Loading...
pc_12 13 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD DECEMBER 13, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the November 1, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Joe Selz Brad Walker Emmett Willis Ron Woods (arrived after the roll call) Members Absent: Mizan Rahman B. J. Wyrick City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 1994 I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z -4461-A 9125 Sibley Hole Road R-2 to I-2 B. Z -4664-A 12725 Interstate 30 R-2 to I-2 C. Z-5096 Black Road and Piggee Road R-2 to R-5 II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z -3410-D Financial Centre, Parkway 0-3 and PCD Hardin Road to C-3 2. Z -4431-C Highway 10 at Taylor Loop R-2 to C-3 3. Z-5913 2220 Wilson Road R-2 to R -7A II. OTHER MATTERS 4. Z-5920 2013 South Van Buren Special Use Permit 5. Long Accessory Dwelling Conditional Use Permit - Located at 10520 Peace valley Road (Z-5919) December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z -4461-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Harold and Evelyn Williams Harold Williams 9100 Block of Sibley Hole Road Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Industrial 3.92 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Single -Family and Office, zoned R-2 and 0-3 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is located between I-30 and Baseline Road, and the request is to rezone approximately 4 acres from R-2 to I-2. The owner has indicated that he has been approached by an individual who is interested in purchasing the property for a light manufacturing use. At this time, the site is undeveloped and has several trees on it. The land is situated on the east side of Sibley Hole and about midway between Baseline and the I-30 frontage road. The acreage has 208 feet along Sibley Hole Road and a depth of 822 feet. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, 0-3, C-4 and I-2, with the property abutting R-2 and 0-3 land. The most recent rezoning action in the area was the approval of the 0-3 for the parcel directly to the south. The existing I-2 is north of Baseline Road and to the south of the 0-3. Land use is made-up of single family residences, office, a funeral home, a cemetery, commercial, outside amusement and industrial. There are also large parcels that are still vacant. In 1985 an I-2 application was filed for the same piece of property, after an enforcement action was initiated by the city staff. The site had some nonconforming status and it was determined that the owner had expanded the use, a construction storage yard. Prior to being annexed, there was some limited storage taking place and the activity was increased after becoming a part of the city. (The area was December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z -4461-A (Cont.) annexed in 1979.) There was opposition to the I-2 request and the rezoning was denied by the Planning Commission. The denial was appealed to the Board of Directors and the Board also rejected the I-2 proposal. Staff did not support the I-2 in 1985. It is the staff's position that the character of the area has not changed since 1985 and there is no strong justification for an industrial reclassification of the site. The property is within the Otter Creek plan area and the recommended land use is multifamily which was the designation is 1985. The nonresidential areas are located to the south, mixed office and commercial, and north of Baseline Road, industrial. The approval of the 0-3 reinforced the plan's direction and also provides a good transition between the intense zoning, C-4 and I-2, to the south and the residential area to the north. The site is somewhat removed from more desirable nonresidential locations, either Baseline or I-30. Also, the proposed rezoning could have an adverse impact on the nearby residential properties. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Multifamily for the site. There is single family to the south and industrial to the north. This location is the transition from Single Family to Industrial uses. Not only is the use a question but the massing change for small units to large structures with large parking areas should be transitioned (if one changes from a large area of one type to a large area of the other). Staff continues to believe there is a need to protect the single family homes to the south and that the adopted plan does a better job of protecting the residential area than continuing the industrial use to the south. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. The right-of-way standard for Sibley Hole Road is 25 feet from the centerline. If the existing right-of-way is deficient, dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage sketch plan will be need to be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning request. 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • A z -4461-A (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 1, 1994) The applicant, Harold Williams, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Williams asked that the item be deferred. Hearing no opposition to the deferral request, the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the rezoning was deferred to the December 13, 1994 meeting. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred to allow for additional time to explore other zoning options and to review the land use plan for the area. The applicant was not present, but he had agreed to deferring the request. As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred to the January 24, 1995 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z -4664-A Owner: James and Pansy Gilliam Applicant: Scott Fleischman Location: 12,725 I-30 (West of Vimy Ridge Road) Request: Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Purpose: Storage of equipment and materials Size: 8 acres Existing Use: Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Optimist facility, zoned R-2, I-2 and OS South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a land area of 8 to 9 acres from R-2 to I-2. The proposed use is storage of materials, railroad ties, and equipment, which some of the property is being used for now. The