pc_06 28 1994Im
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 28, 1994
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being seven in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the May 17, 1994 meeting were approved
aspmailed.
Members Present: Diane Chachere
Ramsay Ball
Kathleen Oleson
Bill Putnam
Joe Selz
Brad Walker
B. J. Wyrick
Emmett Willis (arrived after
the roll call)
Ron Woods (arrived after
the roll call)
Members Absent: John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
JUNE 28, 1994
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z -1791-B Candlewood Area
B. Z -1730-B 201 W. Roosevelt Road
C. Z -3121-B 5809 Asher Avenue
D. Z-5805 11820 Chicot Road
E. Hinson Office Park - Preliminary Plat (5-1028)
F. Hinson Office Park - Short -form PCD (Z -3699-A)
II. REZONING ITEMS
1. Z -3168-D
2. Z -5472-C
3. Z -5758-A
4. Z-5842
5. Z-5844
6. Z-5845
III. OTHER MATTERS
Mara Lynn Road
Rodney Parham and Hinson
Kanis Road and Pride Valley
8324 Stagecoach Road
Chenal Parkway (at Kanis)
Reservoir Road
R-2, R-4 and
R-5 to MF -24
and Open
Space
C-3 to C-4
C-3 to I-2
R-2 to I-2
MF -12 to MF -18
R-2 to O-3
R-2 to MF -18
and O-3
R-2 to C-4
R-2 to O-3
R-2 to R-5
7. Stanley Accessory Dwelling C.U.P. - Located at 325 Midland
Avenue (Z-5841)
8. George's Gas and Service Station C.U.P. - Located at
3101 W. Markham (Z-5843)
9. Canaan Baptist Church Parking Lot C.U.P. - Located in the
1700 Block of South Izard and South State (Z-5846)
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z -1791-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Char -Beck Trust
R. Wingfield Martin
Candlewood Area (North of the
Kroger on Hwy. 10)
Rezone from R-2, R-4 and R-5
to MF -24 and OS
Multi -Family
131.82 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
South
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2 and R-5
East
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
West
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The area under consideration, 132 acres, is currently zoned
R-2, R-4 and R-5. The request is to rezone the acreage to
MF -24 and OS along a majority of the perimeter of the site.
The land area is situated east of Pinnacle Valley Road,
north of Hwy. 10 (directly north of the Kroger Center) and
west of the Candlewood Subdivision (the end of Rivercrest
Drive). The current zoning was approved in 1965 and 1966.
In 1984 a PRD was filed for the land, but the plan was never
finalized.
The surrounding zoning is primarily R-2. Directly to the
south, there are some R-5 and 0-2 tracts. There is some
commercial zoning, C-3 and PCD, along Hwy. 10. Land use
includes single family and commercial. As with the zoning,
the commercial uses are found adjacent to Hwy. 10, including
the Kroger development and a commercial center on the south
side of Hwy. 10.
At this time, the adopted land use plan identifies the
entire site for single family use, and does not even
recognized the existing R-5 zoning. Based on the previous
zoning action and the property's location, it appears that
increasing the amount of land for multi -family is
reasonable. However, without seeing more specifics about a
development concept and the land, it would be somewhat
premature to establish an overall density of 24 units per
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z -1791-B (Cont.)
acre. A number of issues, such as topography and
circulation, need to be looked at to determine the
appropriate density for the site or if a MF -24 density is
too high for the area. Another concern that needs to be
reviewed is the land use plan and whether a plan amendment
is justified. There are too many questions that need be
answered before a rezoning of 132 acres to MF -24 can be
considered. Staff's position is that the item needs to be
deferred to give the city and the applicant more time to
study the area and the site.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the River Mountain District. The recommended
land use is single family. The proposed density is too
high, while some multifamily may be appropriate, a blanket
zoning is not. Due to the nature of the site, additional
information should be required as to the location,
arrangement and number of units.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Engineering is recommending that the dedication of any
right-of-way occur through the plat or as part of a site
plan review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request be deferred to allow the
applicant to submit additional information and/or a plan for
the development of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994)
At the beginning of the hearing, staff informed the
Commission that the applicant agreed with deferring the item
and requested a 60 day deferral. There were several
interested individuals in attendance and they did not object
to the deferral.
The item was added to the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 28, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Planning Commission action also waived the
bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five
working days prior to the hearing.)
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • A Z -1791-B (Cont.)
UPDATE
Representatives of the owner, Char -Beck Trust, and the staff
met to discuss various issues associated with this rezoning
request. During the meeting, it was suggested that MF -12
would be a more appropriate density for the area. The
applicant has submitted a letter and is amending the
application from MF -24 to MF -12 for the R-2 and R-4 areas.
The existing R-5 will remain and an OS buffer will be
established through rezoning action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the
item be deferred for at least 30 days. As part of the
Consent Agenda, the issue was deferred to the August 9, 1994
hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The
Planning Commission also waived the bylaw provision
requiring 5 day written notice for a deferral.)
M
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z -1730-B
Owner: M. C. Wins
Applicant: M. C. Wins
Location: 201 West Roosevelt Road
Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose: Auto Sales
Size: 0.44 acres
Existing Use: Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Commercial, zoned C-3
South - Single -Family, zoned R-4
East - Single -Family, zoned R-4
West - Vacant, zoned R-4
STAFF ANALYSIS
201 West Roosevelt, the southwest corner of Louisiana and
West Roosevelt, is currently zoned C-3, and the request is
to rezone the site to C-4. The owner would like to utilize
the property for auto sales, and a reclassification is
necessary to allow the proposed use. There is a small
building on the property, which appears to be used for some
type of office. The lot has 137 feet of frontage on West
Roosevelt and a dimension of 140 feet along Louisiana.
The existing zoning in the general vicinity is R-3, R-4,
R-5, R-6, 0-1, 0-3, C-3 and PCD, (The blocks north of West
23rd are in the Capitol Zoning District.) The property in
question abuts R-4 on two sides and the lots to the east are
zoned R-4. Directly across West Roosevelt, the zoning is
C-3. Land use includes single family, multifamily, office,
commercial, auto sales (the PCD at the northeast corner of
Main and West Roosevelt), a school, a community center and
churches. Besides the office use at 201 West Roosevelt, the
remainder of the block is either vacant or single family
residences. There are other undeveloped lots in the
neighborhood and some vacant buildings.
The property was rezoned to "F" (C-3) Commercial in 1964.
In July of 1984 a rezoning was requested for the property.
The C-4 was denied by both the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors and there was neighborhood opposition to
the proposed reclassification. Staff did not support the
C-4 in 1984.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z -1730-B (Cont.)
Staff's position on the current request is that nothing has
changed since 1984 to warrant a change in the zoning to C-4.
Because of the property's relationship with the surrounding
uses, primarily single family, the existing C-3 should be
the most intense zoning for the property. Even with the
Roosevelt frontage, the property is not a desirable C-4
location and some of the uses permitted in C-4. A C-4
rezoning could have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood and encourage additional C-4 applications,
which could lead to a "strip" of C-4 uses along West
Roosevelt. The zoning pattern on the south side of West
Roosevelt should be maintained and not altered by granting
the C-4 rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is located in the Central City District. The
adopted land use plan recommends mixed area. The mixed use
designation is designed to be compatible with single family.
Nonsingle family uses should be approved with a planned unit
development review. A C-4 use is not compatible with single
family. The mixing of C-4 uses with single family uses
produces negative impacts on the single family. Therefore,
the request is in conflict with the Plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-4 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because the
applicant failed to notify the required property owners. As
part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to defer the
issue to the June 28, 1994 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant, M. C. Wins, was present. There were two
objectors in attendance. Mr. Wins described the area and
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z -1730-B (Cont.
said there is an existing car lot at the corner of Roosevelt
and Main Street. Mr. Wins told the Commission that he wants
to consolidate locations by having his office and sales lot
at 201 West Roosevelt. He said the lot is currently located
at the corner of West Roosevelt and Johnson. Mr. Wins then
discussed the C-3 and C-4 districts.
Thelma Banks, a property owner across Louisiana, then spoke
against the C-4 rezoning. Ms. Banks said the proposal would
decrease property values and she asked the Commission to
refuse the C-4. Ms. Banks went on to describe the
neighborhood and made other comments.
Allen McNutt, an adjacent property owner, opposed the
rezoning and said other nearby owners were also against the
C-4. Mr. McNutt then read from a statement, signed by
several other property owners, asking the Commission to
disapprove the C-4 rezoning. Mr. McNutt said the
neighborhood has a high percentage of elderly persons and
then described other uses in the area. He said a car lot
would be an undesirable use and discussed the neighborhood's
problems.
