Loading...
pc_01 11 1994I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 11, 1994 12:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the November 30, 1993 meeting were approved as mailed. (Diane Chachere abstained) Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Brad Walker Emmett Willis, Jr. Ron Woods Joe Selz (One Open Position) Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z-5686 B. Z-5726 II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z -3150-G 2. Z-5762 3. Z-5775 4. Z-5777 REZONING HEARING AGENDA JANUARY 11, 1994 4807 Ballinger Peach Tree Drive North Chicot and I-30 513 South Cedar White Rock Lane Asher Avenue and John Barrow Road III. OTHER MATTERS 5. Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment R-2 to PRD R-2 to O-3 C-4 to C-3 R-4 to O-1 R-2 to R-5 R-4 to C-3 (G-23-200) January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 Owner: Ike Uketui Applicant: Ike Uketui Location: 4807 Ballinger Request: Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Purpose: Multifamily Size: 0.9 acres Existing Use: Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Railroad tracks, zoned R-2 South - Single -Family, -zoned R-2 East - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2 and R-5 West - Single -Family, zoned R-3 STAFF ANALYSIS 4807 Ballinger Road is occupied by a single family residence and the owner would like to convert the building to four or five units. To allow the increase in the number of dwelling units, the property must first be rezoned to R-5. The existing residence sits on the front 1/4 of the lot and the rear 3/4 is undeveloped. The site has 125 feet of frontage on Ballinger and a depth of 410 feet. Zoning is R-2, R-3, R-5 and I-2, with the property in question abutting R-2, R-3 and R-5. There are several tracts to the east that are zoned R-5 and two of them appear to be undeveloped. The I-2 is found to the northeast, east and southeast, the industrial area that is along Patterson Road. Land use is made up of single family, commercial and industrial. There are no conventional multifamily developments in the immediate vicinity. The abutting R-5 is developed with several detached single family structures. The proposed R-5 rezoning is in conflict with the adopted 65th Street East Plan, and staff does not support the request. The plan does not recognize the existing R-5 on Hoffman and the nearest multifamily area shown on the plan is approximately 1/4 mile to south. It is our position that January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 (Cont.) the recommended land use pattern should be maintained by not approving the proposed R-5 reclassification. Endorsing the R-5 could create additional problems for the area, which has already been impacted by some of the multifamily sites found along Butler Road. Another concern is that R-5 rezoning could allow between 20 to 25 units based on the lot size and the land area per family requirement in the R-5 district. A large number of units on the property could create an undesirable living environment, and impact the livability of the entire neighborhood. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The request is in conflict with the plan. The 65th Street East Plan recommends single family for this location. Conditions have not changed in the area to warrant a plan amendment. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 15, 1993) Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred because the applicant did not notify the property owners. As part of the Consent Agenda, the issue was deferred to the July 27, 1993 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 27, 1993) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral to October 19, 1993 hearing. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to defer the issue to October 19, 1993. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. 2 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993) Staff updated the Commission and indicated that the owner would like to amend the application to PRD for a total of four units, and had submitted a letter requesting the PRD. Staff stated that they were still opposed to any multifamily reclassification of the site. Ike Uketui, the owner, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Uketui discussed his understanding of the property's zoning and said that he was informed by the City Enforcement staff that a portion of the site was zoned for multifamily use. Mr. Uketui went on to say that he purchased the property based on the information provided by the City. He then discussed his plans for the property and said he would like to be allowed to use the land for a maximum of three units. There was a long discussion about the request and the property zoning. Benjamin Watson, a resident on Apple Cove, objected to the proposed reclassification and submitted a petition opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Watson described the neighborhood and some of the area's problems. He then reminded the Commission that Butler Road was located in the general vicinity. A motion was made to defer the item to allow the staff and Mr. Uketui to resolve the zoning question. The issue was deferred to the November 30, 1993 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 30, 1993) The applicant, Ike Uketui, was not present. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be deferred. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the January 11, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn without prejudice. 