site uses an I-30 address, but it does not have any frontage on a dedicated street. The property is approximately 1,000 feet south of the interstate. It appears that there is a metal building on a portion of the site and the remaining land area is vacant. There is some floodway involvement on the property and the site abuts a railroad right-of-way. Zoning in this area is R-2, C-2, C-4, I-2 and OS. The nonresidential zoning is primarily found between the railroad tracks and the I-30 service road. The property in question abuts R-2 and I-2 land. Land use is similar to the existing zoning and includes single family, commercial and industrial. The residential area is found to southeast, adjacent to Alexander road, and the nonresidential uses are located to the northwest of the tracks. Another use is the immediate vicinity is an Optimist facility which is a community center and park. The adopted plan identifies the property for mixed commercial and industrial uses. Therefore, an I-2 reclassification conforms to the land use element and is a December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • B Z -4664-A (Cont.) single family area because it is somewhat removed from the site under consideration. The only issue associated with this request is the zoning of the floodway area to OS. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Otter Creek District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Commercial and Industrial. Based on the existing conditions - creek, railroad and uses, the request is generally in conformance with the plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Dedication of the established floodway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of I-2 and OS for the floodway. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 1, 1994) Staff reported that the rezoning needed to be deferred because the applicant had not notified the required property owners. As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred to the December 13, 1994 meeting. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The application was represented by Scotty Barber. There were no objectors in attendnance. Mr. Barber agreed with the OS for the floodway and amended the request to I-2 and OS. There was limited discussion about the site and access. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended request from R-2 to I-2 and OS. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent to recommend approval of the I-2 and OS. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement for 15 day written notice. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.) 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5896 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Rose Bickerstaff M. F. Rolih, Jr. by Michael T. Gosby Black Road and Piggee Street (One Block) Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Elderly housing 2.0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 Nest - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is found in the Pankey neighborhood, and located approximately 3 blocks south of Arkansas State Highway No. 10. The request is to rezone the site from R-2 to R-5 for elderly housing, a total of 56 units. (R-5 Urban Residence allows a density of 36 units per acre). The acreage is situated on the west side of Pankey and bordered by four platted rights-of-way. The site is made up of twelve 50 foot lots and a 10 foot alley (one complete block). At this time, there are two structures on the northern most lots, adjacent to Piggee Street. The balance of the property is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The predominant zoning in the immediate area is R-2 and, in fact, the entire Pankey neighborhood is zoned R-2. To the northwest, there is some C-3 zoning and a PCD area. The land use is primarily single family residences, including new subdivisions to the south and southwest. In the Pankey neighborhood, the land use is single family, with some minor nonconforming uses. The uses found on the nonresidential land are mini -storage units and a small-scale commercial center. Throughout the area, there are vacant parcels and lots. A R-5 rezoning or any multifamily reclassification of this block in conflict with the adopted plan. The land use element of the River Mountain District plan identifies the December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5896 (Cont.) site for single family use; a majority of the Pankey neighborhood is shown as single family. The current plan does recommend a low-density multifamily area north of Pankey Avenue, between Black Road and Wells Street, and another area directly north of Highway 10. The plan also shows a small multifamily area east of Ives Street. This land use concept has been reinforced by the most recent planning effort for the neighborhood, the Donaghey/Pankey plan. The Donaghey Project worked closely with the Pankey community throughout the planning process and relied on the residents' input for direction. The plan has been endorsed by the Planning Commission, but still has not been acted on by the Board of Directors. In addition to the multifamily areas, the Donaghey document also includes a conceptual plan for an elderly housing project on the west side of Black Road. None of the neighborhood or district -wide plans have ever identified the Black Road/Piggee Street block for any use other than single family. Because of the plan and other factors, staff cannot support the R-5 request for the block in question. All the planning studies have recommended other sites for multifamily use and no justification has been provided to change the direction of the plan by reclassifying this particular site. Also, the property is somewhat removed from more desirable multifamily locations and the necessary infrastructure for such an intense development is not in place. Rezoning the block to R-5 would be a significant departure from the adopted plan and could have a very negative impact on the future of Pankey. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the River Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. While the plan does call for low density multifamily to the north, this request is too intensive and too far removed from the major roads. Staff cannot support such an intensive residential use in this location at this time. ENGINEERING COMMENTS If the rights-of-way for the four streets are deficient, dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. The Master Street Plan standard is 25 feet from the centerline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning. 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • C Z-5896 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 1, 1994) Staff reported that the request needed to be deferred because of a possible notice problem. The item was added to the Consent Agenda, and the Commission deferred the issue to the December 13, 1994 hearing. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed to be deferred again because all the required property owners had not been notified. As part of the Consent Agenda, the R-5 request was deferred to the January 24, 1995 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3410-D Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Financial Centre Corporation and John D. McCracken Edward K. Willis Financial Centre Parkway and Hardin Road Rezone from PCD and 0-3 to C-3 Commercial 2.25 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned 0-3 South - Office, zoned 0-3 East - Vacant, zoned C-3 West - Single -Family and STAFF ANALYSIS and OS and PCD Vacant, zoned R-2 and 0-3 The property in question is part of the recently approved Hampton Inn PCD, and now the subject of a court case. The Hampton Inn PCD included land zoned C-3 and 0-3, with frontage only on Hardin Road. This request is to rezone 2.25 acres from PCD and 0-3 to C-3 for sometype of commercial use and a hotel development. The land area involved includes the 0-3 that fronts on the Financial Centre Parkway. Before the approval of the PCD, the site had split zoning, 0-3 and C-3, and there was no OS adjacent to the residential subdivision. Currently, the entire site is undeveloped. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, 0-2, 0-3, C-3, OS and PCD. The acreage abuts R-2, 0-3, C-3, OS and PCD lands. The most recent reclassifications have been PCDs, the Hampton Inn and the commercial center proposed for the northeast corner of Autumn Road and The Parkway. The other PCDs are two motels and an eating establishment. Land use is similar to the existing zoning and includes single family, office and commercial. The existing single family residences are primarily located within a well-established neighborhood, the Birchwood Subdivision. This property has some zoning history and it dates back to 1979 when the site was rezoned to office and commercial. In 1983 the Board of Adjustment granted a height variance for December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.:__ 1 Z -3410-D (Cont. an office building. The Board's action was challenged and a consent judgement was agreed to. Then in 1989, a PCD was filed for a hotel development, but the request was withdrawn. And finally, in 1994, the city approved the Hampton Inn PCD. The I-430 District Plan shows the site as part of a MOC "mixed office and commercial" area. This land use category provides for "a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur." The definition also states that a PUD "is recommended if the use is entirely commercial or if the use is a mixture of office and commercial." The proposed commercial reclassification is in conflict with the adopted plan and staff cannot support the C-3 request. Rezoning the 2.25 acres to C-3 could have an adverse impact on the adjacent single family residences and continue the trend of a strip development pattern along the Parkway. Because of the site's location and other factors, any nonoffice development should be reviewed through the PUD process. (If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the C-3, then staff will submit to the Board of Directors two ordinances, one rezoning the property and the another revoking the Hampton Inn PCD. Therefore, after the Board's action there will be no approved site plan. Even though this request only involves half the PCD, a reclassification of any portion of the land area negates the entire site plan. This has been the established procedure for PUDs that are reclassified.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-430 District. The adopted land use plan recommends Mixed Office and Commercial. The request is in conflict with the plan. The use pattern should be office or mixed with a PCD. "C-3" zoning would encourage total commercial use and further strip development. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Ordinance No. 16,652 implies that a 10 foot sidewalk and utility easement is required on the portion adjacent to Financial Centre Parkway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request. 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3410-D (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The application was represented by Robert Shults, Financial Centre Corporation. There were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Shults spoke and said the proposed rezoning was to complete the development of the Hampton Inn. Mr. Shults went on to discuss the previously approved PCD for the project and then amended the request from C-3 to C-2 (with site plan review). He asked the Commission to approve the same site plan that was reviewed through the PCD process. Mr. Shults commented on the Hampton Inn PCD and a number of other items. Mr. Shults asked the Commission to approve the C-2 and the site plan for the hotel project. Robert Brown, Development Consultants, Inc., reviewed the site plan and said it was the same plan as the approved Hampton Inn PCD. Mr. Brown discussed the plan in some detail. Robert Shults spoke again and commented why the 0-3 site was part of this request. Mr. Shults continued by discussing the area and reviewed the history of the site. Mr. Shults reviewed the previous court case and other attempts to develop the property. Again, Mr. Shults discussed a number of items at length. Comments were then offered by several planning commissioners. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, addressed the Commission and said the staff could not support C-2 adjacent to a residential subdivision. Mr. Polk also said the C-2 rezoning was in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, made some comments about the proposed ordinance amendment to allow "planned developments" or rezonings with conditions. Robert Shults discussed the proposed "planned development" amendment and said time was a problem. Tim Polk spoke again and discussed the plan issue. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer for the City, said that his office has some traffic concerns and the driveway on the Parkway should be right turn only because of sight distance problems. Floyd B. Boyd, 520 Springwood, spoke and said he was opposed to any commercial rezoning adjacent to the R-2 Subdivision. Mr. Boyd said the Parkway was being "stripped -out" and Q December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • 1 Z -3410-D (Cont.) traffic was becoming a serious problems. He went on to say that the neighborhood never objected to an office use on the site. Mr. Boyd said the neighborhood did not want a 24 hour use or any commercial use next to the residential lots. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, said the League has some serious problems with placing commercial zoning next to R-2 lots. Ms. Bell made some additional comments and asked the Commission to reject the C-2 request. Ed Willis, Financial Centre Corporation, spoke and described a meeting that he had with the residential property owners. Mr. Willis then told the Commission that title companies were having problems with PUDs and they would not issue zoning endorsements. He also said that the proposed amendment to the PUD section was not a viable consideration at this time. Mr. Willis went on to say that a straight rezoning, C-2, would be a more defensible position in a lawsuit. Mr. Willis concluded by saying that the proposed development would be a quality project. Floyd Boyd spoke again and responded to Ed Willis' comments. Mr. Boyd told the Commission that the neighborhood did not want a 24 hour operation on the property. Robert Shults spoke and said there were other hotels adjacent to R-2 lots in the area. After some additional comments, Mr. Shults removed the 0-3 property, proposed Lot 1, from the amended request. He asked the Commission to vote for the C-2 and the site plan. The Planning Commission then voted on the PCD to C-2 (without Lot 1), and the site 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent to recommend to approve the site plan. N amended request, plan. The vote was approval of C-2 and December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z -4431-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Cantrell Loop Partnership III Tom Cole Hwy. 10 at Taylor Loop Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Commercial 3.8 acres Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Commercial, zoned PCD and C-3 East - Single -Family, zoned C-3 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone 3.8 acres on Highway 10 from R-2 to C-3. The site is situated on the north side of the highway, across from the Harvest Foods PCD, and west of where the east end of Taylor Loop intersects Highway 10. There are several structures on the front half of the site and back portion is undeveloped. The acreage has 272 feet of frontage on Highway 10 and an average depth of 619 feet. No specific plans have been submitted for the site. Zoning is R-2, C-3 and PCD, with R-2 being the predominate classification found in the immediate vicinity. The existing PLDs are a Harvest Food Store and two branch banks. Other land use found in the area includes single family, commercial and a church. The C-3 to the east is a small commercial center and there are also some single family residences along the west side of the C-3 tract. In 1985 a C-3 request was filed for the east half of the property (2 acres). The C-3 was denied by the Planning Commission and their action was not appealed to the Board of Directors. Another rezoning proposal, R-2 to 0-2, was also filed in 1985. Again, the request was denied by the Planning Commission and no appeal was made to the Board of Directors. At that time, the adopted plan did not identify the site for any nonresidential use. Staff recommended denial of the C-3 and the 0-2. December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • 2 Z -4431-C (Cont.) This current C-3 application is an attempt to add commercial acreage at the Taylor Loop intersection with Highway 10 and expand the established node. The adopted plan, River Mountain, does not recommend any commercial expansion on the north side of Highway 10 and shows the site to be within a "transition zone," office or multifamily uses. Therefore, the proposed C-3 reclassification is in conflict with the plan and staff does not support the request. The previous plans for the area have been followed and no strong justification has been offered to alter the current plan by rezoning the 4 acres. If the plan is not maintained, staff is concerned that it will be difficult to deny future commercial requests in the area and this could create the possibility of a linear/strip commercial pattern along Highway 10, something the city has tried to avoid at all cost. For the most part, the plans for the Highway 10 corridor have been adhered to and there is no compelling reason to reverse this trend by endorsing the proposed C-3 reclassification. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the River Mountain District. The adopted land use plan recommends Transition Zone. The request is in conflict with the plan. The staff does not believe it is justifiable to amend the Plan from Transition Zone to Commercial at this time. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way requirement for Highway 10/Cantrell Road is 55 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required if the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because of a possible notice. As part of the Consent Agenda, the C-3 request was deferred to January 24, 1995. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5913 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Wanda M. Pool Wanda M. Pool 2220 Wilson Road Rezone from R-2 to R -7A Single -wide manufacture home 0.16 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Single -Family, zoned R-2 East - Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS 2220 Wilson Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the property to R -7A to place a single -wide manufactured home on the lot. The R -7A "purpose and intent" section states: The R -7A manufactured home district recognizes a need for manufactured home placement within the city. This section applies to such district. This district provides for ownership of structure and lot for those homes approved by the department of housing and urban development under title VI of Public Law 93-383, USC 5401 et seq. All mobile homes must have the date plate attached to the unit specifying, "This mobile home is designed to comply with federal mobile home construction and safety standards enforced at the time of manufacture." This district expressly provides for placement of a single manufactured home on a lot or tract zoned for such usage. The proposal is to set a 16 feet by 80 feet unit on the site which is a 50 foot residential lot. The property is vacant. (R -7A is a site plan review district. Therefore, the Planning Commission must also endorse the site plan in addition to acting on the rezoning request.) Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-4, R-6, MF -18, PRD and OS. The multifamily areas to the south, the MF -18 and December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5913 (Cont.) R-6, are elderly housing developments. The large OS area to the west is the Camp Aldersgate facility. The primary land use is single family residences. There are several nonconforming uses found in the area, including mobile homes and some nonresidential uses. Throughout the area there are also undeveloped tracts. What is being proposed with this request will not introduce a new housing element to the neighborhood and is a reasonable option for the property. Along this portion of Wilson, there already exists 5 mobile units and in surrounding blocks there are at least 5 additional units. The neighborhood is a mixture of housing styles and the manufactured homes are interspersed throughout the area. It appears that the existing units are not having an adverse impact because some new construction is taking place. There is no plan issue because the request is to permit a single family residence. The R -7A district has siting criteria to ensure compatibility with the nearby properties. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-430 District. The adopted land use plan recommends Single Family. The use request is in conformance with the plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Dedication of additional right-of-way is required for Wilson Road because the existing right-of-way is deficient. The right-of-way standard is 25 feet from the centerline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R -7A rezoning and the site plan review subject to complying with the R -7A siting criteria. 1. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. 2. Removal of all transport features. 3. Permanent foundation. 4. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Underpinning with permanent materials. K December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5913(Cont. 7. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The applicant, Wanda Pool, was present. There were two objectors in attendance. Fredda Jarvis, 2120 Wilson Road, objected to the proposed R -7A rezoning. Ms. Jarvis had a number of concerns and said a single -wide unit would have a negative impact on her adjoining property. Joey Brown spoke in opposition to the request and questioned the staff's position. Mr. Brown discussed a number of issues and said the rezoning would permit an inferior home. Wanda Pool spoke and said the property would be used for her primary residence. Ms. Pool made some other comments about the area and her request. There was a long discussion about various issues. Joey Brown spoke again and said the owner should put a double -wide unit on the lot. The Planning Commission then voted on the R-2 to R -7A rezoning request. The vote was 2 ayes, 6 nays and 3 absent. The R -7A rezoning was denied. M December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5920 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Charles Swinson Mrs. D. Binns 2013 So. Van Buren To grant a Special Use Permit Day care family home (6-10 children) 0.16 acres Single -Family 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 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 2013 So. Van Buren is to grant a special use permit to allow a day care family home. The zoning ordinance definition of a day care family home is: Any facility which provides child care in a family setting within a care giver's family residence in accordance with provisions of licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. This use is intended to fill that level of child care between unregulated baby-sitting and day care center. The breakdown of the different levels of child care is as follows: baby-sitting - 1 to 5 day care family home - 6 to 10 day care center - 11 or more Also, Section 36-54(e) is the development criteria for special use permits and it lists 5 for a day care family home. The 5 points are: • This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the care giver. December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5920 (Cont.) • Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. • The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers. • The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other than the care givers. ® This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right. (Other uses requiring a special use permit are bed and breakfast hotels and family care facilities.) 