Loading...
pc_05 17 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD MAY 17, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. Ii. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the April 5, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Chachere Kathleen Oleson John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Brad Walker Ron Woods B. J. Wyrick Emmett Willis (arrived after the roll call) Ramsay Ball City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA MAY 17, 1994 I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z-5805 11,820 Chicot Road R-2 to I-2 B. Z-5810 South Shackleford Road R-2 to I-2 C. The Washing well Short -form PCD (Z -5106-A) D. Enderlin Mini -storage Short -form PCD (Z -5550-A) E. Parker Cadillac Body Shop Short -form PCD (Z -3606-A) F. Walgreen s Site Plan Review - located at West 12th and Fair Park Blvd. (Z -2970-C) II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z -1730-B 201 West Roosevelt Road C-3 to C-4 2. Z -3121-B 5809 Asher Avenue C-3 to I-2 3. Z -4343-G 6500 Patrick Country Road R-2 and MF -12 to MF -18 4. Z-5826 1700, 1705 and 2007 Sanford Drive R-2 to R-5 5. Z-5827 Frazier Pike R-2 to I-2 6. Z-5828 Frazier Pike and Stout Street AF to R-2 III. OTHER MATTER 7. Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church C.U.P. - Located at 5100 Frazier Pike (Z -5828-A) 8. Word of Outreach Staff Housing C.U.P. - Located at 2517 Brown Street (Z-5829) Little Rock Planning Commission Agenda Items (Continued) May 17, 1994 9. Wal-Mart Revised Site Plan - Located at Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road (S -964-A) 10. Ibsen Imports Amended Short -form PCD - Located at 3021 Cantrell Road (Z -4973-B) May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: A 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. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: A 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.) N May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5810 Owner: Davis Investment Trust Applicant: Atley G. Davis Location: South Shackleford Road Request: Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Purpose: Industrial Size: 30.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2, I-1 and OS South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant and Industrial, zoned R-2 and I-1 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone a 30 acre site from R-2 to I-2. At this time, no specific use or user has been identified by the applicant. The property is situated on South Shackleford, about midway between Colonel Glenn Road and Stagecoach Road (Hwy. No. 5). The acreage has almost 1,000 feet of frontage on Shackleford and a depth of 1,315 feet. The property is vacant and wooded. Zoning in the general vicinity is either R-2 or I-1. There is also some OS zoning adjacent to several of the industrial tracts. The property in question abuts R-2 and I-1 zoning. Directly to the west, across South Shackleford, the zoning is also R-2 and I-1. Land use is single family, some minor industrial and the Waterworks/Waste water maintenance facility. A high percentage of the land is still undeveloped, including the area to the south and a large tract to the northwest. The current West 65th Street Plan does not show the 30 acres for industrial use; the land use plan identifies the site as part of a multi -family area. The plan reinforces the existing zoning and shows the industrial area stopping along the north property line and follows the zoning lines on the west side of Shackleford. At this time, staff's position is that adequate justification for an additional 30 acres of industrial zoning has not been provided and the land use plan should be maintained. Expanding the industrial zoning May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5810 (Cont.) could also have an adverse on the single family subdivision to the east and north. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the 65th Street West District. The plan recommends multifamily use. Staff cannot, at this time, recommend such a major change in the plan. If the Commission wishes Planning Staff will conduct a review of the larger area. Any such review should be allowed three to six months. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way standard for South Shackleford is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant, Atley Davis, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Davis discussed his request and described the area. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis said that he would be willing to consider I-1 and an OS buffer. Staff suggested a 100 foot OS area adjacent to the existing R-2 on the north and east sides. Mr. Davis then amended the request to I-1 and OS. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended application to I-1 with a 100 foot OS area on the north and east sides (only adjacent to R-2). The vote was 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The item was deferred to the May 17, 1994 meeting because the motion failed to receive a majority vote. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The rezoning request was represented by Jim Van Hook. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff reminded the Commission that the application was amended from I-2 to I-1 and OS at the April 5, 1994 hearing. E May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: B Z-5810 (Cont.) Jim Van Hook discussed the request and reviewed a handout. Mr. Van Hook said there is a real need for small lot industrial development and the rezoning would provide the needed land area. He then presented a PAGIS land use map and described the area. Mr. Van Hook also showed the 65th Street West plan and said the site is identified for multifamily use. He went on to say that multifamily development is unrealistic and a quality business park is the highest and best use of the property. Staff offered some comments and there was discussion about various issues. Jim Van Hook spoke again and reinforced his previous statements about the need for office -warehouse and service oriented sites. Mr. Van Hook made some additional comments and asked for the Commission's support. The question was called on the amended request to I-1 and OS (100 feet along a portion of the north side and the entire east boundary). The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the I-1 and OS. The vote was 8 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. 3 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -5106-A NAME: THE WASHING WELL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 0.4 miles west of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER: ASCOMB ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., ATTORNEY 1619 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 378-7720 AREA: 0.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to utilize an existing commercial building at the proposed location as a laundromat. The 0.3 acre site contains a 2800 square foot building, and the site is not currently being utilized. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and pave a parking area at the front of the building to provide 8 parking spaces. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD in order for the applicant to utilize an existing commercial building situated on a lot which is currently zoned R-2 for a laundromat. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and to provide paved parking at the front of the building to accommodate 8 vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing building is a vacant, deteriorated building located on a lot in the Pankey community. There are, as indicated on the survey, encroachments by neighboring buildings on the lots which the applicant plans to develop. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning exclusively on all other properties in the area. There is an illegal non -conforming use in the residential structure immediately to the west. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 will be required, as will construction of a sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage of the site. Water Works and Wastewater have no objections to the proposal. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide easement at the perimeter of the lot. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review indicates that an opaque 6 foot high screen is required to screen the proposed use from the residential property to the south, east, and west. This screen can be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. The landscape strip width west of the proposed parking lot must be increased to 6 feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submittal is seriously deficient: there was no project narrative submitted; the survey is inadequate; no landscape plan was submitted; no Bill of Assurance was furnished; etc. There has been no contact with the applicant since January when the file was "dropped off", with no personal meeting, and a telephone call a few weeks later to confirm that the file had been received. There has been no confirmation that the required notification, either by the placing of the sign or the mailing of certified letters, has taken place. At a previous Commission hearing, when an identical problem in the Pankey area surfaced regarding encroachments across property lines, it was determined that such encroachments are civil matters between property owners, and are not within the scope of concern of the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain Planning District. The Plan recommends single family uses for the Pankey area. There have been no changes to warrant an amendment to the plan to allow for commercial land uses in Pankey. 0 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A E. ANALYSIS• The proposed land use, according to the Land Use Plan, is inappropriate to the area. The submittal is deficient. There has been no verification that the required notification has been accomplished. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed with the Committee the comments made in the discussion outline and presented the request. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the review of the deficiencies noted and for action on the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and related that the notice requirements had been met by the applicant. Mr. Willard Proctor, an attorney representing the applicant, outlined the request, and explained that the current proposal is an identical one to a request made to the Commission approximately 2 years earlier. At that time, he said, the Commission had recommended approval of the request to the Board of Directors, but the Board of Directors had denied the rezoning request. Mr. Proctor related that during the 2 -year interim, he and the applicant's representative, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, had been working with the neighborhood to gain the neighborhood's approval of their proposal, and that he felt there is now a consensus of the neighborhood to allow the commercial use of the applicant's property for the Washing Well laundromat. Mr. Proctor continued, saying that fairly recently, the City had allowed a non-residential use of the property in the abutting property to the west: a neighborhood alert center. He complained that the applicant had been waiting and waiting for approval of the non-residential use of their property, but that others had come in and were getting approval for non-residential uses which are not that dissimilar to the type uses the applicant had been pursuing. Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant's building was designed and used as a commercial building from the beginning; that it was 3 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A never a residential structure; that it had originally been a nightclub until it was heavily damaged by a fire; that it was sitting vacant and was deteriorating, and was an eyesore to the neighborhood; that the building was a non -conforming building which had lost its legal non -conforming status due to it being vacant after the fire; that the applicant had put a new roof on the building a few years back in order to keep the building from deteriorating further; but, that the applicant wished to continue the repairs in order to enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood and put the building,to a commercial use. The required right-of-way will be dedicated, Mr. Proctor said, and the AP&L easement will be granted. The Landscape Ordinance requirements will be complied with. Mr. Proctor went on to say that the real issue is apparently the land use issue; that this issue has been the "sticky" point all along. He explained that there has always been one person who has said that she spoke "on behalf of the neighborhood" who has said that the neighborhood does not want the proposed use for the building. On the contrary, he said, when the applicant talks to people in the neighborhood, the applicant is told by the neighbors that they are in favor of the proposal; that, in fact, many say they would use the laundromat if it were allowed. There is not, he related, a laundromat anywhere in the neighborhood. Since the individual who had spoken in opposition to the non- residential use of the property is the same person who had gained approval of the neighborhood alert center next door, Mr. Proctor said that he could not see how she could still be in opposition to the applicant's proposed non-residential use of their property. Chairperson Chachere inquired of Mr. Proctor if the applicant is aware of the Donaghey Study for land uses in the Pankey area which is currently on-going, and, if so, if the proposed use complies with the Study's results? Mr. Proctor responded that the applicant is aware of the Study, and that according to the Study, the applicant's property is supposed to be a commercial use. Chairperson Chachere asked if the applicant had discussed the proposed use with the neighborhood association? Mr. Proctor explained that Mr. Bickerstaff had been in communication with various individual in the neighborhood. Mr. Tim Polk, Assistant Director, Neighborhoods and Planning, interjected that the Study calls for the area in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property to remain residential; that those involved in the preparation of the "Pankey Community Plan" have indicated that commercial uses should be located on the north side of Highway 10, and located further east towards the Kroger Center. Mr. Polk also explained that the abutting use which Mr. Proctor had cited as a "neighborhood alert center" is 4 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A not a City -operated alert center, but a support center operated for the neighborhood, and that the approval of its use had not entailed a rezoning, but a conditional use permit. The property had remained zoned R-2. Mr. Proctor reiterated that the existing structure is an eyesore, but that, because it is a commercial structure, nothing can be done with it without rezoning. The applicant has a substantial investment in the structure and needs to be allowed to use it. Mr. Bickerstaff pointed out that there are several similar non- conforming uses on the south side of Highway 10, but, in the applicant's case, the structure had lost its non -conforming status due to extensive fire damage and its subsequent vacancy. Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to what role Mr. Bickerstaff had in the proposal. Mr. Bickerstaff responded that the owner is ASCOMB Enterprises, Inc., and that he is related to one of the principles. Commissioner Willis asked for clarification of the proposed signage. Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant would comply with the regulations and would install a monument -type sign. Commissioner Nicholson related that the Pankey community has a long history, and that the City had made a commitment to keep the Pankey community residential; that until she heard from the community that the community is ready for a change, she would not support the rezoning. Mrs. Nicholson indicated to the applicant that perhaps a deferral of the request should be sought until the Donaghey Study is completed. Mr. Proctor indicated that, indeed, a deferral would be appropriate, and that he did request a deferral. Commissioner Walker warned that the applicant's property is only 150 feet deep; that by denying such applicants use of their property, the City is holding citizens hostage of a Plan for planning purposes. If the City Plan calls for the applicant's land to be a buffer to the residential property to the south, then the City needs to acquire the property. If the City is not allowing the property to be used by the applicant, then the City needs to start paying rent on the property, he said. Mr. Walker continued, saying that all other non -conforming uses in Pankey have been recognized by the Donaghey Study; that the applicant's property is the only one which is not being recognized due to its loss of its non -conforming status. The Study needs to address the situation regarding the applicant's property, since the building is a commercial structure. 5 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A Mr. Polk explained that the "plan" is the Pankey Community Plan, and that it is being formalized and should be completed in a matter of weeks. Chairperson Chachere asked if the Commission were ready to vote on a motion to defer the hearing until the next Subdivision agenda. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that the deferral of the item at the March 22, 1994 hearing to the May 3, 1994 hearing was based on the assumption that the Pankey Community Plan would be completed prior to the May 3 Commission meeting, and that the Plan would designate the commercial use area within Pankey which the community endorsed. Since this Plan has not been completed, staff reported that there had been communication with Mr. Willard Proctor, the applicant's representative in this request, regarding a further deferral of the item. Mr. Proctor, therefore, has asked the matter be deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission meeting. Approval of the deferral was included in the Consent Agenda, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, and the applicant's attorney, Mr. Willard Proctor, Jr., were present. Staff presented the item it indicated that the Pankey Neighborhood Plan was not, as for as staff know, ready with a recommendation the location of commercial node in the neighborhood. Mr. Ron Newman, of the Planning Staff, indicated that the neighborhood plan would be ready to provide the needed information by the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 1994. The Chair gave the opportunity to the applicant to defer the request to the May 31 meeting, and, after discussion involving commission member, Mr. Bickerstaff, and Mr. Proctor, Mr. Proctor agreed to the deferral. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item to the May 31, 1994 hearing, and was passed with this vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 0 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D FILE NOS.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 NAME: ENDERLIN MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -5550-A) AND ENDERLIN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT (5-1006) LOCATION: On the south side of Cooper Orbit Road, 1/4 mile west of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• AMOS ENDERLIN #5 Thad Lane Little Rock, AR 72207 227-4667 AREA: 10.65 ACRES ZONING: R-2 to PCD (R-2 to remain at area outside of PCD site) PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 ENGINEER• MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11,225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage at PCD & existing non- conforming use to remain at area out- side PCD site VARIANCES REOUESTED: Three year deferral from the requirements to construct Master Street Plan improvements for the boundary street. STAFF UPDATE• The PCD request was modified by the applicant at the final Planning Commission hearing to include the entire 10.65 acres and to delete the variance requests. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Of the 10.65 acres owned, he proposes to develop 5 acres for the mini -storage use and retain the remaining 5.65 acres for his contracting business equipment and materials storage use. Proposed is a PCD for the development of 6 mini -storage buildings ranging in size from 50 feet wide by 390 feet long, to 40 feet wide by 140 feet long. An existing residential structure located on the site is shown to be retained. The applicant states that he proposes a phased development, beginning with the larger buildings along the west property line, and, when these buildings are completed and leased, to proceed with phase two to involve the smaller buildings along the east side of the PCD site. He states that he May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 will dedicate the right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards, but that he wishes to defer the required improvements until the project enters phase two development, or for three years, whichever comes first. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to encompass the entire 10.65 acres, but proposes to final plat only the PCD site at the outset. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD for development as a mini -storage facility. Six buildings are proposed. Two are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 390 feet long with 15,600 square feet in each. One is proposed to be 50 feet wide by 390 feet long with 19,500 square feet in it. These three buildings encompass phase one of the development. Three buildings are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 140 feet long with 5,600 square feet in each. These encompass phase two. The total square footage of the six buildings is 67,500 square feet. It is proposed that the building closest to the west property line be set 110 feet east of that line forming a generous buffer from the residential property to the west. An existing residential structure is shown on the site plan as being retained. The applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way along Cooper Orbit Road to Master Street Plan requirements, but he has requested that the street improvements be deferred until he has competed and leased at least the first three of the six buildings, designated as phase one, or for three years, whichever comes first. The applicant has indicated in conversations with staff that he does not propose any other uses for the PCD than "mini -storage"; no office or residential use has been requested. The applicant requests deferral of the landscape buffer requirement along the PCD property line which abuts his own non -conforming industrial use property, and requests deferral of the buffer requirement along the west property line due to the dense timber and undergrowth along this line. The applicant requests a deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot for the first building until the completion of phase one development, allowing him to lease the first buildings prior to paving the lot. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to encompass the entire 10.65 acres. The area encompassing the PCD would be final platted at the outset; the remainder would remain in the preliminary plat status pending development at a later date, K May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The applicant's property is presently zoned R-2, but contains a legal non -conforming industrial use. (The use was existing when the area was annexed.) The applicant utilizes the property for his construction company offices, equipment storage and repair, materials and salvage storage, and leased space for similar uses. There are stacks of used brick and block on that portion of the tract which is proposed to be utilized for the mini -storage facility. There is a residence which was, from conversations with the applicant, moved onto the site, but which remains vacant. The site is wooded, but with most of the underbrush being removed. The topography ranges from the low point at the northeast corner of the property at an elevation of less than 442 feet, to a high point mid -way along the east property line of 502 feet, to elevations ranging from 470 to 490 along the west property line. There are residences on the hill overlooking the site across the street and above the site on the land to the west. A mobile home park is on the land catercorner to the northeast, with commercial property being at the corner of Cooper Orbit Road and Kanis Road. There is a distinctive change in topography to the north, west, and south-west of the site where the land becomes more hilly. The applicant's site is more closely identified with the flatter land along Kanis Road. