Part installation is limited to such functions as tire mounting, and other periodic parts main- tenance. Engine rebuilding or major repair work is prohibited. p. 19 20. Auto Repair Garage A facility for major motor vehicle repair, excluding body rebuilding. p. 22 45.a. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps A small food store whose primary function is the sale of convenience food items such as bread, milk, etc. Gas pumps and petroleum sales are provided on the site. No automobile parts or service is allowed. p. 29 121.a. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair A facility for the dispensing of oil and gas for motor vehicles as well as periodic engine maintenance and repair. Motor vehicles must be kept intact on the premises. No body or engine rebuilding is allowed. SECTION 7.102.1 "O -1" QUIET OFFICE DISTRICT Add: p. 78 2. Conditional Uses b. Barber and Beauty Shops Renumber remaining entries c. -p. SECTION 7.102.2 "0 -2" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT Add: p. 82 3. Conditional Uses a. Barber and Beauty Shops Renumber remaining entries b. -k. SECTION 7.102.3 "0 -3" GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT Add: p. 84 3. Conditional Uses b. Barber and Beauty Shop Renumber remaining entries c. -i. �- - SECTION 7 -103 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C. District Restrictions Add: p. 87 6. No sale or storage of sale items for special events in temporary structures are allowed for a period in excess of 30 days. No more than two (2) such sales or events can occur at the same location during a calendar year. 7. Residential uses which are clearly incidental to the primary use are allowed. No accessory use or uses may utilize in excess of twenty (20) percent of the floor area provided for permitted uses. 8. Accessory permanent structures which meet all setback requirements, are allowed for the storage of sale items. Retail sales may not take place in an accessory structure. SECTION 7 -103.1 "C -1" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Add: p. 89 g.l. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps SECTION 7 -103.2 "C -2" SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT Add: p. 93 2. Conditional Use k. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair SECTION 7 -103.3 "C -3" GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Add: p. 95 1. Permitted Uses w.l. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps p. 95 Eliminate: iii. Plumbing, Electrical, Airconditioning and Heating Shops p. 95 Add: p.p.p. 1. Service Station p. 96 Add: -� 2. Conditional Uses b.l. Auto Parts, Sales with Limited Motor Vehicle Installation b.2. Auto Repair Garage L. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair 1-1 -SECTION 7 -103.4 "C -4" OPEN DISPLAY Add: p. 99 1. Permitted Use 1.1. Convenience Food Store with Gas Pumps cc.l. Service Station with Limited Motor Vehicle Repair P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE 4MjL 24-`qg� /� V O T E R E C O R D , ITEM NUMBERS 7.ONTNG V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN Oman' J. Schlereth R. Massie J. Nicholson ROME! mummommummom EMENEEN. W. Ketcher NOR PENN ON Ai D. Arnett 'EAS 0AMMME10AMEENE.- EMENEENE MEN MEN V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN l _ R April 24, 1984 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.