2013 So. Van Buren is a typical residential lot, with a single family residence on it. The applicant has indicated that she has had as many as 8 children at one time and she anticipates that eight will be the maximum in the future. (This issue is before the Planning Commission because of an enforcement action by the city. It is unclear whether a complaint was made or a code officer just came across the use.) Based on comments made by the applicant, she is licensed by the state to keep up to 10 children. The caregiver (the applicant) does reside at 2013 So. Van Buren and the property owner is aware of the request for a special use permit. The issues that the city needs to be concerned with include the safety of the children and potential impact on the neighborhood. Safety does not appear to be an issue because there is an adequate drop-off point which does not interfere with the traffic flow on So. Van Buren, a minor residential street. Also, the rear yard is used for the play area and it is fenced. Staff's position is that this type of day care is compatible with a single family neighborhood and we support the special use permit. The use should not create any problems for the surrounding properties. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • 4 Z-5920 (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for 2013 So. van Buren. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) Staff reported that the request needed to be deferred because the applicant had not notified all the required property owners. As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred to the January 10, 1995 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO • 5 FILE NO.• Z-5919 NAME• Long Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 10520 Peace valley Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Frankie Long PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the placement of a 14 foot by 68 foot, single -wide manufactured home on the rear portion of this R-2 zoned, 1 acre tract as an accessory dwelling. A variance is requested to allow the accessory dwelling to exceed the 700 square foot maximum stipulated in the ordinance. The proposed structure is 952 square feet in area. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The property is located on the west side of Peace valley Road, north of its intersection with Mabelvale Cut -Off. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located in an area of the City comprised primarily of single family homes on oversized lots and large areas of undeveloped property. There are a few other manufactured homes located in the area, including one recently approved for use as an accessory dwelling. The applicant proposes to place the manufactured home on the rear portion of this large tract. The home will be located in an area shielded from adjacent residences by trees and shrubbery. The proposed accessory dwelling should not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The existing home and the proposed accessory dwelling are required one on-site parking space each. The existing home has several spaces and the applicant proposes to extend a driveway, and construct a parking space for the accessory dwelling. December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5919 4. Screening and Buffers The proposed accessory dwelling is to be located on a wooded portion of the lot, which will provide screening from adjacent properties. No screening or buffers are required for this residential application. 5. City Engineer Comments Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on Peace Valley Road. This requires a dedication of 5 additional feet. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to place a 14 foot by 68 foot, single -wide manufactured home on the rear portion of this R- 2 zoned, 1 acre tract as an accessory dwelling. The accessory dwelling is to house the applicant's son, daughter-in-law and grandchild. The proposed accessory dwelling is to be located in such a manner as to have minimal impact on adjacent properties. The ordinance limits accessory dwellings to 700 square feet in area. The applicant requests a variance to allow the proposed 952 square foot structure. With adherence to the Ordinance Siting Standards, the proposed accessory dwelling should be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff supports the application and the requested square footage variance. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application and of the variance to allow an accessory dwelling greater than 700 square feet in area subject to compliance with the Ordinance Established Minimum Siting Standards as follow: a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport features. c. Permanent foundation. d. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the neighborhood. e. Underpinning with permanent materials. 2 December 13, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5919 f. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. g. Off-street parking per single family dwelling standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. The Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The applicant, Frankie Long, was present. Leon Warren, of 8700 Mabelvale Cut -Off, was present in opposition but left prior to the discussion of this item. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that he had met in the hallway earlier with Mr. Long and Mr. Warren to discuss the issue. Mr. Carney stated that as a result of that meeting, Mr. Long and Mr. Warren had reached an agreement whereby Mr. Warren no longer objected to the proposed accessory dwelling. Mr. Long had agreed to comply with the Ordinance Siting Standards. Mr. Long had also agreed to amend his application to include the condition that he will remove the manufactured home in the event he ever sells the property. Mr. Long addressed the Commission and confirmed the agreement as stated by Mr. Carney. A motion was made to approve the application subject to compliance with the Ordinance Established Minimum Siting Standards as outlined in the Staff Recommendation; and subject to the condition that the manufactured home will be removed from the property in the event Mr. Long ever sells the property. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 3 Z N 0 0 W cc W 0 z 0 � c cn :z �U) 0 0 0 � z Z a � CL I IIIIIIIIIIII MENNEN t Illillillml Ulm I 0 I W Q z MENNEN t 0 I W Q z December 13, 1994 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Date < Z Se ary C'-iai n