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office indicates that the Ordinance will require construction of Master Street Plan improvements along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage of the site, involving dedication of right-of-way to the minor arterial standard of a total width of 90 feet, construction of one-half of a minor arterial roadway of a total width of 60 feet, and a sidewalk. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable in the development of the site. Engineering advises that the state should be contacted for the NPDES permit. Water Works reports that a pro -rata front footage charge will apply for water service to the site. The 20 foot easement shown is a water line easement, not a non-specified "utility" easement. Wastewater Utility indicates that the site is outside the service boundary of the Utility. ARKLA Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, will require easements. Q May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006 The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that the full buffer width requirement around the perimeter of the PCD site is 21 feet. The minimum requirement is 14 feet. The proposed 10 foot eastern buffer should be increased to minimum of 14 feet. Since the adjacent properties are zoned residential, a 6 foot high opaque "good neighbor" wooden fence or dense vegetation is required by the Ordinance for screening purposes. Trees and shrubs are required within areas designated for buffers. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The required project narrative outlining the applicant's request and describing the character and rationale behind the request does not furnish all needed information. There is a house which is shown remaining on the PCD site, but there is no indication as to the use which it will be put, nor has the application addressed alternative or accessory uses of the PCD. If an office or on-site residence is requested, this must be noted. This information needs to be presented. A landscape plan is required. Any signage proposed for the development must be designated. A preliminary Bill of Assurance must be submitted. If the non -conforming use area is to remain in the preliminary plat status, a phasing plan for the plat needs to be shown, The configuration of the two lots within the site do not conform to the lot depth to width ratio. The requirement needs to be addressed, or the applicant needs to address the rationale for the decision, or the Commission needs to review and confirm the proposed layout. The applicant has requested a waiver, or at least a deferral, of the application of the landscape buffer requirements to the PCD site. He has noted that a buffer is required along the PCD property line abutting his own property because that property is zoned R-2. In reality, the property is a non -conforming industrial use, the site is large and wooded, and it "does not make sense" to require a fence along this internal property line. He has also noted that, along the west property line, the existing woods and undergrowth form a natural buffer, and that he is proposing to place the edge of the new parking lot development 91 feet from the western property line. He therefore requests a waiver from the buffer requirements along this west line. The applicant request a deferral of the requirement to pave r May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006 the parking lot of the phase one development until that phase is completed. He proposes to provide a gravel drive area for tenant use while he is constructing the second and third buildings, and proposes to lease the first building during the construction of these buildings. The Planning staff reports that the proposed use is in conflict with the land use plan for this area and would be a major change in the plan. The proposed PCD is in the Ellis Mountain District, and the plan recommends the area for single-family development. The Planning staff admits, however, that the plan may need to be updated and the delineation between single-family and other transitional uses may need to be refined. At present, the delineation line lies along a small creek immediately to the east of the applicant's property. It may well be more appropriately located along the crest of the hill to the west. The applicant's property may be better designated as being in a "transitional" area. In any case, if the Commission approves the PCD request, then an amendment to the Land Use Plan will be required. E. ANALYSIS: The site, the applicant maintains, is not a good candidate for single-family development because of its topography; the proximity to the mobile home park and to Kanis Road; the lack of sewer and natural gas and the high cost of water service; and the lack of residential development in the area. The applicant feels that if he is to make use of the property in another way than his non -conforming industrial use, a mini -storage use should be an appropriate alternative. The mini -storage does not need the utility services. Other mini -storage facilities owned by the applicant, he reports, have very little traffic and close at sundown, so the use should not be objectionable to residential neighbors. Comments received from abutting and area landowners have ranged from objections to a feeling that a mini -storage facility would be an improvement to the construction equipment and materials storage that presently occupies the entire site. The site involves 10.65 acres, with divisions of 5 acres or greater. The Subdivision Ordinance allows subdivisions of land of 5 acres or greater without Planning Commission review. There is a concern about the configuration of the two "lots" and their not meeting the depth to width ratio. Each of these "lots", however, is 5 acres or greater. 5 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request due to the conflict with the adopted land use plan. If the commission approves the request, a land use study and plan amendment would be required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Amos Enderlin, and the engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. Staff presented the item and the concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Enderlin explained his position that the site is unsuited for residential development, that he had attempted unsuccessfully to get the property zoned I-2 last year, and that, if he were going to be able to make use of his property, he needed some other option than residential uses. He related that he felt that a mini - storage facility is an acceptable use which is compatible with the residential uses to the north and west, and with the mobile home park to the northeast with the commercial uses along Kanis Road to the east. Mr. Enderlin objected to the characterization of the site as a "dump site" for his demolition activities, but said that he does have salvage materials properly stored on the site. The concern about the configuration of the lots and their not meeting the lot depth to width ratio was brought up by staff. Mr. Enderlin responded that, because of the topography of the site and trying to develop that portion that would allow for proper siting of the buildings, he needed to divide the property as presented in the plans. Following the review and conversation, the Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had provided additional information to indicate: 1) that the existing residential structure located on the property is to be used for a resident managers apartment and office; 2) a request for a deferral of interior driveway paving until the completion of Phase I; 3) a request for a deferral of the landscaping requirements along the west property line and along the internal property line which abuts the applicant's property until the area is annexed to the City; 4) a request to the Board of Directors for a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement for a lot depth to width ratio not to exceed 3:1 to allow the "sawtooth" shaped lot to be approved; and 5) a request to the Board of Directors for a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements for construction May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006 of one-half of Cooper Orbit Road and construction of a sidewalk along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage for a period not to exceed three (3) years, or until the completion of Phase I construction. Staff reported that approval of the PCD would require a Land Use Plan amendment; that the current use of the site is for residential development, although the mobile home use cater- corner across the street to the northeast a non-residential use, and that the limits of non-residential uses lie along Mr. Enderlin's property's eastern property line. The Planning Staff had reported, staff related, that Mr. Enderlin's property and the property lying along Cooper Orbit Road for a distance further west could possibly be designated as a "transitional" zone use area. The appropriate use of the site was the important question needing discussion. Staff also reported that the owner of abutting property had contacted staff to report that he had not seen the required sign posted and had not gotten certified mail notification of the hearing. Staff reported that the sign had, indeed, been posted; that staff had witnessed the sign being in place thirty (30) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and on two (2) subsequent site visits. Staff confirmed that the certified list from the title company had not included the neighbor's name, consequently he had not been notified by mail, but that the applicant had met the requirements of the bylaws by getting a certified list from the title company and mailing the required letters by certified mail to those whose names appeared on the list. Evidence of the mailing has been furnished to staff. Chairperson Chachere called on the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Enderlin reported that he wished to construct a mini -storage facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Initially, he continued, he wanted to build the mini -storage units on about one-half of his property and leave the remaining one-half for his use for his demolition contracting business. He explained that the reason that the property was being divided into two "sawtooth" -shaped lots was due to the topography of the site; that the area designated for the mini -storage lends itself best to the development and forms a natural division between the proposed development and the area to remain in its current situation. Mr. Enderlin continued that he wished to start renting storage units as soon as he got the first building completed, but wished to delay paving the driveway until several buildings were built and Phase I was complete. Since there is, Mr. Enderlin explained, dense woods which lie along the west property line, and since the development anticipates leaving 91 feet from the west property line to the edge of the new development, it is felt that adding landscaping along this west property line is unnecessary; consequently, a deferral is N May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 requested. Since, Mr. Enderlin went on to say, the PCD site takes about one-half of his property, leaving an internal