Loading...
pc_03 08 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MARCH 8, 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 January 25, 1994 meeting. The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were approved as submitted by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Chachere Kathleen Oleson John McDaniel Joe Hirsch Selz Ramsay Ball Emmett Willis, Jr. Bill Putnam Ron Woods Jerilyn Nicholson Brad Walker One Open Position City Attorney: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA MARCH 8, 1994 DEFERRED ITEM• A. Z-5791 3620 Asher Avenue R-3 to C-3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Forest Hills Rezoning R-4 to R-3 2. Pankey Study 3. Chenal Square Preliminary Plat (5-1008) - east of Chenal/Markham Intersection DISCUSSION ITEMS: 4. John Barrow Study March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5791 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Lynton Egbosimba Lynton Egbosimba 3620 Asher Avenue (South Maple and Asher) Rezone from R-3 to C-3 Eating Place 0.17 acres Vacant Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-3 South - Commercial, zoned I-2 East - Single -Family, zoned R-3 West - Vacant and Commercial, zoned R-3, C-1 and C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question, the northeast corner of Maple and Asher, is occupied by a residential structure, and the owner would like to open an eating place. To accomplish the proposed plan, the site must be rezoned to a commercial district and the request is to reclassify the corner from R-3 to C-3. There is one single story residence on the lot and one accessory building. The property has 58 feet of frontage on Asher and an average depth of 145 feet. Zoning is R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-3, C-1, C-3, C-4 and I-2. The zoning pattern on the north side of Asher is very fragmented and includes all the previously mentioned districts. On the south side of Asher, the zoning is more uniformed with R-3, 0-3, C-3 and I-2. The most recent commercial rezoning was to C-1 for a small lot, directly across Maple. Land use is made up of residential, commercial, industrial, schools, churches and a Salvation Army store and facility. There are also some vacant buildings and lots found in the neighborhood. Along Asher Avenue, the land use pattern is mixed and ranges from single family to warehousing. The proposed C-3 rezoning for an eating establishment does raise some issues and concerns. First of all, an eating place requires one off-street parking space per 100 square feet of floor area, and because of the size of the lot, it is questionable whether the parking can be provided. Another possible problem with the parking is the site's March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5791 (Cont.) topography and how parking areas can be designed to work on the property. What this issue points to is the need for a site plan to see if the lot can accommodate the use. Secondly, the lot is part of a block that is still residential, and a site plan would be helpful to ensure that the adjacent single family residences will not impacted by the development. Because of these concerns, it is recommended that the site be reclassified to either C-1 or a PCD for the eating establishment. In the C-1 district, an eating place is a conditional use and the review process requires a site plan. C-3 is inappropriate for the location, and the adopted plan suggests a site plan approach for any nonresidential use of the site. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in question is located in the I-630 District. The plan recommends Mixed use. Since the request only includes commercial uses, a Planned Commercial Development is recommended. Alternatively, a "C-1" zone would be appropriate since office and residential uses are allowed by right. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Asher Avenue has a right-of-way standard of 35 feet from the centerline, and the existing right-of-way is deficient. Dedication of a 5 foot strip along Asher Avenue is required. Also, dedication of a small triangular piece of right-of-way is needed for Maple Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of either C-1 or a PCD for the property, and not the requested C-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant, Lynton Egbosimba, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Egbosimba spoke and said the property is at the corner of Asher and Maple. Mr. Egbosimba went on to say that he owns a small grocery store across Maple and the two lots north of the store, which could be used for parking. He then discussed the property and said that there was more than enough area for parking. Mr. Egbosimba also made some comments about the location of entrances and what would work the best on the lot. 2 March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5791 (Cont.) At this point, the discussion turned to staff's recommendation of C-1. Mr. Egbosimba said that C-1 would not meet his needs and he was not willing to amend the application to C-1. He told the Commission that he felt C-3 was a reasonable request. There were some comments made about C-1 and C-3. It was pointed out that the C-1 district allows eating places as a conditional use and not by -right. There was some additional discussion and Mr. Egbosimba was asked why he was not willing to accept C-1. Mr. Egbosimba said that he thought the site could handle the parking and C-3 was an appropriate zoning for the corner. There were some questions about the parking requirements and staff responded to them. Staff also voiced some concerns about the proposed use and then discussed some possible problems with a commercial development on the property. Discussion continued about various issues, including the