3 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5686 (Cont.) A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning request without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 4 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: D. B. Davis Corporation J. E. Hathaway, Jr. Peach Tree Drive Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 Of f ice 0.74 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Koger Office Development, zoned 0-3 South - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 East - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The site on Peach Tree Drive is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the location to 0-3 for future office use. The property is situated at the entrance to the Sandpiper Subdivision and is adjacent to I-430. In fact, a portion of the tract was taken for use as right-of-way for I-430. The site has approximately 273 feet of frontage on Peach Tree Drive. Zoning in the general area is R-2, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and OS. There is also a large PCD, the Summit Mall site, on the south side of I-430. The property in question abuts R-2 land on three sides and 0-3 zoning is directly across Peach Tree Drive. Land use is primarily single family and the Koger Office Development. At the corner of Hickory Hill and Peach Tree is the location of the subdivision's recreational area. There is undeveloped land throughout the area, especially to the west of Centerview Drive. Because of the property's location and other factors, it does appear that the site has some potential for limited nonresidential development. However, it is questionable whether 0-3 is the best zoning approach for the site. The lot has a 40 foot platted building line, and because of a very shallow lot depth, the addition of the 15 foot rear January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.) yard setback could severely limit the use of the property, possibly make it unfeasible to develop. Staff suggests a POD as a better option for the site because it does offer more flexibility. The property is somewhat unique, and the POD process is designed for atypical situations. Also, a POD would insure that any development (site plan) is sensitive to the residential lots located directly to the west. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The adopted plan in the I-430 District recommends either no use or office. Any office use should be carefully designed to minimize any negative impacts to adjacent single family. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning and suggests that the POD process be utilized for the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993) Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred. There were two objectors present, and there was a brief discussion about deferring the issue. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 19, 1993 meeting. The Commission's vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson). (The Planning Commission's action also waived the deferral provision in the bylaws requiring a written request five working days prior to the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993) Staff told the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral, however, it was not received at least five working days prior to the hearing. After some discussion, the item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 30, 1993 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. (The Commission's action also waived the Bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.) 2 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 30, 1993) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were two objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway distributed some materials to the Planning Commission and then proceeded to describe the area and reviewed the written information. Mr. Hathaway then presented two conceptual plans and described the proposed development as low density with maximum buffers. He said the plans were very similar, but there were some minor variations in each plan. Mr. Hathaway described the site and said that the maximum size of the building would probably be 8,000 square feet. He then proceeded to review four conditions that would be included in the ordinance and they were: 1. To create a 20 foot wide naturally landscaped buffer on the western side of the lot. 2. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 25%. 3. Building height not to exceed two-story. 4. To create a landscaped buffer area with a minimum depth of 10 feet along Peach Tree Drive, except for two curb cuts. Jim Magnus, a resident of the neighborhood, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Magnus submitted a petition and said, the residents were opposed to the office rezoning. He said there were potential traffic problems due to limited visibility and a hill. Mr. Magnus also said the location of the subdivision pool was a concern. He continued his presentation by describing the environs and said the rezoning would not help the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus reminded the Commission that the plans were just concepts and not part of the request before them. He said there were approximately 115 names on the petition opposed to the rezoning from single family to office. Mr. Magnus told the Commission that no meetings have taken place between the neighborhood and Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Magnus made some additional comments and said he would prefer a POD. Ron Newman, Planning staff, discussed the plan for the area. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, offered some comments and said the staff was in support of the 0-3 rezoning with the proposed conditions. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said the group was strongly opposed to the office rezoning. Mr. Wilson said the subdivision has only P January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont. two entrances and an office use would create traffic problems. He said the property acts as an entry for the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus went on to say that the site plan did not address the possible traffic problems and made other comments. Jim Magnus spoke again and discussed the Koger development. He made some comments about the site and said additional review of a plan would be appropriate. Jim Hathaway told the Commission that he did attempt to meet with the neighbors/property owners association. Mr. Hathaway reviewed the site plans and said the property was about a block away from the crest of the hill. He said the proposed conditions would ensure a compatible development and they would be included in the ordinance and run with the land. Mr. Hathaway then asked for a vote to rezone the site to 0-3. He then said the amount of additional traffic would be minimal and reminded the Commission that Peach Tree Drive was a collector. There was some discussion about 0-2 for the property. Mr. Hathaway said the owner would accept 0-2. A motion was made to recommended approval of 0-2 as amended. The motion failed to receive a second. Discussion continued on a number of items, including deferring the issue. Jim Hathaway said that he would be willing to defer the item. A motion was made to defer the 0-3 rezoning request. Comments were offered by a number of individuals. Jim Magnus said deferrals tend to create problems and asked the Commission to deny the 0-3 request. Reginald Wilson said that he saw no problems with deferring the item. The Commission then voted on the deferral motion. The vote was 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Brad Walker) and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the January 11, 1994 hearing. 4 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: H Z-5726 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke briefly and said that he was still considering the same type of plan and that he did attempt to have a meeting with the neighborhood. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said that the deferral gave the neighborhood adequate time to prepare for the hearing. Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood was still opposed to the 0-3 because of increased traffic and reduced property values. He then submitted a petition with 80 names opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Wilson reminded the Commission that Sandpiper was a single family neighborhood and the residents want it to remain that way. Mr. Wilson went on to say that the neighborhood tried to see if there was anything that could be done to support the rezoning and the answer was no. He also said that Mr. Hathaway had not mentioned the possibility of reaching a compromise with the neighborhood and the residents opted not to meet with Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood considered uses that would be appropriate and they would like to see a request for a specific use. Mr. Wilson then responded to some questions. Julia Ketner, second house from the site, then addressed the Commission. Ms. Ketner said the she understood Sandpiper to be a residential area and she wanted it to remain a single family neighborhood. She was concerned with safety because of being on the crest of the hill. Ms. Ketner went on to say that a business would increase traffic flow and a rezoning would cause a decrease in property values. Ms. Ketner also said that the safety of children in the neighborhood was a concern. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, made some comments about the I-430 plan. Jim Magnes told the Commission that a portion of the neighborhood was not part of the property owners association. Mr. Magnes said that a major problem with the 0-3 request was the lack of a restriction on use. He went on to say that a POD would be more desirable because of restricting the use. Horton Steele, Sandpiper Property Owners Association, thought the property was part of the I-430 right-of-way. Mr. Steele also said that he has a problem with certain uses in O-3. Jerry Gardner, City Engineering, offered some comments about the right-of-way. 5 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.) Mark Allen talked about potential traffic problems and said the Sandpiper area was growing. Dennis Johnson, a resident, said that Koger did create some buffer areas. Mr. Johnson said the property in question was adjacent to a residential lot and the proposed rezoning was encroaching into the neighborhood. Jim Hathaway then addressed the Commission and passed out some materials, the zoning sketch and an aerial photo. Mr. Hathaway then discussed access to the property and said there would probably be a minimal amount of additional traffic through the neighborhood. He then said he envisioned low density utilization of the site and described some conditions and restrictions which would be included in the rezoning ordinance. Mr. Hathaway then said that it was unfortunate that no meeting took place. He continued by discussing the use issue and said that the owner was willing to limit the use to seven uses in 0-3 and no accessory or conditional uses. The seven uses would be: • Clinic (medical, dental or optical) • Day nursery or day care center • Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization • Laboratory • Library, art gallery, museum or other similar use • Office (general and professional) • Travel bureau Mr. Hathaway said the use restriction would be incorporated into the ordinance. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, said the ordinance could have restrictions and they would run with the property. Mr. Giles said the restrictions should be filed for record with the deed. Jim Hathaway spoke again and discussed the Koger development. Mr. Hathaway reminded everybody that Koger has the right to build two more buildings. He then went on to say that the rezoning would not impact the neighborhood and the uses were consistent with land use in the area. He also said that it was unprecented to have use restrictions through an 0-3 rezoning. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and described a conceptual site plan for the property. 6 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5726 (Cont.) Stephen Giles responded to the use question and said the applicant offered the restrictions and conditions. Mr. Giles said the ordinance could include the use restriction because the applicant volunteered to limit the uses. Reginald Wilson spoke again and made comments about the Koger development. Mr. Wilson then asked the Commission to vote against the 0-3. There was additional discussion about the various issues. The Commission then voted on the 0-3 rezoning with four conditions and the use restriction (seven permitted uses in 0-3) to be part of the ordinance. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the February 22, 1994 hearing because a majority vote was not obtained. 7 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3150-G Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Payless Cashways, Inc. Victory Fellowship Church by Paul Doherty I-30 and North Chicot Road Rezone from C-4 to C-3 Church and School 7.116 acres Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Multifamily, zoned MF -18 South - I-30 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned C-4 West - Multifamily and Mini -storage Units, zoned MF -18 and C-4 STAFF ANALYSIS The request is to rezone a seven acre tract from C-4 to C-3 for a church and private school. The site is situated at the northeast corner of North Chicot Road and the I-30 Frontage Road. The property has been used as a building supply company, but it is unoccupied at this time. There are two structures on the site, an enclosed 49,300 square foot building and an open shed structure. The property has 964 feet of frontage on North Chicot and approximately 400 feet of interstate frontage. Zoning in the general vicinity includes R-2, MF -18, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2 and OS. The property in question is surrounded by either MF -18 or C-4 land. Land use is single family, multifamily, commercial, mini -warehouse units, industrial and a Shriner's Temple. Some of the land is still undeveloped, including the property directly to the east. Rezoning this parcel to C-3 is compatible with the area and will not affect any of the nearby properties. Over the years, the City has endorsed a C-3, C-4 and I-2 zoning pattern along I-30. The proposed reclassification conforms to the adopted plan and there are no outstanding issues. January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3150-G (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted plan recommends commercial use. No issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. E January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5762 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Michael and Charlotte Hood Michael Hood 513 South Cedar Rezone from R-4 to 0-1 Single -Family and Office 0.15 acres Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-4 South - Single -Family, zoned R-4 East - Single -Family, zoned R-4 West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-4 STAFF ANALYSIS This rezoning request is before the Commission because of an enforcement action against the property. Several months ago, the current occupant of the residence placed an office sign on the house, and it was sighted by an enforcement officer. The individual occupying 513 South Cedar was told that he must first try to rezone the lot to the appropriate district to allow an office use on the property. After discussing the situation with the staff, an application was filed for a rezoning from R-4 to 0-1. The property is a 50 foot lot and there is a one story residence on it. zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and 0-3. The property in question abuts R-4 on three sides and the zoning across Cedar Street is R-4. Land use in the area includes single family, multifamily, the Veteran's Administration Hospital and University of Arkansas Medical Sciences campus. Both institutional uses have had an impact on the neighborhood, and the Med Center is in an expansion phase and making its presence known in the block from Elm to Cedar. Recently, a major research facility was completed north of West 4th. There are also some clinics and other ancillary uses located in the first block east of Elm Street. With the adoption of the first neighborhood plan for the Woodruff School area, the city recognized the Med Center's growth potential and identified the Elm to Cedar block for institutional or related uses. The blocks east of Cedar were shown for low to medium residential use, a transitional January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5762 (Cont.) area into the established single family neighborhood. The current plan, I-630, reinforces the neighborhood plan and shows no nonresidential use east of Cedar. What is being proposed with this request is a significant departure from the adopted plan and all previous planning efforts. An office reclassification of 513 South Cedar could have a significant impact on the direction of the plan and create an undesirable zoning pattern for the area. To protect the integrity of the neighborhood, the land use plan needs to be maintained by denying the proposed office rezoning. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-630 District. The adopted plan recommends multifamily. Cedar Street has been an important dividing line with office and medical related businesses to the west with a 100 foot buffer West of Cedar. Between Cedar and Pine the land use transitions from the Medical Complex to single family with multifamily and low density multifamily. To cross Cedar with nonresidential is a major break in the plan. Care must be taken in changing the land use in a transitional neighborhood. Staff cannot at this point recommend or support violating the plan and the City's agreement with the Woodruff neighborhood. ENGINEERING COMMENTS South Cedar Street is classified as a collector. The existing right-of-way is deficient, and dedication of 5 feet is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-1 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant, Michael Hood, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hood spoke and said the appearance of the residence would not change. Mr. Hood discussed the office use and said there would be some visitors coming to the location. He then described the area and said the use was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hood pointed out that the traffic count for Cedar was 5,000 cars. There were some comments made by various individuals. 2 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5762 (Cont.) The Commission then voted on the R-4 to 0-1 request. The vote was 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The rezoning was denied. 3 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5775 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: A. S. Rosen Associates, Inc. Timothy E. Daters White Rock Lane Rezone from.R-2 to R-5 Multifamily - Duplex/Fourplex 0.53 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Multifamily, zoned MF -24 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a one-half acre tract of land from R-2 to R-5. The proposal is to develop the site for duplexes and/or fourplexes. The property is situated east of Reservoir Road and just north of the Raintree Apartment development. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, MF -12, MF -24 and 0-3. The site under consideration abuts R-2 and MF -24 land. The nearby apartment project is zoned MF -24 and 0-3. Land use found in the surrounding neighborhood is either single family or multifamily. There is also an elementary school on the west side of Reservoir Road. The property in question is part of a larger tract that is proposed for a 21 lot subdivision. The development, Brennan Addition, will be served by a cul-de-sac from Reservoir Road; the proposed R-5 area will only take access from white Rock Lane. Because of the site's location and the existing multifamily use, it appears that a reclassification to R-5 is a reasonable option for the property. The R-5 district does allow up to 36 units per acre, however, it also has a lot area per unit requirement to ensure a quality development and livability. For lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to one acre, the ordinance requires 2,000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit. By using the 2,000 square foot ratio, the permitted density for this .53 acre parcel is 10 to 12 units. The number of January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5775 (Cont.) units is compatible with the area and the R-5 rezoning should not create any problems for the surrounding properties. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the West Little Rock District. The adopted plan recommends single family with park/open space along the creek. There is multifamily across the street. If the proposed multifamily is going to take access from White Rock Terrace only with low density multifamily, this could be appropriate. However, any further multifamily development should be reviewed carefully looking not only at the site in question, but also the remaining undeveloped single family area to the north and west. ENGINEERING COMMENTS White Rock Lane requires a dedication of 25 feet from the centerline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R-5 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the issue was placed on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the R-5 request. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 2 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5777 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Katherine Porfiris Stephen Nikel John Barrow Road and Asher Avenue Rezone from R-4 to C-3 Retail - Auto Parts 0.93 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-3 South - Vacant, zoned C-3 East - Single -Family, zoned R-4 West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-4 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is located at the northwest corner of the Asher Avenue/John Barrow Road intersection, and the request is to rezone the site from R-4 to C-3. At this time, the proposed use is the retail sale of auto parts. If the land is rezoned to C-3, it will be combined with the existing C-3 to the south to accommodate the intended development. The area to be reclassified is four residential lots and they were all platted with a 50 foot width and a depth of 144 feet. The site fronts on two streets, Ludwig and John Barrow Road. All of the lots are vacant. Zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1, C-3 