M. C. Wins spoke again and discussed his problems.
Comments were then offered by several Commissioners.
Thelma Banks made some additional comments about the C-4
request.
At this point, there was some discussion about utilizing a
PCD for the property.
M. C. Wins spoke and said a PCD would be a possibility.
Mr. Wins then agreed to withdrawing the C-4 rezoning
request.
There was some additional discussion about the item.
A motion was made to withdraw the C-4 rezoning without
prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
3
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -3121-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
T. C. I. Realty Investments
Bobby Stewart by Bill McClard
5809 Asher Avenue
Rezone from C-3 to I-2
Industrial
15.1 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Commercial, zoned C-3
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant and Industrial, zoned R-2 and I-2
West - Commercial, zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
5809 Asher Avenue is the location of the old "Asher Drive -
In" Theater, and the request is to rezone the 15 acres from
C-3 to I-2. At this time, the proposed use involves light
fabrication and assembly, warehousing, wholesaling and some
retail sales. The site is vacant and all remnants of the
drive-in have been removed, with the exception of the drives
and the viewing area. The property has 287 feet of frontage
along Asher and has a total depth of over 1450 feet.
(Several years ago, the site was rezoned to C-3 to
accommodate the possible expansion of the existing
commercial center to the west.)
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-5, MF -24, C-3, C-4,
I-2 and some OS. For properties fronting Asher, the existing
zoning configuration is C-3, C-4, and I-2. This type of
pattern is very typical for most of the Asher corridor.
(Some of the land to the east is outside the city limits.)
Land use is similar to the zoning and includes some minor
residential, commercial and industrial. The Asher/University
intersection is viewed as a major commercial location and
most of the corners have significant commercial developments.
As you move away from the intersection, the land use along
Asher becomes more mixed, however, the predominant use group
is commercial. The property in question is situated between
a well-established commercial center on the west and a long-
time industrial user, Coleman Dairy, on the east. The area
that is outside the city limits is undeveloped and used as
pasture land.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -3121-B (Cont.)
The proposed rezoning to I-2 is in conflict with the plan for
the area, which shows the site for commercial use. The plan
reinforces the existing zoning and establishes the industrial
line along the east property boundary. Rezoning the entire
15 acres to I-2 would be a significant departure from the
adopted plan, and staff cannot support the requested
reclassification. However, because of the location and the
existing zoning pattern, it appears that a more restrictive
industrial rezoning might be a reasonable option. This
approach would define a specific use area within the interior
of site and reclassify it to I-1. In this particular area,
which is more commercial than industrial, retaining the C-3
along the Asher frontage is important to future redevelopment
possibilities. I-1, with site plan review, for some of the
site could provide a good transition from the C-3 to the I-2
and ensure a development that is compatible with the nearby
commercial uses.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is in the I-630 District. The adopted land use
plan recommends commercial use of the site. This site was
changed to commercial to allow for the expansion of the
adjacent shopping center. The site could be developed as a
light industrial use and propose a good land use mix.
However, any industrial use should be carefully reviewed due
to the sensitive nature of the site. Traffic issue as well
as potential impacts on the proposed Fourche Bottoms Park.
Staff would recommend amending the plan to show mixed
commercial and industrial at this site.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The Master Street Plan standard for Asher Avenue is 35 feet
from the centerline. If the existing right-of-way is
deficient, dedication of additional right-of-way will be
required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of I-1 for defined use area and
the remainder of the site be left C-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The application was represented by Bill McClard. There were
no other interested parties in attendance. Mr. McClard
addressed the Commission and requested a deferral.
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -3121-B (Cont.)
A motion was made to defer the item to the June 28, 1994
hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent. (The Planning Commission also waived
the bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral by written
notice.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that a representative of the owner had
submitted a request to withdraw the item without prejudice.
The item was added to the Consent Agenda and the Planning
Commission voted to withdraw the rezoning request without
prejudice. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The
Planning Commission also waived the bylaw requirement for
5 day written notice.)
ri
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: D Z-5805
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ronnie Wells
Bill McClard
11,820 Chicot Road
Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Industrial
4.24 acres
vacant and Office Warehouse
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family and Vacant Building, zoned R-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Vacant, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
11,820 Chicot Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request
is to rezone the site to I-2. The property, or at least a
portion, has nonconforming status and is currently occupied
by an office warehouse. There is one building on the site
and a majority of it is undeveloped. The property has 85
feet of frontage on Chicot and a depth of approximately 755
feet.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-7 and C-3. The
property in question is surrounded by R-2 zoning, and
residentially zoned land accounts for 98% of the area. Land
use is almost exclusively residential, either single family
or a large mobile home park. There are two minor non-
residential uses found along Chicot and both are
nonconforming. One is an industrial operation and the other
is a small commercial user.
What is being proposed with this I-2 rezoning proposal is
inappropriate for the location. The industrial
reclassification is not supported by the adopted plan and an
undesirable zoning pattern would be created if the I-2 is
granted. An I-2 rezoning of the four acres would be a spot
zoning, a concept that the city always tries to discourage,
and could have a very adverse impact on the surrounding
residential uses. The direction of the land use plan will
be reinforced by maintaining the R-2 zoning. Also, the
residential character of the area will be strengthened by
denying the requested industrial rezoning.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: D Z-5805 (Cont.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The
recommended land use is single family. With the existing
surrounding use pattern, there is no justification to change
the plan to industrial.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The right-of-way standard for Chicot Road is 45 feet from
the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is
needed because the existing right-of-way is deficient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 5, 1994)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
verbally requested a deferral at the beginning of the
hearing. There were no objectors present and the item was
placed on the Consent Agenda.
The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the
May 17, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement
for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior
to the meeting.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant, Bill McClard, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. McClard spoke and requested a
deferral because the owner had a death in the family and was
unable to attend hearing. The interested property owner did
not object to deferring the item.
A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the
June 20, 1994 hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. (The Commission also waived
the bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.)
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: D Z-5805 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The application for rezoning was represented by Daryle
Snellings. There were no objectors in attendance.
Mr. Snellings discussed the history of the site and said it
was annexed into the city. He then described the existing
subdivision and said there was no opposition to the request.
Mr. Snellings said that the prospective owner is currently
occupying and using the site.
Ronnie Wells, the prospective buyer, said that he operates
an outdoor sign business. Mr. Wells made some comments
about cleaning up the site and said he would like the I-2
rezoning to protect his interest in the property.
There was some discussion about the area and the property's
nonconforming status.
Ronnie Wells spoke again and said that he would be willing
to leave the back portion of the site zoned R-2.
Additional comments were made about various issues,
including the possibility of utilizing the PUD process for
the property.
Ronnie Wells addressed the Commission and amended his
application to a PUD.
A motion was made to accept the amended request to a PUD for
11,820 Chicot Road. The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
K!
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: S-1028
NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop
Road
DEVELOPER:
JOHN REES
REES DEVELOPMENT
12115 Hinson Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72212
223-228
AREA: 8.54 ACRES
ENGINEER•
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 410
ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices and a mini -storage facility
(A separate request for a PCD for
the mini -storage facility is to
be heard on this agenda.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to provide a
sidewalk on both sides of a commercial street for Rees Lane, and
provide a sidewalk on one side only.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat on a 8.54 acre tract in
order to develop an office and commercial subdivision to contain
5 lots. Lots range in size from around 1 acre to the 3.37 acre
lot at the rear of the subdivision A street to meet the minimum
standards for a commercial street is proposed, except the
applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to construct
a sidewalk along both sides of the commercial street and provide a
sidewalk along one side only. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will have frontage
on both Hinson Road and Hinson Loop; Rees Lane, the street to be
constructed, will provide secondary access to these three lots, as
well as provide access to Lots 4 and 5.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a preliminary plat for Hinson Office Park. The proposed
subdivision is to contain 5 lots, and access to the
subdivision is to be provided both off Hinson Road and by
way of a new cul-de-sac street which is proposed to be
constructed. Approval by the Board of Directors is
requested for a waiver from the requirement that standard
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1028
commercial streets are to have a sidewalk provided on both
sides of such streets, and permit Rees Lane, a 400 foot long
cul-de-sac street, to have a sidewalk along one side only.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped. The terrain has a fairly
steady rise from east to west. The high point of the tract
is at the southwest corner, which is 40 feet above the level
at the Hinson Road -Hinson Loop intersection.
The present zoning of the tract is 0-3. The surrounding
area has a mixture of zoning districts. To the east of the
tract, on the same side of Hinson Loop as the proposed
development, is a continuation of the 0-3 area, a small R-2
tract, and a PCD. Across Hinson Loop to the east is a PCD.