lot line which the Landscaping Regulations require to be landscaped, and Mr. Enderlin sees no point in providing this landscaping along his own abutting property, he asked for a deferral of this landscaping requirement. Since, Mr. Enderlin concluded, the Master Street Plan designates Cooper Orbit Road as a minor arterial roadway, adding pavement and curb and gutter to provide one-half of a 60 foot roadway for such a short section of Cooper Orbit Road, especially when the grades may change when the roadway is fully developed, seems unreasonable; consequently the deferral is requested. Chairperson Chachere then called on those who oppose the proposed development to present their position. Jo Jackson identified herself as President of the Board of the Oasis Renewal Center. The Oasis, she continued, is located across Cooper Orbit Road and about 500 feet further to the west. The Center is a Christian retreat, and the Center's Board is in opposition to the proposed mini -storage facility; the Board wants to keep the area quiet, rustic, country -like, and a place of beauty for people to be able to enjoy; they want people to be able to come to the Center's restaurant and enjoy the peaceful setting. Ms. Jackson reported that she had a letter from the Board which outlined their objection to the proposed development. Karen Owings identified herself as representing residents of the Spring Valley neighborhood which lies along Cooper Orbit Road further to the west from Mr. Enderlin's property. She reported that 50 residents representing 36 homes had signed a petition in opposition to the proposed development. She explained that the entire area is residential, with the exception of Lake Nixon on the south and Enderlin's property on the north; that approving the development would only add another non -conforming use to the area. She complained that Mr. Enderlin was wanting to waive every one of the requirements for landscaping, buffers, and road improvements. Jane Bristow identified herself as living directly across the street from Mr. Enderlin's property. She said that, in the past, Mr. Enderlin had sought to re -zone the property for a concrete batch plant, but that she has heard that he this was not what he really wanted to do with the site; that he had sought re -zoning, saying that he was going to do one thing and really planned to do another. Therefore, she wondered what Mr. Enderlin was really trying to do this time. She went on to say that she would not mind mini -storage buildings on the site; what is there now is devaluing the property; but, since he has never done anything to improve the area, she did not feel that he could be relied on to do what he says he will do this time. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 John Burnett identified himself as the owner of over 200 acres which lie beyond Cooper Orbit Road between the Oasis Center and Spring Valley. He complained that Cooper Orbit Road is the only access to 1000 acres of prime development land, and a mini - storage facility does not make a good entrance for the future development of the area. Mr. Enderlin responded that his mini -storage facility would create little traffic, in fact, much less than the Oasis creates. He said that he is developing a mini -storage facility on Maumelle Blvd., and that he proposes to make the facility on the proposed site look good; that it will be an improvement to what is there now, and that eventually he plans to phase out the construction yard use. Staff reported that Ms. Bristow's concerns about ulterior motives are unfounded, since the current development request is for a PCD. In the PCD, the uses, building layout, landscaping, buffers, etc. are set; that the development has to conform to the approved plan or it doesn't go in at all. Staff reiterated that there is 90 feet of separation between the west property line and the proposed development, and that the applicant had requested no waivers or deferrals of landscaping along the front of the property or the landscaping required in the interior of the development; that the only deferral was for the interior lot line along the applicant's own property and for adding buffer plantings to the woods along the west property line. Staff said that the land use was the most important issue which needed to be dealt with. Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification of the staff report that a transitional zone might be appropriate. Ron Newman of the Planing Staff reported that two years ago the staff had performed an extensive study of the area, and that a transition zone area might be appropriate along Cooper Orbit Road; that the Planning Staff needed to do further study on the immediate area and possibly update the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification about the sign which was to be posted on the site. Staff responded that the sign had been posted as required and was in place just days prior to the meeting; that dozens of area residents has seen the sign and had called in to ask about the proposal; and, that pieces of the sign were still nailed to the tree. Commissioner Walker asked if a landscape plan had been submitted. Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, responded that he had gotten a schematic landscaping plan. 0 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Commissioner Walker added that the Commission has, in the past, allowed mini -storage facilities in areas adjoining residential areas because such a use is incidental to the residential uses; that such uses are appropriate in an area such as the current proposal. Mr. Walker then asked the applicant if he is willing to do the extra things to make the project a high quality development? The deferrals and waivers are not, Mr. Walker concluded, in keeping with an attitude of making the development a high quality one. Mr. Enderlin responded that he planned to leave the trees at the perimeter and where he could in the interior of the development, and that he would plant trees to meet the buffer and landscaping requirements. He promised that the development would be a high quality one. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin if he would amend his application to furnish the needed schematic landscaping plan and the site plan with the required information on it, and amend his application to delete the waivers and deferrals. Mr. Enderlin responded that he would improve the plans and would amend his application. Commissioner Walker reiterated that Mr. Enderlin needed to make his development look as good as any, and asked Mr. Enderlin if he is willing to take the steps necessary to do this. Mr. Enderlin replied that he was willing to do what was needed. Commissioner McDaniel counseled Mr. Enderlin that the proposed development needed to encompass the entire 10 acres; that he was not willing to approve the 5 acre site and leave the remaining 5 acres in the present condition; that he was not willing to let him have it both ways. He continued that he was willing to let Mr. Enderlin try something which would improve the site, but that it would have to be a complete project involving the entire tract. Mr. Enderlin explained that he was anticipating on a long-range basis to convert the entire site to the mini -storage use, but that he had wanted to do it in stages. Commissioner McDaniel told Mr. Enderlin to phase the development, but to include the whole tract. Commissioner Nicholson recommended to Mr. Enderlin that he seek a deferral to allow him to amend his application and site plan. Commissioner Oleson asked the Planning Staff if they would be able to do the study for the Land Use issue in 60 days. 10 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Ron Newman indicated that the 60 days would be sufficient time. Commissioner Walker encouraged Mr. Enderlin to propose a quality project. Commissioner Putnam related that some mini -storage facilities can look good and be an asset the area. He cited the facility on Green Mountain Drive. Ms. Bristow interjected that she and her husband want all requirements imposed so that the facility will look good. Commissioner Chachere entertained a motion to allow Mr. Enderlin to request a 60 -day deferral until the May 3, 1994 hearing in which Mr. Enderlin is to modify his proposal. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, one no, one absent, no abstentions, and one open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Amos Enderlin, and his engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. Staff outlined the request and presented the revised plan. Mr. McGetrick reported that, in response to the Commission's suggestion at the previous meeting, the application was being amended to provide: 1) for inclusion of the entire site in the PCD as a phased development; and, 2) for an agreement to construct the required Master Street Plan improvements along Cooper Orbit Road. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Enderlin and Mr. McGetrick the revised plans and the items in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he had no questions about any of the comments, and would make the necessary corrections in the plans. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that the original PCD request had been amended to include: the entire site in lieu of being limited to the front one-half of the site; construction of the Cooper Orbit Road improvements as required by the Master Street Plan; and installation of the landscaping and buffering as required by the Ordinance. 11 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006 Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, outlined the request and the changes since the last Commission meeting. He reported that the application now complies with all ordinance requirements regarding landscaping and the Master Street Plan; that the applicant had withdrawn all requests for waivers or variances. He related that the PCD now included a 2 -lot plat, with development scheduled over 3 phases; the first phase taking place on Lot 1. He indicated that a solid board fence would be constructed along the front of the property, as well as along the side property lines. On the west, there was to be a 90 foot buffer retained, except for the single residence which was previously placed on the property. On the east, there are large open space buffers containing the detention areas. Commissioner Ball inquired of staff if, in light of the changes in the plan, staff had changed its recommendation. Staff related that the recommendation had not changed, since the recommendation for denial was based on the proposed use not complying with the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oleson recalled that, at the previous hearing, she had asked that staff review the Land Use Plan in the area, to see if a change in the Plan were justified. Ron Newman, with the planning staff, responded that staff had taken a look at the area, and had ascertained that, since the plan for the area had been developed and adopted in 1991, there had been virtually no changes which would suggest changes in the Plan. He said that neighborhood commercial is the most intense land use in the area, and that type use is at intersections. The only non-residential uses along Cooper Orbit Road, he continued, are the Oasis Renewal Center and Lake Nixon at the southern end of the road. If the transition zone is extended westward along Cooper Orbit Road, Mr. Newman explained, it would inevitably lead to additional non-residential uses in the area. Mr. Jim Albert, who indicated that he lived directly across the street from the proposed mini -storage facility, said that, if Mr. Enderlin was going to do away with the present construction yard use, he would support the change. Staff explained that the proposal was for a phased development, that the construction yard use would be eliminated over a period of time. In light of this explanation, Mr. Albert responded that Mr. Enderlin has made the area a junk yard and has made no effort to keep it clean; therefore, not believing that the construction yard use would ever be eliminated, he said that he was against the zoning change. 