possibility of deferring the item. Mr. Egbosimba said he was willing to consider a deferral, but he still desired C-3 because it would allow him more opportunities to serve the neighborhood. Mr. Egbosimba then responded to comments made by the Commission. There was a long discussion about C-1 versus C-3 and deferring the issue. After some additional comments, Mr. Egbosimba agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 8, 1994 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) The applicant, Lynton Egbosimba, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Egbosimba made some brief comments and then amended the application to C-1. There was some limited discussion on the item and staff responded to some questions. A motion was made to recommend approval request to C-1. The motion passed by a 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 3 of the amended vote of 8 ayes, March 8, 1994 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 Owner: C. D. Hunnicutt, Matthew Lee, Ray Vandiver, Rejoice Randazha Applicant: City of Little Rock Location: 800 Washington, 805 Monroe, 4405 Maryland and 814 Elm Recruest: Rezone from R-4 to R-3 Purpose: Single -Family Size: 0.6± acres Existing Use: Single -Family and Vacant STAFF ANALYSIS• This is the continuation of the Forest Hills Neighborhood reclassification. As the result of work completed in the 12th Street Study, the area was recommended for single family development. However, half of the area was zoned R-4 Duplex. The Neighborhood Association requested that the City staff review their area for possible rezoning to a reduced classification. As a result of work conducted by staff, a rezoning request was presented to the Commission last spring. The Commission and Board of Directors approved the reclassification and most of the area was zoned to R-3 Single Family. At the time of the original request, staff had been unable to contact almost two dozen owners. This was a high percentage of those owners in the affected area. The staff agreed to attempt to contact these owners again in about six months. This contact was attempted and about a half dozen owners were reached. For these owners four have given their permission to rezone their property. Therefore, staff now brings these four sites to the Commission for rezoning to single family, to further encourage the stabilization of the Forest Hills neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval January 25, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Staff recommended the item be placed on the Consent Agenda. The item was approved unanimously (8-0) as part of the Consent Agenda. 2 March 8, 1994 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.• 2 TITLE: Pankey Plan REQUEST: Development Plan for Pankey CDBG Area SOURCE: Community Development Block Grant Committee STAFF REPORT: As part of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program, a neighborhood study for the Pankey area was funded. This study was to produce a development plan for Pankey that the City and private citizens could use as a guide in making development and investment plans. At today's meeting representatives from the consultant (The Donaghey Project) will present the plan which they together with the Neighborhood and City staff have developed. Items to be covered are the survey and analysis of the area, goals and objectives, plan alternatives developed, recommendations for residential or commercial projects, public facilities, and implementation of these strategies for redevelopment and development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Ron Newman, Planning Manager, stated staff was recommending the issue be deferred for six weeks to allow time for further neighborhood meetings. Tim Polk, Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, began the presentation with a history of Pankey. Mr. Polk went on to state that this was a cooperative effort between the City, Donaghey and the residents of Pankey. George Wittenberg, III - Director of the Donaghey Project - indicated Donaghey was glad to be part of the Pankey Plan. This is what the Donaghey Project wants to do, to be in that middle position to facilitate planning activities bringing together staff and residents to produce a workable plan. This presentation, today, is just to provide information, no action is requested. Mrs. Nelson and Barbara Douglas went on to discuss how the neighborhood got to this point. March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued Belver Nelson wished to make a brief statement, the plan can be used as a basis to work from, even though it can be amended later. Barbara Douglas, Chairperson of the Pankey Improvement Corporation, stated that the community along with Planning staff, the Donaghey Project and Attorney George Ivory has designed a plan to provide for future growth. All segments of the community were involved. A CDC (Community Development Corporation) was formed to develop the plan. Ms. Douglas reviewed the sections included in the Plan. A proposal for a community center has reviewed in detail (programs) and what activities would occur at each site. Ms. Douglas hoped that with this plan, we can see a future for Pankey not just look back. Commissioner Oleson asked about Ms. Nelsons statement about amending the plan. There was discussion about timing of changes and the extent of changes. Mr. Jim Mercado stated that the previous presentation gave background and executive summary has been distributed to each commissioner. At this time, Mr. Mercado reviewed the recommendations. The development plan should be used as a guide. The first recommendation is to organize the community such as the CDC is attempting. The second recommendation is a community center, reviewed by Ms. Douglas earlier. The third