To the south is an MF -12 area. To the west, at the
southwest corner of the development, is a PRD, and directly
to the west is an 0-2 area. Across Hinson Road to the north
is an R-2 area.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that Master Street Plan improvements
and right-of-way dedication will be required on Hinson Loop.
There will be restrictions on curb -cuts and access to and
from Hinson Road. A detailed grading plan and detention
will be required. The developer must obtain a wetlands
delineation from the Corps of Engineers. The minimum
right-of-way for a cul-de-sac is 100 feet.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro -rata
front footage charge of $15.00 per foot applies for frontage
on Hinson Loop Road (329' x $15.00 = $4,935.00). A water
main extension will be required, and fire hydrant locations
must be approved by the Fire Department.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-282) requires that
commercial streets have sidewalks constructed on both sides
of the streets. Since the proposed cul-de-sac street abuts
the boundary of the subdivision, and, since it is the side
and rear of the lots which lie beyond the boundary of the
subdivision, a waiver of this requirement is sought.
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • E (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1028
The Zoning Regulations (Section 36-281) requires a minimum
lot size in the 0-3 zoning district of 14,000 square feet.
The proposed lots exceed this minimum requirement.
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed subdivision meets all Ordinance requirements in
its design, and the plans which have been submitted are
substantially complete. There are only minor deficiencies
remaining to be addressed. The request for the waiver of
the sidewalk on the south/east side of Rees Lane is in
keeping with waivers which have been granted previously.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and
recommends approval of the requested wavier for the sidewalk
to be omitted on the south and east boundary of Rees Lane.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project
engineer, were present. Staff indicated that the original
submission involved a POD encompassing the entire site, but that
subsequent discussions with the applicant had led to a decision to
amend the application to request a preliminary plat for the entire
site and a PCD for just the rear portion of the site shown as Lot
5. This, the applicant felt, would give him the flexibility he
needed to adequately market the site for development without the
restrictions imposed by a Planned Unit Development. The documents
needed to complete an amendment to the application were discussed.
Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would furnish the needed plans.
The Committee forwarded the amended request to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred
until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was
included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant, Mr. John Rees, had submitted a
letter, dated June 28, 1994, in which a request for a 30 -day
KI
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1028
deferral of the hearing of this issue was relayed. The requested
deferral, staff indicated, would bring the issue back before the
Planning Commission at its July 26, 1994 hearing. Staff asked
that the request for deferral be placed on the Consent Agenda for
deferral.
Chairperson Chachere reported that there were a number of persons
in attendance at the Commission meeting who had submitted
registration cards and had indicated that they objected to the
applicant's proposed development.
Commissioner Oleson recalled that the applicant had asked for a
deferral previously, and asked for an explanation of the reason
for the second request for a deferral.
Staff indicated that the applicant, Mr. Rees, had, at the
June 14, 1994 Commission meeting, asked for a 2 -week deferral,
and that, during that 2 -week period, had attempted to set a
meeting with Mr. Jim Lawson, the then Director of Neighborhoods
and Planning, to discuss staff's recommendation of denial of the
application and to seek input for any suggested changes. Due to
Mr. Lawson's transition to the position of Acting Assistant City
Manager, Mr. Lawson had been unable to meet with Mr. Rees, and,
after the announcement was made of Mr. Lawson's new position,
Mr. Rees was told to discuss his application with Mr. Tim Polk,
the new Acting Neighborhoods and Planning Director. This
discussion was held on Monday, June 27, 1994, and a neighborhood
meeting with concerned neighborhood residents had been held
Monday evening. Mr. Rees, staff reported, had requested the
second deferral in order for him to consider available options in
response to staff and the neighborhood opposition, and to
redesign the site. Mr. Rees concurred in the explanation.
Chairperson Chachere, addressing those who opposed the
application, asked if they were in opposition to the requested
deferral. The response from the crowd was that they were,
indeed, opposed to the deferral, so Ms. Chachere indicated that
the item would remain on the regular agenda.
Commissioner Willis asked if both items E and F needed to be
deferred, since the preliminary plat issue could stand separately
from the PCD issue, and indicated that he felt comfortable in
going ahead and voting on the preliminary plat issue. He asked
Mr. Rees if that met with his approval.
Mr. Rees responded that he would amend his request to delete the
request for deferral of the preliminary plat issue, and asked
that item E, the preliminary plat issue, be heard and voted on.
Chairperson Chachere, again addressing those who had registered
as opponents of items E and F, asked if they opposed the
preliminary plat issues, or were in opposition only to the PCD
4
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • E (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1028
issue. The group responded that they were in opposition only to
the PCD issue. Ms. Chachere announced, then, that both items
would be on the regular agenda, that those in opposition would be
permitted to present their position, but that Mr. Rees would be
allowed to make whatever presentation and request he deemed
appropriate at that time.
Mr. Rees outlined his preliminary plat request, indicating the
scope of the area encompassed by the proposed preliminary plat,
and stating that the entire area is currently coned 0-3.
Staff recalled that the applicant had requested one variance from
the Subdivision Regulations: in lieu of construction of a
sidewalk on both sides of the commercial street, as required in
the Regulations, a waiver was requested to permit the
construction of a sidewalk on one side only.
Commissioner Oleson asked staff to outline the legal ramification
of approval of the preliminary plat.
Staff stated that the area of the preliminary plat encompassed
the entire 8.54 acre tract, and was an independent issue from the
PCD request; that the preliminary plat was the process whereby
the tract would be platted into lots, and one of the lots which
was to be created was being requested to be designated as the
area for the PCD. Staff reported that the current zoning of the
entire tract is 0-3, and that this zoning would not change; that
the uses permitted in the 0-3 district could be implemented on
the site once the lots were platted.
Mr. Joe Grossclose, who identified himself as an owner of one of
the condominiums to the south of the proposed development, stated
that he objected to the proposed use, but was suspicions that
proceeding with the preliminary plat issue was a "seduction", a
first step in getting the PCD approved.
Commissioner Woods assured the objectors that all that was
occurring was the approval of a preliminary plat, and that the
discussion of the issues involving a change in use were
completely separate.
Chairperson Chachere then asked each of the individuals who had
completed registration cards and who had noted their objection to
items E and F to confirm that they had no objection to the
preliminary plat issue; that their objection was to the change in
use to PCD. Each of the persons, in turn, as their names were
called, confirmed this clarification.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat
and to recommend approval of the requested waiver. The motion
carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
1 abstention.
9
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z -3699 -
NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: Approximately 500 feet south of Hinson Road and
approximately 300 feet west of Hinson Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
JOHN REES
REES DEVELOPMENT
12115 Hinson Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72212
223-228
ENGINEER•
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
AREA: 3.57 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: O-3 PROPOSED USES: Mini -storage facility
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PCD in order to construct a mini -storage
facility on a "rear" lot in the proposed Hinson Office Park
subdivision. The preliminary plat, to be reviewed as another item
on the same agenda as the PCD item, proposes a 5 -lot subdivision
and a commercial street off Hinson Loop to provide access to the
lots. The proposed PCD occupies a 3.37 acre lot at the south end
of the cul-de-sac street. The proposed mini -storage facility
involves the construction of 7 buildings with a total square
footage of 58,050. The building coverage is 40% of the land area.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a PCD for a mini -storage facility in the Hinson Office
Park development is requested. The proposal involves the
construction of 7 buildings on a 3.37 acre lot. The
buildings are typically 305 feet long, with 4 of the
buildings being 30 feet wide, and the 2 remaining 305 foot
long buildings being 25 feet wide. One additional building
is to be a 40 foot wide by 155 foot long.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography rises
from a low point along the east property line to a high
point at the southwest corner of the tract; the rise in
elevation is over 40 feet in 500 feet.
The present zoning of the site is 0-3, with the remainder of
the 0-3 district lying to the north and northeast. To the
east is a small R-2 area and a small PCD. To the south is
an MF -12 district. To the west is a PRD, along the southern
portion of the west property line, and an 0-2 area, along
the northern portion of the west property line.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main
extension and fire hydrants will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review reports that the a 6' high opaque screen,
either a "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings,
will be required adjacent to residential properties to the
south, east, and west. Ordinance requirements for perimeter
buffering and interior landscaping must be met. The 20 and
25 foot perimeter buffers indicates are in substantial
conformance with the buffer requirements.