12 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Commissioner Nicholson addressed Mr. Albert and said that it had been the Commission that had sent Mr. Enderlin "back to the drawing board" to re -design the site to include the entire tract in the PCD so that the construction yard use would be eliminated. Also, as a result of the Commission's reaction to the original submission, Mr. Enderlin has now withdrawn his request for waivers. Commissioner Willis confirmed with staff that the proposed development is outside the City Limits of Little Rock. Ms. Jane Bristow addressed the Commission. She related that Mr. Enderlin's property is surrounded by residential property, and concluded that Mr. Enderlin's property should stay residential. She explained that she had lived on abutting property between 1981 and 1989, but, since that time, she had lived in a temporary home while she tried to sell the property on Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. Enderlin's construction yard affects the value of her property; that people don't like to look at it, and she has not been able to sell her property. As a result, she is probably going to have to move back to the property. She complained that when she had tried to subdivide her property and sell off portions of her tract, she had been stopped; yet, Mr. Enderlin is allowed to continue to bring junk in and operate his construction yard. Ms. Bristow also suggested that there are already too many mini -storage units in the area, and that there is no need for additional units. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded to Ms. Bristow's comment about there being too many mini -storage units, saying that such factors are not legitimate land use considerations, but are business decisions to be based on market factors; that the Commission cannot legitimately make land use decisions on whether or not the Commissions feels that the business decision is a wise one or not. If too many businesses affect traffic or land planning issues, then the Commission can address the matter from that perspective. Ms. Jo Jackson of the Oasis Renewal Center indicted that she had little to add from the last Commission hearing on the issue. He reiterated that the Oasis Renewal Center has tried to maintain a quiet, retreat setting for reflection, and that any commercial rezoning would detract from the aura which has been created. Ms. Mary Waldo introduced herself as the assistant executive director of the Oasis Renewal Center. She related that the Center is opposed to any change in the zoning which would change the character of the area. She said that the Oasis Renewal Center was purposefully established in a residential area, and had relied on the Land Use Plan's designation of the area as residential when the facility was planned. 13 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Commissioner Nicholson explained to the objectors that Mr. Enderlin's construction yard use is a legal non -conforming use of the property which was in existence prior to the City's jurisdiction being extended to the area. Commissioner Putnam, responding to those who object to the proposed development, explained that the objectors have a way of getting rid of what they don't like in supporting the change in the zoning; that they have a choice between a mini -storage on the property or the property possibly staying like it is "until hell freezes over" since it is a non -conforming use. The brick yard, or materials yard, can remain as a non -conforming use; however, if the PCD is approved, Mr. Enderlin will eventually have to cease that operation and use of the property. The mini -storage use, it would seem, is the lesser of two evils, and is a way to get the objectionable use off the property. He pointed out that, on Green Mountain Drive, there are a number of mini -storage facilities, one being directly across from Fox Run, and one does not even see them. Commissioner Willis inquired if the City has any jurisdiction in the area. Deputy City Attorney Giles responded that the City has only zoning jurisdiction in the extraterritorial area. Commissioner Woods confirmed with Mr. Giles that the City cannot enforce clean-up ordinances on Mr. Enderlin's property; but can only enforce the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Putnam observed that if Mr. Enderlin could be convinced to complete the entire project involving both the front and back lots, then the whole site would be cleaned up and the non -conforming situation would be ended. Mr. Putnam then asked staff if there was a stated time -frame for completing all phases. Staff responded that there was no time -frame proposed. Commissioner Putnam observed that the non -conforming use could continue forever. Commissioner McDaniel interjected that he could support the proposal if there were a definite time limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use; if there was a tradeout which would benefit the neighbors. Commissioner Willis, addressing the applicant, asked if Mr. Enderlin would want to amend his application to include a time -limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use. 14 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Commissioner McDaniel explained that the Commissioners were not seeking to have Mr. Enderlin commit to building the remaining phases, but only to cleaning up the site and ending the construction yard activity. Chairperson Chachere clarified the Commissioner's position, and addressed Mr. Enderlin, saying that the approval of the mini -storage PCD would be contingent on Mr. Enderlin agreeing to cease the construction yard activity within a certain time period. Commissioner Selz added that the site also must be cleaned up, not just the activity stopped. Mr. Enderlin, reacting to the Commissioners' comments, stated that he would agree to stop the activity and clean up the site within one year of the beginning of the construction of the first phase of the mini -storage PCD. Chairperson Chachere stated that the one-year time period needed to begin with the approval by the City. Deputy City Attorney Giles added that the one-year time period should be in with the date of the approval by the Board of Directors of the PCD ordinance. A motion was then made to approve the PCD request, with the condition that the non -conforming construction yard activity cease and the site be cleaned up of construction materials within one year from the date of approval of the PCD ordinance by the Board of Directors. The motion failed to receive the required number of votes for a positive recommendation with the vote of 5 ayes, 5 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. The item was, therefore, deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) Staff presented the item and recalled that the item was deferred to the May 17th. agenda from the May 3rd. meeting because it failed to receive the required six votes for approval or denial. Mr. Enderlin made his appeal for approval and indicated that he would meet Master Street Plan requirements and landscaping and buffer requirements, and, that he would build a nice, clean facility that would be an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Karen Owings spoke, indicating that she was opposed to the development. She said that the area is predominantly residential, and observed that, in a few years, Mr. Enderlin could sell his property for residential development. She stated 15 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 that a PCD would not fit into the area. She said that she lives further west in the Spring valley area, and that Cooper Orbit Road is the only entrance to their area, and that the road into the area needed to be lined with residences, not commercial development. Mr. Elmer Jenkins spoke in objection to the development. Commissioner Oleson observed that the Commission has not discussed how the facility will look, and stated that the looks of the construction is an important element of the PCD to consider. Commissioner Woods said that he had supported the proposal at the previous Commission hearing because he had felt that it would of benefit to the neighborhood in that the clutter would be eliminated. He stated that the area is a residential area, though, and that a sea of overhead doors does not add to the beauty of the area. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Enderlin how long he had owned the land, to which Mr. Enderlin answered that he had owned the land since 1972. Mr. Putnam then asked Mr. Enderlin if there had been any homes in the area when he had purchased the land, to which Mr. Enderlin answered that there had not been any. Mr. Putnam then observed that Mr. Enderlin had preceded the homes in the area, and that the area had built up around Mr. Enderlin's use. Mr. Putnam observed that, as a non -conforming use, Mr. Enderlin could continue to use the property for the construction yard for the next twenty years or more, without restriction. On the other hand, if the mini -storage use were allowed to be developed, the area would be cleaned up, landscaped, and fenced. Mr. Ned Wright addressed the Commission, and said that he was speaking on behalf of the Oasis Renewal Center. He said that the Center is in close proximity to Mr. Enderlin's property, and that Mr. Enderlin's property is a detriment to the beauty of the area. He felt that Mr. Enderlin is trying to use as leverage to gain approval for the change in zoning the nuisance which he, himself, has created. He stated that, contrarily, there is another way for the neighborhood to deal with the nuisance: to get a court injunction and have the area declared a public nuisance; or, as a self-help measure, and with court protection, to get a backhoe and bulldozer, dig a hole, push the junk into the hole, and seal it up. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Wright for the date the Oasis opened, to which Mr. Wright responded that it was in 1989. Mr. Putnam countered that Mr. Enderlin had been at his location for 22 years; the Oasis for 5. 16 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Ms. Pat Albert spoke in opposition to the PCD request, saying that she had been a resident for 14 years. She said that, originally, the construction yard had been hidden at the back of the property, but that, over the years, it had crept towards the front of the tract. Ms. Jane Bristow contended that the residences were in the area before Mr. Enderlin had started using his land for storage of junk. Mr. Skip Cook related that the neighbors have no confidence that Mr. Enderlin will do what is required by the PCD plan, and asked what assurance could be given that, indeed, the street would be constructed and the site improvements would be made. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded that the PCD ordinance is enforceable thorough the courts; that Mr. Enderlin would have to build the facility in conformance with the approved PCD plans; and, that the street improvements would have to be in place prior to a final plat being approved. Mr. Enderlin again related that he planned to build a nice, clean facility, just like a lot of other such facilities around Little Rock which are also in close proximity to residential areas. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin to explain how he planned to phase the development, and to explain when the junk would be cleared from the site. Commissioner Oleson returned to the question posed earlier regarding how the facility would look. Staff reported that Mr. Enderlin had proposed to face the front buildings with brick, but that the buildings themselves were proposed to be a metal building system. Commissioner Oleson observed that the plans submitted by Mr. Enderlin are minimal, and contrasted them with the plans submitted for other PUD developments which have a great deal of detailed information. She complained that there was not the needed information regarding the way the project would look, about the lighting, the hours of operation, etc. Other developers in their proposals have made significant accommodations to the neighbors to gain approval; Mr. Enderlin, she said, has not. Commissioner Walker stated that his primary concern is for the clean-up of the site; that he wanted to be certain that the clean-up is part of the first phase of the development; and, that the non -conforming use not be allowed to continue concurrently 17 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006 with the development of the mini -storage facility; that construction on the subsequent phases of development can progress as the market dictates, but that prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase being approved, the site be cleaned up. Chairperson Chachere recounted that the motion from the previous meeting had included the provision that within one year from the date of the approval by the Board of Directors of the PCD ordinance, the non -conforming use would cease and the site was to be cleaned up. A motion was then made to approve the PCD, contingent upon the non -conforming use of the site being discontinued within one year of the approval of the PCD by the Board of Directors, and that, within that time period, the site be cleaned up and cleared of the construction materials and other stored materials. The motion failed with the vote to approve of 4 ayes, 6 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 18 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z -3606-A NAME: PARKER CADILLAC BODY SHOP -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Rainwood Road, across the street from the intersection of Wickford Lane, approximately 300 feet west of Merrell Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Parker Luxury Automobiles Norris Jerald Sparks Architect 1700 N. Shackleford Road 62 Berkshire Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72204 224-2400 660-4268 AREA: 0.857 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Automobile Paint and Body Shop The applicant proposes the construction of a paint and body repair facility to consolidate the repair facilities for the Cadillac, Lexus, and Saturn automobile dealerships owned by the applicant in the greater Little Rock area. The applicant maintains that the facility will house "state -of -the art" automobile paint and repair equipment and processes that are the most technically advanced in the industry. The applicant proposes to construct a building that is compatible with the "superior character and appearance that he has achieved in the architectural contribution of his Cadillac and Lexus dealership buildings." He continues that he is "most dedicated to not only crating a positive architectural statement..., but to maintaining his previously established standard for aesthetic character and quality image in all facilities." The applicant, "plans to invest in a handsome building with abundant landscaping and street appeal...."" A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for a PCD for a paint and body repair facility to consolidate the Cadillac, Lexus, and Saturn paint and body repair facilities of the greater Little Rock area. In addition to the paint and body repair use May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A proposed, the applicant seeks approval of all other uses by right listed in the C-3 zoning district use category. The applicant maintains that a "handsome building with abundant landscaping and street appeal" is proposed, and one that is in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic standards previous buildings for the applicant's Cadillac and Lexus dealerships have established. No waivers or variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, and the topography is fairly level. The site is currently zoned C-3, with C-3 zoned land on all other tracts to the east and west on the south side of Rainwood Dr. Across Rainwood, directly across the street from the proposed development, is an R-5 tract. Diagonally to the northwest from the site is a C-4 tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the driveway width must be reduced to 22 feet. The parking space at the far east edge of the front of the building will have to be eliminated. Sidewalks will be required to be constructed along the Rainwood Dr. frontage. Water Works has no objections to the development. Wastewater reports that sewer is available, and that there is no adverse effect to be considered. Existing manholes which are located on the property must be adjusted during construction to remain exposed at all times. Wastewater should be contacted for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the buffer width proposed along Rainwood Rd. is 3 feet short of the full requirement of 9 feet. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3606-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the Rodney Parham District. The adopted plan recommends commercial for the site. The proposed commercial use is questionable for this location, since the proposal is for a C-4 use. The type of C-4 use proposed must be carefully reviewed, with the negative impacts considered. E. ANALYSIS• Although the adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial uses of the subject tract, the proposed use is a C-4, Open Display district use, the most intense zoning category for commercial uses. The remainder of the property south of Rainwood Dr. is C-3, and the uses are retail stores. Directly across the street from the proposed site is R-5, containing an established townhome development. To the northwest is a C-4 area which contains a mini -storage facility. The mini -storage C-4 use can be seen as an accessory use to the area residential uses. A paint and body shop, then, is much more intensive a use than anything else in the area, and is not in keeping with the types of uses which should be located directly across the street from a residential community. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) A representative of the applicant and the project architect were present. Staff presented the request and the Committee reviewed the items contained in the discussion outline. The applicant's representatives stated that the front overhead door was to remain closed at all times, unless a vehicle to be repaired was to be admitted. The vehicles to be repaired would be checked -in inside the building, then removed to the rear parking lot. with no other issues to be resolved, the Committee forwarded the item to the commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that revised drawings had been submitted which addressed all technical concerns of staff. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A Mr. Fred Mosley introduced himself as the representative of the applicant in making the presentation of the request to the Commission. He stated that the new facility would combine all the paint and body shop activities of the three Parker dealerships in the greater Little Rock area, the Cadillac, the Lexus, and the Saturn dealerships. He explained that the new shop would include state -of -the art processes and equipment. Landscaping would be extensive. a 6 foot masonry and wood fence at the perimeter of the rear of the site would restrict both access and the view of the automobile storage area from neighbors. The front automobile access door would be closed at all times, except when an automobile were being delivered. He estimated that, on the average, there would be 10 vehicles brought to the facility on The only doors which are open for service are at the rear. From the front, he stated, the building would look like an office building. He recalled that the proposed site is the only remaining vacant commercial site in the area; that the existing zoning is C-3; and, that there are other C-4 uses in close proximity. Mr. Rick Farnan, a representative of the paint spray boot manufacturer, stated that the paint booth would comply with all national standards. Mr. Mosley went on to say that, as far as noise is concerned, the fact that most parts are replaced rather than re -used should alleviate this concern. Further, the front of the building would have an exterior insulations system applied as the finish, and this system involves foam insulation with a cement -like stucco coating. The time of operation would be 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. There will be no delivery trucks to bring parts; the parts would be delivered by pick-up truck from the various dealerships. Trash would be picked up 3 times weekly, and would be retrieved from interior bins. There is no litter, as would be expected from C-3 businesses such as a restaurant. The Parker family has been in the area for 20 years, and attempts to be both a good neighbor and to maintain handsome buildings which are superior in appearance. Commissioner Nicholson asked where the body shop work is now performed. Mr. Mosley replied that the work is done at each of the dealerships. Commissioner Nicholson observed that the new facility would be no worse or no better than the existing sites. Mr. Mosley explained that the new facility should be better than the existing facilities, since there would be state -of -the art equipment and processes employed. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3606-A Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to the number of vehicles which would be repaired at any given time. Mr. Mosley said that there are 12 repair bays and 6 paint bays, with 22 holding spaces at the rear. Commissioner Nicholson observed that the usual concern is for battered and banged -up cars sitting around a paint and body shop. Mr. Mosley replied that with the service door opened only to admit a car for repair, and the fence at the rear holding area, the cars to be repaired would not normally be visible to the neighbors. He also said that the security lights at the rear holding area have limited spread and the standards are not as high as the building, so the night lighting should not be a problem to the neighbors. Mr. Chris Peek addressed the Commission, saying that he was on the Board of Directors of the Birkshire Park Townhomes Property Owners' Association; that the Board had authorized him to speak for the Association in presenting its opposition to the proposed development. Mr. Peek presented photos of the existing Parker paint and body shop holding yards, showing stacked up bumpers and other parts, as well as damaged autos. He expressed concern about possible noise and the unsightly view. He was concerned about the paint spray booth and who monitors its performance in emission control. He stated that 10 wreckers per day, day after day, bringing wrecked cars, would be very visible evidence that the building is a paint and body shop. Ms. Ruth Kent stated that she has a breathing problem, and is concerned about the spray booth emissions. She related that she has talked with a number of persons in the real estate business and has been told that the proximity of the paint and body shop to her home would lower the value of her home. She observed that one such person was incredulous that a paint and body shop would be considered for such a location as this one is proposed. The Parker Body Shop would be immediately across the street from her home. Commissioner Willis asked Ms. Kent for her reaction to the possibility of C-3 uses being constructed across from her home. Ms. Kent replied that there is a stigma attached to having a paint and body shop across the street from one's home; that she realized that there are many C-3 uses that can be constructed, but they would not have the same negative impact as a paint and body shop. She went on to say that if Parker were to sell the shop, another owner might not have the same commitment to aesthetics as the Parkers. 