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