Planning review reports that the site is in the Rodney
Parham District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends
office uses for the northern one-third of the site and
multi -family for the southern two-thirds. A mini -storage
facility, then, is in conflict with the Plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Issues pertaining to a potential office or residence use on
the site have not been addressed, nor have the issue of
lighting or signage. These need to be addressed.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
E. ANALYSIS•
A mini -storage use is C-4 or C-3, with conditional use
review, use in the Zoning Ordinance. The use, then, is
inappropriate in this setting and in this close proximity to
residential uses. The use is in conflict with the adopted
Land Use Plan which calls for office and multi -family uses
on the site.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project
engineer, were present. Staff reported that the original
submission had been a POD involving the area from Hinson Road
south to the mini -storage site, with a mixture of offices and the
mini -storage facility. The developer, in subsequent conversations
with staff, felt that he would not have adequate flexibility in
marketing the office portion of the development if he pursued the
Planned Unit Development route. He had, therefore, amended his
application to involve a preliminary plat for the entire site and
a PCD for the one rear Lot 5 portion of the site. Staff reviewed
with the applicant and his engineer the requirements for the new
plans which were needed. The Committee reviewed the plans which
had been submitted, then forwarded the item to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred
until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was
included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated
June 28, 1994, in which a request for a 30 -day deferral of the
hearing of this issue was relayed. The requested deferral, staff
indicated, would bring the issue back before the Planning
Commission at its July 26, 1994 hearing. Staff asked that the
request for deferral be placed on the Consent Agenda for
deferral.
3
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) IFILE NO.: Z -3699 -
Chairperson Chachere reported that there were a number of persons
in attendance at the Commission meeting who had submitted
registration cards and had indicated that they objected to the
applicant's proposed development.
Commissioner Oleson recalled that the applicant had asked for a
deferral previously, and asked for an explanation of the reason
for the second request for a deferral.
Staff indicated that the applicant, Mr. John Rees, had, at the
June 14, 1994 Commission meeting, asked for a 2 -week deferral,
and that, during that 2 -week period, had attempted to set a
meeting with the then Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
Mr. Jim Lawson, to discuss staff's recommendation of denial of
the application. Due to Mr. Lawson's transition to the position
of Acting Assistant City Manager, Mr. Lawson had been unable to
meet with Mr. Rees, and, after the announcement was made of
Mr. Lawson's new position, Mr. Rees was told to discuss his
application with Mr. Tim Polk, the current Acting Neighborhoods
and Planning Director. This discussion was held on Monday,
June 27, 1994, and a neighborhood meeting with concerned
neighborhood residents had been held Monday evening. Mr. Rees,
staff reported, had requested the second deferral in order for
him to consider available options in response to staff and the
neighborhood opposition, and to redesign the site. Mr. Rees
concurred with the staff explanation.
Chairperson Chachere, addressing those who opposed the
application, asked if they were in opposition to the requested
deferral. The response from the crowd was that they were,
indeed, opposed to the deferral, so Ms. Chachere indicated that
the item would remain on the regular agenda.
Staff outlined the PCD request, and reported that, because the
requested use was in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan for
the area, the staff recommendation was for denial.
Mr. Rees reiterated that he was requesting a deferral of the
issue; that he had decided, after meeting with staff and the
neighbors to the west, to modify the site plan, and needed time to
make the changes. He reported that he had asked the three
abutting neighbors to the west to a meeting the previous evening,
and that they had each attended. He reported that he had notified
the president of the property owners' association of the
condominiums to the south of the meeting, but that no one from the
condominiums had attended. Mr. Rees stated that the mini -storage
facility is needed in the area; that there are few if any
vacancies in the existing facilities in the area. He stated that
it is his desire to make whatever changes are feasible to
accommodate the affected neighbors. He pointed out that the homes
to the west were substantially higher in elevation than the PCD
4
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
site, that a substantial cut would be required in the PCD site at
the southwest corner of the site, and that the storage facility
would be hidden behind a retaining wall. The area immediately
abutting the west and south property lines would be left as an
undisturbed area, and this area is heavily wooded. Additionally,
evergreen shrubbery and landscape trees would be planted in the
area. He stated that the lighting would be low level, and would
be attached to the buildings; that the buildings would be
approximately 12 feet high, so the lighting fixtures would be the
same height. Access to the site would be limited, and the hours
of operation would be from 6:30 in the morning to 8:30 at night;
that there would be a resident manager who would monitor the site
and keep it picked up. Mr. Rees reminded the Commissioners and
the objectors that, with the current 0-3 zoning in place, he could
construct a 45 foot high office building with 50-60,000 square
feet of leasable area, with parking for 200 cars. Cars could be
in and out at all hours. If a tele -marketing organization leased
the building, there could be activity all night. People could
stand around outside smoking. Retaining the 0-3 zone, he said,
was not a panacea. He said that, with the natural and augmented
buffer, and with the change in grade, the neighbors would not be
affected by the mini -storage facility, in fact, most would not
even know it was there. He said that, with his own office just
50 yards away, he would be responsive to any problems brought to
his attention by the neighbors.
Chairperson Chachere asked for clarification on the number of
neighbors who would be affected.
Mr. Rees explained that there were 3 residences at the southwest
corner of the property, and that there was a condominium
development along the south property line.
Commissioner Ball asked for verification of the number of square
feet of mini -storage buildings proposed to be developed.
Mr. Rees responded that he proposed to construct 85,000 square
feet of buildings.
Commissioner Wyrick asked for clarification of the plans for
draining the site and of the status of the pond which is located
on the site.
Mr. Rees stated that the pond is man-made; that approval from the
Corps of Engineers would be required to make the needed changes
in the drainage, but that the approval is not anticipated to be a
problem.
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, explained that the
drainage would be from west to east. That the current drainage
from the Pleasant Valley Living Center site bordering the
proposed PCD site on the west would be intercepted and piped
5
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued)____.__ FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
underground to the existing drainage ditch on the east. He
explained that the plan to meet the Detention Ordinance
requirements is to place a large pipe system underground to
contain the stormwater, and to release it into the current ditch
at a slow rate. In fact, he said, the release of stormwater from
the proposed system would probably be slower than it is from the
current pond.
Ms. Laurie Amrine, who identified herself as one of the residents
in Rainwood Cove who would be directly affected by the proposed
development, expressed her strong opposition to the proposal, and
to the proposal to defer the hearing again. She confirmed that
she and the other two affected residents from Rainwood Cove had
attended Mr. Rees' meeting the previous evening, had reviewed the
site drawings he had presented, but had notified him that there
were no adjustments he could make in the plan which would make
the use palatable to them. She said that the neighbors were
unified in their opposition to the change in use to mini -storage.
She presented to the Commission petitions she said contained
136 signatures of neighbors in opposition to the development.
She presented a video showing the neighborhood, the site, and
other mini -storage units which, she said, would be what Mr. Rees'
development would look like, especially from above, which is the
view she and her neighbors would be subjected to.
Mr. Mike Callahan, who identified himself as an abutting property
owner to Mr. Rees' development, said that he and his wife
strongly oppose the change in use. He said that the development
had the potential for increasing traffic on their street; that
they would present an unappealing view from the rear of their
home, changing the view from the natural woods to unappealing
mini -storage buildings; and, that the change in use was out of
context for the area. He expressed opposition because, he said,
the lights from security lighting would be offensive. He said
that the proposed development would effect stormwater run-off
from the Rainwood Cove subdivision. He said that the proposed
development would adversely affect his and other Rainwood Cove
property owners' property values, and would destroy the quiet,
secluded setting they now enjoy.
Mr. Ray Hayes identified himself as living between Ms. Amerine
and Mr. Callahan, and expressed his objection to the rezoning and
to the deferral. He complained about the time and expense of
objectors having to take off work to attend the meetings, and
stated that the company he and his wife work for had lost
considerable income from their having to leave work to attend the
Commission hearings. He concurred in the previous objectors'
statements, and said that he opposed the change in use from
office to mini -storage units because, whereas offices are
generally closed when residents are home, the commercial use
would be open on weekends. He then added that an additional
C'1
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F ___(Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699 -
concern was the potential for an increase in crime due to the
storage units being located behind the homes. He was concerned
that, if someone who is trying to break in to a unit is
confronted, that person's escape route will be through his and
other abutting property.
