Loading...
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