and C-4. Along this portion of Asher Avenue, the zoning is primarily commercial and extends several hundred feet north and south of Asher. What is being proposed with this request conforms to the depth of the existing C-3 in the area. Land use is made-up of single family residences or commercial uses. The existing businesses in the area range from small retail establishments to auto repair. Other uses found in the area are churches and an Optimist Club ballfield. Throughout the neighborhood, there are also parcels of land that are undeveloped. The Boyle Park District plan identifies the entire block, Asher to West 46th, for commercial use. Therefore, a C-3 rezoning of the lots conforms to the plan and is an January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5777 (Cont.) appropriate classification for the location. The C-3 rezoning, if granted, should not create any problems for the area and will continue the established zoning pattern. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Boyle Park District. The adopted plan recommends commercial use. No issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The existing rights-of-way for John Barrow Road and Ludwig Street are deficient. Dedication of additional right-of-way is required for both streets. • 17 feet for John Barrow Road • 5 feet for Ludwig Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The request was represented by Brian Ross, an architect for Auto Zone. Mr. Ross responded to a question about the proposed development and showed a tentative site plan to the Commission. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. K, January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: G-23-200 Name: Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: That portion of undeveloped Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way east of Bowman Road Owner/Applicant: N. Raymond Sneed and Michael Tierney Recruest: To abandon that platted but undeveloped portion of Birchwood Drive right-of-way lying south of Lot 2A, Erwin Addition and north of Lot 1, Montclair Heights Subdivision. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Wav Initial response from other departments indicates no public need for this portion of undeveloped right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this portion of undeveloped right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain This portion of Birchwood Drive has never been physically developed and the area of the right-of-way is heavily wooded. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of the abandoned right-of-way will be added to the adjacent properties and included in future development plans. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The adjacent properties, fronting on Bowman Road, are vacant and undeveloped. The property adjacent to the north of the right-of-way has recently been rezoned to C-1 and the property to the south is zoned R-2. January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-200 A larger area of commercial zoning is located across Bowman Road to the west and the Birchwood residential neighborhood is situated to the east. 7. Neighborhood Position In previous public hearings regarding the adjacent properties, the residents of the Birchwood neighborhood have voiced a desire to have this right-of-way abandoned. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities The area of the abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a utility easement. There will be no effect on public services or utilities. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to the adjacent property owners, N. Raymond and Mary V. Sneed and the Tierney -Hale Partnership. 10. Public welfare and Safety Issues Abandonment of this unused and undeveloped portion of right- of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. It will also eliminate the possibility of the street being built which would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. 11. City Engineer Comment Close right-of-way curb and gutter at asphalt as needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: to the Alamo Drive intersection. Install Alamo Drive intersection and remove Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant, Michael Tierney, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. 2 January 11, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-200 Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the City Engineer's Office had revised its comments and was no longer recommending that the right-of-way be closed to Alamo Drive as a part of this application. The City Engineer's Office still feels that the right-of-way should be closed to Alamo Drive at some point. The Commission then placed this item on the Consent Agenda for approval, as recommended by staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstaining (Hall) and 1 open position. 3 O w ry LU O Z O U) O U Z Z Z CL c� W Q D n IQ jl .0 CD c 0 Q m c CD CD 2 F -- Z w cn m 01 f I l FFI i -n , L _ Z 0 W Zcn Z < m w cr, U WW LLI Jm J QO :EZ -J W z O � z z w J O W LU O 0 -� w 1D O �o N Z = Q m3: z O �W m o O �j c p N 77- m 2Cr a 1h, LL c J w Q z w w -7 --J LLJ J � 0 W c� 0 z Z J z O = Q W uJ �� W W -1 L1J O J Z W U Z m w O m C� m -' z U -' Z o= 0 0 W <L Z Cn o O J w W Q= m U -� U U Z J O> z O= a O 'S Lu co Q n IQ jl .0 CD c 0 Q m c CD CD 2 F -- Z w cn m 01 I l FFI W Zcn Z < m w cr, U WW LLI Jm J QO :EZ -J W z O � z z w J O W LU O 0 -� w 1D O �o N Z = Q m3: z O �W m o O �j c p N 77- m 2Cr n IQ jl .0 CD c 0 Q m c CD CD 2 F -- Z w cn m 01 January 11, 1994 There being no further business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Date `� ✓�� ce S cretary Chairman 1