Mr. Joe Grossclose identified himself as an owner of a
condominium in the Pleasantwood condominium development to the
south; that he and his wife own a 2 -story unit which would be the
closest residence to the proposed development. He said that he
objected to the development because mini -storage units are
generally built cheaply, and he and his wife would have to look
at an unappealing development. He reiterated the concerns
contained in his letter sent to the Commissioners, and said that
he had personal knowledge of the concerns expressed in the
letter, except for the chopped -up body parts which he had only
read about in the newspaper. He said that he and the other
condominium owners had bought their homes trusting that the
abutting property would be developed with 0-3 uses; that an
abrupt change, such as is being proposed, is not in keeping with
good planning practice; and, that the Commission must be
convinced by Mr. Rees that a mini -storage development is both
needed and that the proposed site is the only site in the area
which is available for such a development. He expressed
objection because of the way typical mini -storage facilities
look; because they typically do not have sanitary facilities and
users are know to use the toilet outside. He said the proposed
use is a "bad idea".
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Grossclose if he had reviewed the
proposed plan showing a solid face of the mini -storage building
facing south towards the condominiums.
Mr. Grossclose responded that looking down on a "sea of metal
roofs" is not acceptable, and that the landscape buffer would not
be effective. He stated that there was nothing the developer
could do which would make the plan acceptable to him or to the
others.
Mr. Bury Rotenberry identified himself as a resident of the
Rainwood Cove subdivision, and said that he "echoed" his
neighbors' objections to the proposed development. He complained
that he had not been notified of the meeting which Mr. Rees had
held with the Rainwood Cove residents.
Mr. Michael Fussell identified himself as a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums, and stated that his home is as close,
if not closer, to the proposed development as Mr. Grossclose's,
and his view from his front door would be changed dramatically.
He said that he, too, objected to the proposed development, and
"echoed" the previous comments. He said that he and his
neighbors enjoy the wooded surroundings with the birds and
7
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
squirrels, that the development would affect their enjoyment of
their homes, and that it would affect their property values.
Whatever change is made in the plan would not affect his attitude
towards the development. He, too, said that he had not been
notified of the meeting Mr. Rees had held with the Rainwood Cove
residents.
Ms. Patsy Ball said that she had been a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums since last year, and that she had been
told by the real estate salesperson that the abutting property
was zoned for quiet office. She objected to any change in
zoning, and to the proposed use. She said that she had not been
notified of the meeting which Mr. Rees had held, and that she
could have attended if an attempt had been made to contact her.
Ms. Christine Donaldson identified herself as a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums, and said that, from personal
experience, resident managers of mini -storage facilities do not
patrol and keep noise from occurring. She said she would look
out from her second story home onto the mini -storage buildings,
and that this would not be a pleasant view.
Ms. Lee Fortson identified herself as a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums, and said that she wanted to reiterate
her objections expressed in her letter to the Commission. She
said that she rents a mini -storage unit on Green Mountain Drive;
that her unit, even though there is a resident manager on that
site, was broken into recently; that, she believes, such
facilities promote break-ins; and, that such facilities no not
belong next to residential areas.
Mr. Garry Koettel identified himself as a resident of Rainwood
Cove. He said that he knew that, whatever Mr. Rees might do with
the property, the woods would be affected. He said that his
concern was that future owners would not maintain the buffers as
promised by Mr. Rees. He said that his primary concern, though,
is the devaluation in the value of his and other homes in the
area; that buyers do not buy homes which are adjacent to
incompatible uses.
Ms. Kathy Vining identified herself as a resident of Rainwood
Cove. She said that her concern was for the devaluation of homes
in the Rainwood Cove subdivision by the continued bordering of
the subdivision with commercial uses. She objected to the
proposed mini -storage use.
Mr. W. J. Walker identified himself as president of the
Pleasantwood Property Owners' Association, and said that
developers "promise the moon" to get their rezonings, then do not
take care of the property after the fact. He said that the
Property Owners' Association objects to the proposed development.
0
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
Mr. Rees responded that he realized, after listening to the
objections, that he was not going to be able to present a plan
that would be acceptable to the neighbors, but that he wanted to
proceed with development of a plan which would try to mitigate
the effects on the neighbors. He said that he would develop a
"nice, quiet, well -kept" facility. He pointed out that he had
notified Mr. W. J. Walker, president of the condominium owners'
association, of the meeting held with neighbors, and felt that it
was Mr. Walker's responsibility to notify members of the
Association. He offered to change the location of the fence to
provide the landscaping on the outside of the fence abutting the
neighbors' property, if that would help the neighbors' acceptance
of the development.
Ms. Cheri Hayes identified herself as a property owner of
Rainwood Cove which abuts the proposed development. She said
that her home is a tri -level home, and that her deck would look
out over the proposed development. The view, she said, would not
be attractive. She said that she supported what the other
objectors had said.
Chairperson Chachere stated that the objectors' comments are part
of the record. She then asked Mr. Rees if he is still interested
in having his request for a deferral considered, or was he
interested in having the amended plan voted on.
Mr. Rees said that, from the comments made by the objectors,
there is probably nothing he could do, even if he "gold-plated"
the development, that would change the neighbors' minds. He said
that the Commission might as well vote on the request.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rees if staff had made any
suggestions of changes which he might consider making;
specifically, Mr. Walker asked if Mr. Rees could consider
increasing the buffer widths substantially and having the blank
face of buildings, not only on the south, but also on the west
perimeter, face outward.
Mr. Rees responded that these types of changes were the type he
had considered making during the time before the next Commission
meeting.
Commissioner Walker asked if the blank perimeter walls would be
effective buffers, given the topography.
Mr. McGetrick responded that from the upper levels of home to the
west, the views would probably not be restricted by the buffers;
that from the upper levels, the residents would look out over the
top of the facility.
0
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699 -
Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
related that staff had discussed with Mr. Rees the various
options regarding the increased buffer and turning the buildings
so that there are no openings to the outside, but related that
any such changes would not affect the staff recommendation of
denial, since the issues is one of conflict with the Land Use
Plan.
Staff cautioned the Commission about voting on a plan that was so
incomplete. Staff pointed out that only ideas for changes had
been discussed to date, and that there was no plan that could be
considered for approval.
Mr. Rees then indicated that he wanted to seek the deferral to
the July 26, 1994 hearing.
Commissioner Walker cautioned Mr. Rees that his concern is for
the effects on the neighbors, and that Mr. Rees must be
successful in disguising the facility so that the neighbors are
not affected by it.
Ms. Cynthia Brown, a resident of Rainwood Cove, said that,
because of the topography, Mr. Rees is not going to be able to
disguise the facility; that the homes in Rainwood Cove are so
much higher in elevation than the Mr. Rees' site, that the
mini -storage units are going to be visible. She objected to the
proposed re-zoining and to the deferral.
A motion was made and seconded to grant the request for the
deferral to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The
motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
10
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -3168-D
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Hall -Phillips Trust and Systems
Management Development Company
David E. Simmons
Mara Lynn Road
(West of Bowman)
Rezone from MF -12 to MF -18
Multifamily
18 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Multifamily, zoned MF -18
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Commercial, zoned C-3
West - Vacant, zoned MF -12
STAFF ANALYSIS
In late 1993, a PCD (Woodcreek) was reviewed and received
preliminary approval from the City. The PCD extended from
Mara Lynn to West Markham, approximately 42 acres, and
included the 18 acres under consideration. Because of a
number of different factors, the Woodcreek PCD will never be
developed and the site plan did not receive final plan
approval. Therefore, the zoning that was in place prior to
the PCD application, R-2, MF -12 and C-2, remains on the map.
Until the final site plan is signed by the staff, the
reclassification ordinance is not inforce and the zoning on
the official map does not change. The new request is to
rezone the MF -12 area to MF -18. (The R-2 and C-2 lands will
remain as they are.)
Zoning in the general area is R-2, MF -12, MF -18, C-3, PRD,
PCD and OS. Directly to the north, there is a large area of
MF -18 and to the east (off the zoning sketch) there is a MF -
24 development. The existing MF -18 is found on both sides
of Napa Valley Road/Mara Lynn. Land use is very similar to
the zoning and includes single family, multifamily and
commercial. The residential areas are situated along Napa
Valley and Mara Lynn; the commercial developments are
primarily located along West Markham and Bowman.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • 1 Z -3168-D (Cont.)
Increasing the density from 12 units per acre to 18 units is
appropriate, and staff supports the proposed MF -18
reclassification. The MF -18 is compatible with the existing
zoning pattern and not out -of -character with the
neighborhood. The rezoning should not create any problems
for the surrounding properties. Another plan amendment will
be required because the plan was changed from multifamily to
commercial for the PCD.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Chenal District. The Plan
recommends Community Shopping. However, the plan was
amended to Community Shopping from Multifamily to allow for
a large commercial development. Since it appears this
development will not occur, it is reasonable to return the
plan to multifamily use.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Mara Lynn.
The right-of-way standard is 45 feet from the
centerline.