recommendation is for housing rehab, elderly and infill single family. This recommendation would be accomplished in phases. No recommendation for changes to the land use plan or zoning are proposed. The fourth recommendation is for infrastructure - signage, landscape, and bus shelter. An action plan to accomplish these recommendations is included as a section of the plan. There was discussion about the community center/bus stop proposal and tool storage proposal. Mr. Polk indicated the plan is unique due to the large amount of citizen input. This is the first of many plans to come before the Commission. It is important that neighborhood organizations understand the zoning and development process. There was additional discussion about the housing recommendation. A motion was made to defer the issue to six weeks, April 19, 1994. By unanimous vote (9-0) the issue was deferred. 2 March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: 5-1004 NAME: CHENAL SQUARE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, east of the Markham Street intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Mr. Don Woodbury Mr. Joe White DWC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, L.C. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC. 14850 Montfort Dr., Suite 255 401 S. Victory St. Dallas, TX 75240 Little Rock, AR 72201 (214) 960-1550 374-1666 AREA: 9.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Master Street Plan requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way and construct an additional traffic lane on Chenal Parkway STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to develop a commercial subdivision on a 9.13 -acre tract witch has 1065± feet of frontage on Chenal Parkway and 690± feet on W. Markham St. Five lots are proposed: one primary site involving 5.1 acres is proposed with frontages on both Chenal Parkway and on W. Markham St.; two lots, one being 1.13 acres and the other 0.66 acres, are proposed to have frontage exclusively on Chenal Parkway; one 1.25 acres lot is to face W. Markham St.; and one lot which is 0.8 acres is located at the corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. The applicant proposes to construct the required sidewalks on both boundary streets, but seeks a waiver from the Master Street Plan requirements to dedicate additional right-of-way and construct an additional traffic lane on Chenal Parkway. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a 5 -lot commercial subdivision on a 9.13 acres tract located on the north side of Chenal Parkway, just east of the W. Markham St. intersection. The subdivision is proposed to contain one 5.1 acre building site for an anchor store, and has frontages on both Chenal Parkway and on W. Markham St. Two peripheral lots, March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1004 Parkway and on W. Markham St. Two peripheral lots, containing 1.13 acres and 0.66 acres, are proposed to have frontage on Chenal Parkway. One lot, with 1.25 acres, is located at the northeast corner of the tract and faces north onto W. Markham St. The fifth lot, which has 0.8 acres, is at the corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. A waiver from the Board of Directors is proposed to be sought for relief from the Master Street Plan standard which will require dedication of right-of-way and construction of an additional traffic lane along the Chenal Parkway frontage of the tract. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The West Markham Street right-of-way alignment which existed prior to Chenal Parkway being developed lies on the site; this right- of-way was abandoned, but a utility easement remains. The site has approximately 1065 feet of frontage on Chenal Parkway and 690 feet on West Markham Street. The Arkansas Power & Light service center abuts the site to the east. The existing zoning of the site is C-3, with C-3 zoning on sites to the north and east. A C-2 site lies to the southwest across Chenal Parkway. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering Office indicates that the existing Master Street Plan standards will require dedication of 10 additional feet of right-of-way along the Chenal Parkway frontage of the plat, plus will require construction of an additional traffic lane for Chenal Parkway. On both Chenal Parkway and on West Markham Street, a sidewalk is to be built. The applicant should especially be certain to coordinate the design of access points to the site from Chenal Parkway with Traffic Engineering. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will be applicable. Water Works reports that there is a 20" water main in the old Markham Street right-of-way that will have to be protected. Water main extensions will be required. Domestic service is not allowed off the 20" main. On site fire service may be required for Lot 3. Wastewater reports that there is an existing 10" sewer main which crosses the property. No permanent structure may be built over the existing Wastewater Utility easement. The existing easement must be maintained at its present location, or the developer of the property must relocate the sewer main to match any new easement alignment. March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1004 Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easements along the east property line of Lot 3 abutting the AP&L property. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The plat locates access easements along lot lines for shared driveways from both Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street. Along West Markham Street, three such access points are designated. Three within the 690 foot frontage of West Markham Street. does not meet the separation requirements of the Subdivision and Master Street Plan regulations. At least one of the access points needs to be eliminated, and the 300 foot minimum separation requirement should be met. A preliminary Bill of Assurance will need to be submitted. E. ANALYSIS• The site is zoned C-3, and the design of the proposed lots exceeds the minimum area and lot width requirements for lots in this zoning district. Other than the concern expressed about the location of access points from Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street, there are no issues to be resolved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to compliance with Engineering comments or obtaining the required waivers from the Board of Directors. STAFF UPDATE The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting for which this item is scheduled to be heard will be published and distributed prior to the date of the subdivision committee meeting at which the item will be reviewed. A report of the subdivision committee's findings will be made to the Commission at the March 8, 1994 hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant's engineer, Mr. Joe White, and representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. White reported that the March 8, 1994 ITEM NO • 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1004 improvements required by the Master Street Plan for West Markham Street would be provided by the applicant, these to include providing an additional traffic lane. The dedication of right-of-way and providing an additional lane for Chenal Parkway would be taken to the Board of Directors for a waiver. Staff reported that the Board is taking up a discussion of the imposition of such requirements along Chenal Parkway, and that the Board would be setting an overall policy for right-of-way dedication and construction of the additional traffic lane for all developments along Chenal. The applicant indicated that the current plans which had been submitted reflected all required changes following the staff reviews. With these reports, the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING.COMMISSION ACTIONS: (MARCH 8, 1994) The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda 8 ayes, no nays, no abstentions, 2 absent, and 1 4 approval. It was with the vote of open position. March 8, 1994 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 TITLE: John Barrow Neighborhood Area REQUEST: Development Plan for John Barrow Neighborhood Area SOURCE: Community Development Block Grant Committee STAFF REPORT: As part of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program, a neighborhood study for the John Barrow Neighborhoods area was funded. This study was to produce a development plan for the John Barrow Area that the City and private citizens could use as a guide in making development and investment plans. At today's meeting City Staff will present a status report on the plan; which together with the Neighborhood, City staff will develop. Items to be covered are the survey and analysis of the area, goals and objectives, plan alternatives developed, recommendations for residential or commercial projects, public facilities, and implementation of these strategies for redevelopment and development. No action required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Tim Polk, Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, said the residents of this area believe that their area has been ignored. The City wanted to use a similarly process to that used in Pankey. However, the area included in the study is much larger. The residents consider their area to be larger than that of the City's CDBG area. Staff agreed to use the neighborhood's defined area since the impacts are areawide. On the Steering Committee there are nine residents, based on geographic representation. Mr. Polk proceeded by giving a history of the John Barrow area. The CDBG program has been the main why to get infrastructure improvements in the area. Staff is trying to show the neighborhood that there are other sources or ways to address the problems. In addition, the City identifies this area is an affordable housing area which makes it important. March 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) Staff is taking the lead in the John Barrow Study. Consultants will be used to assist due to lack of manpower or expertise. With the assistance of UALR, the survey was conducted. Staff has also reviewed existing conditions in John Barrow. As an illustration Mr. Polk reviewed a map showing structural condition for one of the sectors in the John Barrow area. These findings are presented to the Steering Committee at their twice monthly meetings. Currently, the committee is working on goals. Mr. Polk reviewed some of the concerns identified in the survey of 3,000 households (14 percent response rate). He noted that bells did go off when Staff saw the negative feelings of the neighborhood. Information from the survey has been forwarded to the Police Department and Fighting Back. A copy of the survey summary will be provided to each commissioner. There was discussion about who the steering committee people were and how they become steering committee members. There was also discussion about activities discovered in the existing condition review. In response to a question, there was discussion about the Alert Center and its success and future. K, in cr 0 W cc W F— Z 0 U) U) 0 Z Z J CL W- F - z W In W Z: rA � e I f I F- Z2icrg z W �coC) j m= -� W < U¢ W WLLJ J J_ = O JOY z p= J W Cf) J O w J F=- z 0O LLI -J mCcLUcn z Z 0 O 3--U)3: 1 N ¢ W Y J W- F - z W In W Z: rA � I f I F- Z2icrg z W �coC) j m= -� W < U¢ W WLLJ J J_ = O JOY z p= J W Cf) J O w J F=- z 0O LLI -J mCcLUcn z Z 0 O 3--U)3: 1 N ¢ W Y J W- F - z W In W Z: rA � l� March 8, 1994 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Ase rz�� "Jetary