2. Dedication of the established floodway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the MF -18 and OS for the
floodway area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda. (Staff reported that
the applicant had amended the request, in writing, to rezone
the floodway to OS.)
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the MF -18 and OS. The vote was
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (R. Ball).
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -5472-C
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Turner Harris & Mrs. W. R. Camp
Frank Riggins
Hinson Road and Rodney Parham
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Of f ice
4.1 acres
Vacant and Single -Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family, zoned R-2
South - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2,
R-5 and 0-3
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Single -Family and Golf Course, zoned R-2 and R-4
STAFF ANALYSIS
The northwest corner of Hinson and Rodney Parham is zoned
R-2, and the request is to rezone the four acres to 0-3 for
future office development. No specific plan has been
submitted and none is required for an 0-3 reclassification.
The acreage is split between two different owners and only
the eastern half is occupied by a single family residence.
Also, there are accessory structures on the residential part
of the site. In addition to the Hinson and Rodney Parham
frontages, the property also fronts on three other streets,
Wendy, valley Club and Buff.
There is some zoning history on all or a portion of the
property. In 1991 a C-3 application was filed the east half
of the site. During the Planning Commission hearing, the
application was amended to 0-2 and C-2, which was denied by
the Commission. The Commission's action was not appealed to
the Board of Directors. Two PCD requests were then filed in
1994. The first PCD was for all four acres and it was
withdrawn. The second one (the walgreen's PCD) was
recommended for approval by the Commission and denied by the
Board of Directors. There has always been neighborhood
opposition to any nonresidential rezoning proposal for the
location.
Zoning in the area is R-2, R-4, R-5, MF -12, MF -24, 0-3, C-2,
C-3, C-4 and PCD. in the immediate vicinity of the property
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • 2 Z -5472-C (Cont.)
in question the zoning is R-2, R-4, R-5, 0-3, C-2 and C-3,
with the nonresidential areas to the south and east. Land
use is just as diverse as the zoning and includes single
family, multifamily, office and commercial. The Pleasant
valley golf course is to the northeast and there is a small
cemetery on the south side of Rodney Parham.
The adopted land use plan, River Mountain, identifies the
site under consideration for office use. Therefore, an
office reclassification conforms to the plan's direction and
is appropriate for the location. Because of the existing
zoning and land use, an office rezoning is consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood. To ensure that the office
development will be compatible with the residential areas
and not create any problems, staff recommends 0-2 for the
property instead of the requested 0-3. 0-2 is a site plan
review and provides for additional review prior to a
building permit being issued, and should give the
neighborhood another level of protection.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the River Mountain District. The
Plan recommends Office; therefore, there is no land use
issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required for
the two major streets:
. 15 feet for Rodney Parham
• 5 feet for Hinson
Both streets are classified as minor arterials, and the
standard is 45 feet from the centerline.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of 0-2, and not the requested 0-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The rezoning request was represented by David Jones. There
were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Jones addressed the
Commission and described the site as a 4 acre tract with two
owners. He then discussed the Walgreen's PCD, which was
K
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -5472-C (Cont.
denied by the Board of Directors. At this point, Mr. Jones
played a tape of the April 19, 1994 Board of Directors
meeting, the Walgreen's PCD hearing. Mr. Jones showed
various individuals speaking in support of office use and to
stay with the adopted plan. Mr. Jones said the 0-3 request
was filed after the PCD was denied. He then discussed the
height requirements for 0-2 and Mr. Jones said he wanted the
0-3 and agreed to 0-2 area and bulk requirements for any
development on the site. He then reminded the Commission
that the request conforms to the plan and concurred with
restricting access to Wendy and Buff but not to Valley Club.
Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
commented on the staff recommendation and the reasons for
the two story height limit. He said area is made-up of one
and story building and 0-2 provides for site plan review.
Richard Zemann objected to the office rezoning and said the
residents have decided that coming to the Planning
Commission was a waste of time. Mr. Zemann said that the
two owners had been approached about selling the property
for residential uses. He then posed some legal questions.
Mr. Zemann said the land use plan was flawed and asked the
Commission to reject the 0-3 rezoning.
Mary Zemann distributed some materials and said the request
should be denied.
Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, responded to several
legal questions.
Margaret Cornett, a 20 year resident of Pleasant Valley,
said the site should be residential and discussed the
existing development in the area. Ms. Cornett concluded by
saying there was no need to rezone the property.
John Cullum discussed the existing plan and history of the
property. Mr. Cullum then read a statement into the record.
Mr. Cullum said that there needs to site plan review or a
PUD for any proposed development.
David Jones spoke again and agreed to some of the
restrictions. Mr. Jones said that office use has been on
the plan for many years and the residents indicated that
they wanted the plan maintained.
At this point, staff read a statement from Ruth Bell, of the
League of Women Voters.
David Jones then said that he has some problems with site
plan review and restricting access to Valley Club.
Mr. Jones finally agreed to an access restriction on Wendy,
Buff and Valley Club.
3
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • 2 Z -5472-C (Cont.)
There was a lengthy discussion about various issues and
comments were made by Stephen Giles and Tim Polk. David
Jones spoke and amended the request to include the various
conditions.
Additional comments were offered by Margaret Cornett and
Richard Zemann.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-3 rezoning
with 0-2 area and bulk requirements and restricting access
to Wendy, Buff and Valley Club. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 1 nay and 3 absent.
4
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z -5758-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
The Pride Family
Jim Hathaway
Kanis Road and Pride Valley
Rezone from R-2 to MF -18
and O-3
Multifamily and Office
12.6 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant and Nonresidential, zoned R-2 and 0-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned 0-2
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is located at the northwest corner
of Kanis and Pride Valley, and the request is to rezone 12.6
acres from R-2 to MF -18 and 0-3. The proposal is to
reclassify three acres to 0-3 and the balance, 9.6 acres, to
MF -18. No specific plans or a development concept have been
submitted at this time. The entire site is vacant and
heavily wooded. This area is outside the city limits but
within the city's zoning jurisdiction.
In November of 1993, a C-3 request was filed for the west
five acres of the property. At that time, the proposed use
was mini -storage units. There was strong neighborhood
opposition, and the Commission voted to deny the C-3
reclassification. The denial action was never appealed to
the Board of Directors. Staff did not support the
commercial rezoning.
Zoning in the area is R-2, 0-2, C-2 and PCD. The C-2 is
located on the north side of the Chenal Parkway and the PCD
is at the corner of Kanis and the Parkway. The office
zoning, 0-2, is found on the east and north sides of Kanis,
directly across from the property under consideration. Land
use includes single family, offices for a construction
company, commercial and Baker Elementary school.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO 3 Z -5758-A (Cont.)
The Ellis Mountain District Plan shows the 12 acres for low
density multifamily (LMF) which is a density of 10 to 12
units per acre. Both sides of Kanis are identified for LMF
and the plan does not recognize the existing 0-2. Also, the
adopted plan does not show any office areas in the general
vicinity. Both the MF -18 and OS are in conflict with the
adopted plan. It is staff's position that circumstances
have not changed to justify a shift in the direction of the
plan and the recommended land use should reinforced by
denying the MF -18 and 0-3. The land use element for this
area has been reviewed several times and the city has always
determined that LMF is the most appropriate land use
designation for the location. The proposed rezonings could
also have an undesirable impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily (LMF). The request
is in conflict with the Plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the MF -18 and 0-3 rezonings.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were 8 to
10 objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke and said he
was representing the Pride Family. Mr. Hathaway then
discussed the land use plan and the recommended use, low
density multifamily. He then reviewed the rezoning request,
3 acres to 0-3 and MF -18 for 9.6 acres, and said that there
were no specific plans for the property or a pending sale.
After some additional comments, Mr. Hathaway amended the
application to 0-2 for the 3 acres and the MF -18 to MF -12.
He went on to describe the area and presented a graphic
showing the existing zoning. Mr. Hathaway reminded the
Commission that 0-2 was a site plan review district.
Robert Jenkins, a resident in the Woodcreek Subdivision,
spoke against the rezoning and said he was very concerned
with the proposed multifamily development.
E
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • 3 Z -5758-A (Cont.)
Randy Cooper, 16,325 Pride Valley, said he was opposed to
the rezoning and discussed the surrounding area.
Lori Ritchie, 701 Cape, told the Commission that everyone in
the area was opposed to multifamily. Ms. Ritchie said the
residents were concerned with additional traffic and an
increase in the crime rate. Ms. Ritchie then repeated her
statement about the neighborhood being opposed to the
proposed rezoning.
Jennipher Boone, a resident on Pride Valley, spoke and
questioned how an application could be filed less than one
year after a denial of another request.
Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, responded and said
the current request was substantially different from the
previous one.
Jennipher Boone continued her presentation and said the area
is a quiet, rural neighborhood. Ms. Boone went on to say
that the proposed rezoning would decrease the quality of
life and increase traffic flow. She described the area as a
true neighborhood and said the request would decrease
property values. Ms. Boone concluded by saying the proposal
was totally unacceptable to the neighborhood.
Bill Kelly, a resident on Pride Valley, asked the Commission
to deny the proposed rezoning.
Ray Robbins, property owner directly to the west, objected
to the multifamily rezoning and said the entire neighborhood
has problems with the request. Mr. Robbins spoke against
the rezoning and asked the Commission to reject the request.
He then discussed a drainage problem on his property.
Mr. Robbins said that he was not as concerned with the
office rezoning as with the multifamily.
Bill Worthen, a property owner in the area, said that he was
opposed to the proposed rezoning.
Jim Hathaway spoke again and made comments on the Master
Street Plan. Mr. Hathaway said the area was going to change
because of the west 36th bypass. Mr. Hathaway then
discussed the area and asked for a vote on the amended
request to MF -12 and 0-2.
Robert Jenkins presented letters from several residents
opposing the rezoning.
Ray Robbins repeated his statements about the drainage
problems.
3
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z -5758-A (Cont.)
Comments were offered about various issues, including the
possibility of deferring the matter.
Jim Hathaway did not object to a deferral. He also said
that he saw no problems with 0-2 for the entire site.
A motion was made to defer the item to the July 26, 1994.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays, 5 absent and 1 abstention
(B. Walker). The item was deferred because the motion
failed to receive 6 votes.
4
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5842
Owner: Wayne Hamilton
Applicant: Robert McFarlane
Location: 8324 Stagecoach Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Purpose: Auto Repair Garage
Size: 2.1 acres
Existing Use: Auto Repair Garage
(nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned R-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Mixed, zoned R-2
West - Single -Family and Church, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
8324 Stagecoach Road is zoned R-2, and the request is to
rezone the property to C-4. The site is currently occupied
by an auto repair garage, a nonconforming use, and the
proposed use is the same. A reclassification is being asked
to remove the nonconforming status and to allow, in the
future, a new use and construction of an additional
building. The property is situated on the north side of
Stagecoach and just east of Crystal Valley Road. At this
time, there are a total of four structures on the two acres.
Zoning in the area is R-2, C-2, C-3, C-4, I-2 and OS. The
site in question is surrounded by R-2 properties. Along
this portion of Stagecoach, the nonresidential zoning is
C-2, C-3, and I-2. To the east, at the I-430/Stagecoach
interchange, there is a C-4 parcel. Land use includes
single family, churches, commercial, auto sales and
industrial. The single family residences are found on
unplatted tracts and within a developing subdivision located
along Crystal Valley Road. The auto sales use is situated
at the northwest corner of Stagecoach and Crystal Valley.
Throughout the area there are undeveloped tracts, especially
on the south side of Stagecoach.
The adopted plan for the area, Crystal Valley, shows both
sides of Stagecoach, between I-430 and Crystal Valley, for
commercial use. Therefore, a commercial reclassification of
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5842 (Cont.)
8324 conforms to the plan and is reasonable. Since
Stagecoach Road is classified as a principal arterial, C-4
is an acceptable option. The zoning ordinance states that
appropriate locations for C-4 are along heavily traveled
major traffic arterials. Over the years, the zoning pattern
has been established, which includes C-2, C-3 and C-4. The
request before the Commission will not introduce a new
zoning element into the neighborhood, nor allow an
incompatible use.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Crystal Valley District. The
Plan recommends Commercial.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Stagecoach Road is a principal arterial and dedication of
additional right-of-way will be required. The Master Street
Plan standard is 55 feet from the centerline.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent to recommend approval of the C-4
rezoning.
9
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5844
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
The Pride Family
Jim Hathaway
Chenal Parkway (at Kanis Road)
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Office
1.69 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - vacant, zoned MF -18
South - Commercial, zoned PCD
East - vacant, zoned 0-3
West - Church, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is located on the north side of the
Chenal Parkway, just east of where Kanis intersects the
Parkway, and the request is to rezone the site from R-2 to
0-3. Staff is unaware of any immediate plans for the
property. The parcel has a width of 111 feet and an average
depth of 685 feet. There is an utility easement that cross
the northern end of the land. The site is vacant and
wooded.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, MF -18, 0-2, 0-3, C-2,
C-3 and PCD. The site under consideration abuts R-2, MF -18
and 0-3 zoning. A majority of the existing zoning on the
north side of the Chenal Parkway was accomplished through
the rezoning of the Shackleford Farms ownership. Land use
includes single family, a church, commercial, and the
offices for a construction company. Several of the uses in
the neighborhood are still nonconforming. At this time, a
significant percentage of the surrounding land is
undeveloped.
The proposed reclassification of this narrow tract is
compatible with the area and will not affect any of the
nearby properties. The 0-3 rezoning conforms to the adopted
land use plan and there are no outstanding issues.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5844 (Cont.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Chenal District. The Plan recommends
Office use, there is no plan issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the 0-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the 0-3 rezoning request. The vote
was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
i�
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5845
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Jack Larrison
Jack Larrison
Reservoir Road (1700 Block)
Rezone from R-2 to R-5
Multifamily
2.56 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Multifamily, zoned R-5
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Single -Family, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
This site is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to
rezone the acreage to R-5 for some type of multifamily
development. The property is situated on the east side of
Reservoir and across from where Northedge Drive intersects
Reservoir. The land has 265 feet of frontage on Reservoir
and a depth of approximately 500 feet. A large portion of
the site is in the floodplain and there is some floodway
involvement along the south property line.
Zoning in the area is primarily residential and includes
R-2, R-5 and MF -24. To the south, there is an 0-3 parcel,
however, it is part of a large multifamily development. The
property in question abuts R-2 and R-5 zoning. The existing
land use is single family, multifamily and a church. The
multifamily projects are located on both sides of Reservoir
and cover the spectrum of unit types.
Rezoning the site under consideration to R-5 appears to be
logical option for the location because of the established
zoning pattern and the existing land use. Basically, the
proposed reclassification, if granted, will just continue
the type of development that is situated directly to the
north. There is a creek on the south side of the property,
which should be a reasonable land use buffer between the
multifamily and a single family neighborhood to the south.
Should the commission endorse the R-5, a plan amendment will
be forwarded to the Board of Directors because the adopted
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO 6 Z-5845 Cont.)
land use element reflects the current R-2 zoning. (For this
size tract, the ordinance requires 1,200 square feet of land
area per dwelling unit.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the West Little Rock District. The Plan
recommends Single Family. To the north is multifamily use
and the Plan recommends Multifamily, and to the south is a
creek shown as Park/Open Space. It appears the plan, in
this location, was drawn to reflect the existing zoning
pattern. It would be appropriate to continue the
multifamily use pattern to the creek.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Reservoir
Road because the existing right-of-way is deficient.
2. Dedication of the established floodway.
3. There could be a possible plat issue and the matter
needs to be reviewed with the appropriate staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the R-5 and OS for the defined
floodway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 28, 1994)
The application was represented by Pat McGetrick. There
were three objectors in attendance. Mr. McGetrick spoke and
described the site and the surrounding area. Mr. McGetrick
indicated that the owner would dedicate the floodway and the
necessary right-of-way. Mr. McGetrick then discussed the
existing zoning and said a multifamily development was the
best use for the property.
Joseph Becker spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Becker
described the existing single family subdivisions and said the
site is directly across from the entrance into one of the
subdivisions. He said there are serious traffic problems in
the area because of the multifamily development. Mr. Becker
said the site needs to remain R-2 and should be used for a
city park. Mr. Becker then commented on the staff analysis
and expressed some concerns.
0
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5845 (Cont.
Herman Sanders, 11 Bradford Drive, said he was against the
R-5 rezoning and discussed the existing development.
Mr. Sanders said he was also concerned with safety problems
because of the school in the area.
Rebecca Sanders, 11 Bradford, said she has lived in the
neighborhood for 22 years and has seen a lot of changes.
Ms. Sanders said there are problems in the area and too many
apartments. Ms. Sanders expressed a concern with a decrease
in the property values and asked the Commission to reject
the R-5 rezoning.
Pat McGetrick addressed the traffic and said Reservoir was
planned to be widened in the future. Mr. McGetrick told the
commission that all the necessary ordinances would be
followed and the maximum number of units, 36 per acre, could
not be built on the site. Mr. McGetrick concluded by saying
that a R-5 development was the best use for the property.
Additional comments were offered by various individuals.
The question was called on the R-2 to R-5 request. The vote
was 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent to recommend approval of the
R-5 rezoning.
3
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5841
NAME:
LOCATION•
Stanley Accessory Dwelling -
Conditional Use Permit
325 Midland Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT: Caroline Stanley
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
expansion of the nonconforming
accessory dwelling located on
this R-3 zoned lot. The existing
structure contains 298 square feet
and a 180 square foot addition is
proposed.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located on the east side of Midland Avenue, one
lot south of Louise Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a predominantly single family
residential neighborhood. A few duplex and multifamily
properties are scattered throughout this end of the
Hillcrest community as well. A small area of C-3 zoning is
located two blocks south of the site, in the Stifft's
Station area of Markham and Kavanaugh Streets.
A visual inspection of the surrounding neighborhood showed
that several other properties also have accessory dwellings
in the form of garage apartments and freestanding dwellings
located off of alleys, including both properties on either
side of this site.
The accessory dwelling in question is a freestanding
dwelling located at the rear of the property. Parking and
access are taken from the alley. This accessory dwelling
has existed for many years and the proposed expansion will
not have a negative impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling require one
on-site parking space each. A two car driveway is located
at the rear of the property, taking access off of the alley.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5841
4. Screening and Buffers
No additional screening or buffers required in this type of
application.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the expansion of the nonconforming accessory dwelling
located on the rear portion of this R-3 zoned property. The
proposed addition will bring the total square footage of the
structure up to 478 square feet. This is within the maximum
permitted floor area of 700 square feet for accessory
dwellings. No variances are requested.
Access and parking are taken from the alley which runs
behind the property.
The accessory dwelling has existed for many years and is not
out of character with similar uses in the immediate
vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. The
Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant, Caroline Stanley, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved with a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5843
I► i `u I.+ii
George's Gas and Service Station -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 3101 West Markham Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: James Wade/George Jett, Jr.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for this
existing C-3 zoned structure and
property to be used as an auto
repair garage, service station and
car wash. A variance is requested
to allow for the construction of a
24 foot by 24 foot pump island
canopy with a reduced setback of
5 feet from the Johnson Street
property line.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located at the southwest corner of West Markham
and Johnson Streets, on the west end of the Stifft's Station
neighborhood commercial district.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Although this property is located in the predominantly
single family Hillcrest/Stifft's Station neighborhood, there
are other nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity.
This property forms the western anchor of a small commercial
area extending along West Markham Street from Vernon Street
to Johnson Street.
This site has a long established history of use as a service
station and auto repair garage. The property has recently
been vacant for a period of more than one year and has lost
its nonconforming status.
Many neighborhood residents, including the Capitol
View/Stifft's Station Neighborhood Association, have voiced
support for this proposal.
The proposed use of this property as a service station and
auto repair garage should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5843
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The existing 1,250 square foot facility requires 10 on-site
parking spaces. The site is paved nearly from property line
to property line and there is sufficient area for parking,
including stacking space at the pump islands.
4. Screening and Buffers
No building or parking lot expansion is proposed. All
improvements, save the one proposed pump island canopy, are
existing and no additional screening or buffers are
required.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
this existing C-3 zoned structure and property to be used as
an auto repair garage, service station and car wash. The
site has a long history of use as an auto repair garage and
service station but has fallen into disrepair since standing
vacant. The applicant has begun work to remodel and repair
the structure.
A service station, which allows basically only gas pumps, is
allowed by right in the C-3 zone. The auto repair garage
and car wash require a conditional use permit. There will
be no body shop.
All auto repair will take place within the garage bays. The
car wash aspect of the application comes from the
applicant's desire to occasionally handwash vehicles outside
in front of the building.
A 24 foot by 24 foot canopy is proposed for construction
over the pump island on the Johnson Street side of the
property. This canopy will have center supports at the pump
island and will have a setback from the Johnson Street
property line of 5 feet.
With the stipulation that no inoperable or wrecked vehicles
will be stored on the site, staff is supportive of the
request.
F
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5843
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval, subject to no inoperable or wrecked
vehicles being stored on the site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and
explained the proposed use of the property.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant, George Jett, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that there were no outstanding issues. A letter of support from
the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association was
forwarded to the Commission by staff.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved with a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
The approval included the requested variance to allow a 5 foot
setback for the new pump island canopy on the Johnson Street
side.
3
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.• 9 FILE NO.• Z-5846
NAME: Canaan Missionary Baptist Church
Parking Lot - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1700 Block of South Izard and South
State Streets
OWNER/APPLICANT: Canaan Missionary Baptist Church by
Clinton Sanders and Calvin Scribner
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for parking lot
expansion on R-4 zoned property for
Canaan Missionary Baptist Church
which is located at 1700 South
State Street.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church is located at 1700 South State Street, the
southwest corner of Wright Avenue Bypass and South State
Street. The proposed parking lots are located directly
south of the church and across State Street, to the east.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church has existed in this neighborhood for many years.
The current facility was constructed in 1968. The majority
of the adjacent neighborhood is zoned R-4 and contains
primarily single family and two-family residences. Other
nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity include Dunbar
School, Dunbar Community Complex, Rightsell School, two
other churches and a new bank.
Canaan Church has operated for many years with little or no
off-street parking. This proposal will allow for the
construction of approximately 100 parking spaces which will
get many of the members vehicles off of the streets. With
attention given to properly screening the parking lots from
the adjacent residential properties, the proposed parking
expansion should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The church has a sanctuary with a capacity of approximately
200 persons, requiring 50 on-site parking spaces under the
current zoning ordinance. There currently exist two small,
unpaved parking areas with a total capacity of approximately
23 vehicles.
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5846
This conditional use permit would allow those two lots to be
brought into compliance with city code and would allow for
the construction of three other parking lots. This would
give the church a total parking lot capacity of
approximately 100 vehicles.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape
is required. A 6 foot opaque screen
property lines where the parking lots
property.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
and Buffer Ordinances
is required along all
abut residential
The applicant proposes to construct three new parking lots
and to bring two substandard parking lots into compliance
with city code. The church currently has only 23 on-site
parking spaces and most of the members park on the streets
of the adjoining neighborhood. This proposal will go a long
way toward addressing that situation by creating a total of
approximately 100 off-street parking spaces. Staff is
supportive of the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 26, 1994)
The applicants were not present. Staff presented the item and
noted a couple of minor concerns in the design of the parking lot
on the east side of South State Street.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
2
June 28, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5846
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the
applicant had agreed to the required change in the parking lot
east of State Street in order to comply with ordinance standards.
Staff also informed the Commission that late notice from Arkansas
Power and Light indicated that a utility pole sits in the middle
of a proposed parking lot driveway. Arkansas Power and Light had
forwarded three options from which the applicant could choose in
order to resolve the issue. Staff recommended making compliance
with Arkansas Power and Light's requirements a condition of
approval.
Staff further informed the Commission that the 15 day notices
were sent four days late and that the applicant was requesting a
waiver of the Planning Commission bylaws. All other notice
requirements were met.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws. The motion passed with a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved as
recommended by staff with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
Lij
W
I-
O
z
O
O
0
z
z
J
CL
I
00
v
W
F-
0
W
-0
Qi
70
Q
0)
c
0
C)
.O
:.
U)
cod
z
W
U)
m
W
d
Z
Em
w
Q
I
1.
I
TT
-
Lo
h
0.
M'
UJ
`—_
=
J
w
W
=
}
w0
�cL�JOYmm�wcn
W
O
J
z
¢
o:
L11
CD
¢www
CL=c,r
O
Q
C/)
0OU<C
Y
z
OLu
0
�LLJ
Y
�
Mm
J
QU��ZO�0-�U)13:
•--�
J
�=
U
w
c-
F-
O
B
J
Q
W
-0
Qi
70
Q
0)
c
0
C)
.O
:.
U)
cod
z
W
U)
m
W
d
Z
Em
w
Q
Lo
h
0.
M'
w
>-
J
Z
W
LU
Z
Q
Z
CC
W
J
F-wowO-'�-��Z
¢
W
Q
QWwJ
w
w
LLj
Z
m�z
W
O
ccc:Zc-
C15-2
Up
-'w
W
J
¢
J
Q=
w
cC
z
J
CnU
:�iZOSw
cn�
W
-0
Qi
70
Q
0)
c
0
C)
.O
:.
U)
cod
z
W
U)
m
W
d
Z
Em
w
Q
June 28, 1994
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Date `C 7
eta Chairman