5 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A various comments involving Commissioner Nicholson, Commissioner Willis, and Commissioner Putnam attempted to clarify the requested uses of the PCD application. Staff indicated that the request is for a "paint and body shop" and for "all C-3 uses by right". Therefore, any paint and body shop would be permitted, as well as any C-3 uses, without amending the PCD. Commissioner Nicholson stated that if Parker were going to own the facility, and if it were limited to "Parker Body Shop", this might make a difference. Ms. Tess Peek stated that she had visited the existing Parker body shop site, and said that it is just a body shop, "forget that it is a Cadillac body shop" . There are wrecked cars stored on the site and body parts lying around, and the existing facility is just like any other paint and body shop. Mr. Mosley stated that Parker intends to purchase the property and to operate the body shop. As far as the chain link fencing and razor wire at the existing facility, the new facility is not going to have this type fencing; it will be the board and masonry fence, and neighbors will not have a view of the holding area unless they climb the fence. As far as the paint booth is concerned, Pollution Control and Ecology will monitor the paint booth emissions. He stated that in the application, he and the Parker's had hoped that the townhome owners would view the application as a chance to determine the use which would be across the street from them, and that the use would be viewed as a benefit to the area. Commissioner Nicholson, reacting to the latter comment, stated that since the application seeks approval of all C-3 uses, then, if Parker ceases operation of the body shop, then the neighbors do not have the chance of determining the use, as stated. Mr. Mosely replied that Parker intends to operate the facility, but that if, in the future, the facility could not contain the activity, then it was felt that the building use should be able to be converted to another use. An office building would be at that time, he said, a possibility. Commissioner Nicholson reminded Mr. Mosley that an office building would not be allowed in a C-3 zoning district; that, if an office building as an alterative use were anticipated, then the zoning should be an 0-1, 0-2, or even 0-3. She added, that a stated concern of the neighbors was the convertibility aspect. Mr. Mosley stated that the PCD application could be modified to provide for only the Parker Body Shop use, and not for any of the other uses continued in the original application. 1.1 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A Commissioner Putnam reaffirmed that the application should be amended to restrict the use to the Parker Body Shop only, and that if that use ceases, any other use would have to come back to the Commission and Board for an amendment to the PCD. Mr. Mosley stated that the application was amended to reflect this restriction. Commissioner Oleson asked for the reaction of the neighbors to the amended application, with the restrictions imposed. Mr. Peek voiced the neighbors' rejection of the application for any paint and body shop use on the site, despite the amendment of the application. Ms. Kent agreed with the stated objection. Commissioner Nicholson stated that, in her opinion, a lot of the C-3 uses which can go in on the site without any review are much worse than the applicant's proposal as amended, and, with the change in technology of body shops, the Parker Body Shop will not have the negative impact which the neighbors anticipate. She added that, the body shop which is anticipated in this application is not a C-4 type activity. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Body Shop PCD. The vote was 4 ayes, 5 nays, 0 abstentions. Without the required 6 votes approval of the PCD, the matter was deferred May 17, 1994 Commission hearing. Parker Cadillac 2 absent, and to recommend until the PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) Staff presented the request. Mr. Dave Parker, who identified himself as part owner of Parker Cadillac, Parker Lexus, and Saturn of Greater Little Rock, outlined the changes which had been made in the application since the previous Commission meeting: 1) have agreed to purchase state -of -the art emission control equipment, even though less expensive equipment would meet regulations; 2) have agreed to make do with less than desirable parking at the front of the building; 3) have agreed to a narrower drive than desirable to comply with the City Engineering requirements; 4) have agreed to construct an 8 foot high decorative fence at the perimeter of the rear service area; 5) will provide extensive landscaping to increase street appeal of the site; 6) will keep the front overhead door closed at all times, except when vehicles enter; 7) will have low level parking lot lighting which will restrict bleedover beyond the property; 8) have designed the building so that the service doors are at the rear; 9) have agreed to construct wooden gates at the drives which will be closed off at 7 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3606-A night; and, 10) will have the landscaping maintained on a weekly basis by a professional landscaping business. Noise, Mr. Parker noted, is not a problem in a modern facility, since parts are normally replaced and uni-body frames are straightened by a pulling process. Mr. Parker reported that he had two noise level engineers make noise tests at his present location and at the proposed site, and that their report indicated that the noise would not be a problem and would not be increased beyond normal street level noise. Mr. Parker reiterated that the PCD was for Parker Cadillac Body Shop only. After a conversation with a resident on Wickford Lane, Mr. Parker related that he had agreed to park only finished cars at the southeast corner of the lot. A list of the concessions was distributed. Mr. Tom Sullivan, a resident of the Birkshire Townhomes, addressed the Commission and voiced his and the Property owners, Association's concerns regarding the proposed body shop. He indicated that the concerns had not changed since the previous Commission meeting. He maintained that the request for the rezoning was for the convenience of the Parkers, as opposed to the expectations of the neighbors for the residential character of their neighborhood. He expressed concern for the 10 to 12 wrecked vehicles per day which would be coming to the facility, and for the wreckers which would be a hazard to the many elderly drivers in the Townhome community. He distributed photographs of the existing Parker body shop facility, showing the razor wire at the top of the chain link fencing, and expressed concern about the apparent need for security which is indicated by the need for razor wire. Ms. Brenda Germann reiterated the residents' position that they would rather take their chances with C-3 uses which might be developed on the site than have a body shop at the location. Ms. Ruth Kent asked the Commissioners to do what was in the best interest for the City and the citizens, and not vote according to apparent vested interests. Mr. Parker responded that on an average, only 2 wreckers per day would bring cars to the shop. He reported that he had asked the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology to meet with him to determine the best equipment to install to control emissions, and to monitor the equipment and shop on an annual basis. He indicated that, no matter what happened, no razor or barbed wire would be installed on the fence. He stated that the front of the new Parker Body Shop would look better than other C-3 uses that are or have been located in the neighborhood. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Parker to comment on the noise level concern which had been voiced at the previous Commission meeting. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A Mr. Parker indicated that Scott Foster and Sherman Smith of the City Engineering staff had made noise level studies at the present location and at the proposed site. Mr. Sherman Smith confirmed the information that the noise level at the existing site was not grater than normal conversation levels or the levels produced by normal traffic. He stated that the noise from the proposed use would not be able to be heard even as far as beyond the street in front of the facility. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Smith to comment on the noise levels of drive-thru speakers. Mr. Smith responded that he would do some studies of the noise levels at drive-thrus and report back at the next Commission hearing. A motion was then made and seconded to recommend approval of the PCD. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. Vj May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z -2970-C NAME: WALGREENS TWELFTH AND FAIR PARK -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the southwest corner of W. 12th. Street and Fair Park Blvd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Gary Hawkins Frank Riggins HAWKINS-SMITH THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 7136 S. Yale, #300 P. O. Box 3837 Tulsa, OK 74136 Little Rock, AR 72203 (918) 492-2435 375-5331 AREA: 1.19 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• C-3 & R-3 (C-1 zoning request pending) PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 18 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Drug Store The applicant proposes the construction of a new Walgreens Drug Store, and, to provide the site for the new building, proposes to demolish the existing buildings on the site. The new drug store building is proposed to face the Fair Park Blvd. -W. 12th. St. intersection, and the site is to stretch from Fair Park Blvd. west to Taylor Street, and take the north two-thirds¢ of the block. The building is to occupy 27% of the site and parking for 58 vehicles is proposed Driveways off Fair Park Blvd. and Taylor Street are indicated. A drive-thru for pharmacy sales is to be located on the west end of the building. The receiving and dumpster area is to be located on the south side of the building. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission of a site plan for a new Walgreens Drug Store is requested. The applicant proposes the construction of a 13,500 square foot building on a 1.19 acre site. Provision for parking for 58 vehicles is made. A drive-thru on the west end of the building is proposed. The service and dumpster area are to be located on the rear - south side of the building. No variances or waivers are requested. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently developed, containing a retail store at the corner of Fair Park Blvd. and W. 12th. St.; an office at the corner of Fair Park Blvd. and Taylor St.; and a residence on Taylor St. south of the office. These buildings are to be razed and the site cleared for the new construction. The existing zoning of the site is C-3 and R-3. The Commission, at its April 5, 1994 hearing, recommended a change in the zoning of the entire site to C-1. The Commission imposed the condition on the rezoning that site plan review be conducted. The review at this time, then, is a result of this condition. The rezoning request is heard by the Board of Directors on the evening of May 3, 1994. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that improvements along W. 12th. St. will be required. A right turn lane with a taper will be required, and this will involve a requirement for 6 additional feet of right-of-way. A 31 foot radius onto Fair Park will be required. Improvements to Taylor St. will be required to include widening to provide a right turn lane and a 25 foot minimum radius at the intersection with W. 12th. St. The entrance off Taylor needs to be eliminated; Taylor cannot handle the traffic. An entrance off W. 12th. st. may be approved. A return for backing at the southeast parking area must be provided. Water Works reports that the fire department needs to evaluate this site plan to determine if additional public or private fire hydrants are required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department reports that on the west side interior drive, where the canopy is located, the drive width needs to be 20 feet of unobstructed width. Also, the Fire Department requests that "No Parking. Tow -Away" signs be placed around the building. Landscape review reports that the landscape strip along W. 12th. St. must maintain a minimum width of 4 feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The site abuts R-3 zoned area at the southwest portion of the site along the Taylor St. frontage, and residences are located to the south on both sides of Taylor St. Adequate 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C buffering of the site along concern. with the service proximity to the residence there needs to be imposed a screening. E. ANALYSIS: this area needs to be a primary and dumpster area in so close a on the abutting lot to the south, requirement for substantial There are substantial design considerations remaining to be remedied. The site may be too small for the development. There are right-of-way requirements and additional traffic lane construction requirements which will impinge on the available land. There is the Fire Department requirement of unobstructed access along the west side of the building. There are landscaping and buffer requirements which must be dealt with. There is the matter of the proximity of the building service area to a residence which needs to be addressed. Unless the engineer and the applicant can accommodate these requirements, there appears that there is insufficient land area for the proposed scale of the building. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: There are still too many unresolved issues for staff to make a positive recommendation. The staff will have a recommendation after the applicant's presentation at the Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the request, and the City Engineering staff reviewed with Mr. Rigging the requirements for additional right-of-way, the construction of an additional traffic lane, the requirements for repositioning the drive accesses, etc. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Riggins the items in the discussion outline, then forwarded the request to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Mr. Jim Hathaway, representing the developer, reported that there was a need to defer the hearing on the request until the May 17, 1994 Commission meeting. He related that there were concerns of the neighbors who live on Taylor Street, and he, the developer, and the neighbors need additional time to meet and try to work out accommodations on the concerns. The request for the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 2 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C Commissioner Oleson, noticing someone who had been present at a previous Commission meeting when that person had been incorrectly informed that the hearing would be on that date, asked that person if she had, indeed, been present at that previous meeting. When the answer was in the affirmative, Ms. Oleson indicated that it was not fair to the citizens who have taken off work to be present on a number of occasions, then to have the hearing deferred and have to take off work again. Commissioner Nicholson asked staff to be sure and place the hearing on this issue at the first of the agenda when it is heard again. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) Staff related that the item had been placed on the May 3, 1994 Commission agenda, but that at that meeting, the developer had asked that the hearing be deferred until the May 17 agenda to allow the developer an opportunity to meet with and address concerns of neighbors. Staff also related that the site had been recently rezoned from C-3 and R-3 to C-1; that the rezoning had been pursued in order to construct the Walgreens store; and, that, normally, C-1 zoning does not require site plan review, but that the Hoard of Directors, in approving the rezoning, had required the site plan review. Mr. Jim Hathaway reiterated the reason for the requested deferral: to allow him an opportunity to meet with the neighbors and attempt to address their concerns. He reported that four neighbors had attended the meeting, and, due to that meeting, Walgreens had agreed to some additional concessions. Some concerns of the neighbors, however, were not able to be accommodate, he stated. He indicated that the Walgreens had agreed to construct an 8 foot high brick fence along the south boundary of the property from Taylor Street to the west face of the building; and to construct an 8 foot high wood fence along the south property line from the east face of the building to the abutting building to the east. This, he said, would completely screen off the adjacent properties. On the Walgreens side of the brick fence, he stated that solid plantings of Holly trees would be planted which would create screening above the 8 foot height of the fence. Mr. Hathaway reported that Walgreens had agreed to delete the signage at the Taylor Street -W. 12ths. Street intersection, and have only the sign at the Fair Park -W. 12th. Street intersection. The landscape buffer along Taylor Street would be heavily landscaped. Mr. Hathaway related that the neighbors do not want a curb -cut on Taylor Street, but that Walgreens cannot develop the site with a drive-thru without the Taylor Street exit. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C Mr. Hathaway asked the Commission members, in making their decision, to consider the significant and costly concessions being made by Walgreens in the development of this site; that the introduction of the Walgreens store on the site is an upgrading of the intersection; that the re -zoning which was sought and approved by both the Commission and Board was undertaken with the Walgreens in mind; and, that Walgreens does not need to be rebuffed in another attempt to enter the Little Rock market. Commissioner Willis asked if Walgreens would be providing additional width of roadway to Taylor Street so that traffic could turn onto W. 12th. Street without delaying traffic waiting to go the opposite direction. Mr. Bill Henry, the City's traffic engineer, responded that Walgreens is providing a right turn land along its frontage of Taylor Street, as well as providing a right turn land off W. 12th. Street onto Fair Park Blvd. He stated that Walgreens had done all that he had asked of them regarding access points and street improvements. Commissioner Wyrick asked Mr. Hathaway about the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Hathaway responded that the planned hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., but that he could not make assurances that the hours of operation would not change. He reminded the Commission that the item is not a PCD, but a site plan review, and hours of operation are not pertinent in site plan reviews. Commissioner Wyrick asked about the information furnished in the agenda write-up which indicated that the maximum size of a single building in a C-1 zone is 10,000 square feet, versus the size of the proposed Walgreens being 13,500 square feet, and that a variance needed to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Hathaway indicated that the C-1 zoning request had been pursued at the suggestion of staff, and that he had been unaware of the need for a variance. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, replied that, indeed, the C-1 zoning district has a maximum allowable for a single establishment of 10,000 square feet, but that, in approving the site plan, the Commission grants the needed variance; that it is not a separate issue. Commissioner Wyrick asked if the parking which is being provided is sufficient. She indicated that 60 parking spaces are required by the Ordinance, and that 51 spaces are being provided. Commissioner Oleson said that the agenda write-up had indicated that 58 spaces were being provided, and asked why the number had decreased to 51. 5 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C Mr. Hathaway responded that, due to staff requirements for additional street widths, the available land for parking on the site had been decreased, and 7 parking spaces had been lost since the original submission. Staff reported that for a 13,500 square foot building, the required number parking spaces would be 45 spaces, and that the Walgreens site met the requirements for parking. Mrs. Cynthia Fleming voiced her concerns about the proposed development. She stated that she and her husband object to the exit from the site onto Taylor Street and the drive-thru speaker being just 38 feet from her bedroom window. She complained that, with the in -and out traffic and the drive-thru, they would not be able to get quality sleep time. Commissioner Oleson asked if the drive-thru could exit to the east. Mr. Hathaway responded that there is an offset in the south property line, and that the property to the east is not part of the site. He went of to say that the drive-thru is like a bank drive -up teller station; there is no order board with a loud speaker. He stated that the current noise from traffic on W. 12th. Street is much more significant than the small amount of noise which might be generated by the traffic through the drive-thru. He asked the Commission to weight the quality of the redevelopment on the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Massery introduced himself and stated that he lives directly across from the site on the west, and complained about the drive exit onto Taylor Street. He stated that Taylor Street would be used for truck waiting and backing. Mr. Markus Gorski said that he lived opposite the Taylor Street exit, and that cars leaving the drive-thru will shine their headlights into his bedroom window. He also was concerned that the drive-thru speakers would be noisy and disturb his and others' sleep. He said that the Flemings will have an 8 foot high wall separating their home from the site; he, on the other hand, will have no buffer to offset the effects of the traffic. To a questions from Commissioner Willis, Commissioner Oleson, and Commissioner Nicholson concerning the possibility of having the drive-thru either on the east or the drive exit to the east, Mr. Hathaway stated that all possibilities had been examined, and that the developer needed to pursue the request as presented. Reversing the plan would place the front entrance at the W. 12th. Street -Taylor intersection instead of the Fair Park -W. 12th. intersection, and this would not only be unacceptable to the developer, but to the neighborhood. The internal deign of the building would prohibit relocating the drive-thru on the east 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued)FILE NO.: Z -2970-C side of the building if the building were not flipped. Beyond that consideration, placing the drive-thru beside the front door would push the parking too far away from the entrance and to the Taylor Street side. With the off -set in the south property line, turning the drive east from the west drive-thru location would not be possible. Mr. Doug Fleming complained that the development would cause more traffic on Taylor Street; that, people waiting for traffic at the W. 12th. Street -Fair Park intersection will start cutting through on Taylor Street to get around the intersection. Mr. Lawson_ stated that staff supports the development. The developer, he continued, has gone a long way in mitigating the detrimental effects on the neighborhood, and that the City needs the redevelopment in the area. He reiterated that there is already a great deal of noise on W. 12th. Street from thousands and thousands of cars per day on the street and from the restaurants and service stations immediately across the street from the proposed site. He reminded the Commission that the property has been down -zoned to C-1 from C-3, in contrast to the uses which could have been developed in the C-3 district as it stood. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan as presented. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 7 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z -1730-B Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: M. C. Wins M. C. Wins 201 West Roosevelt Road Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Auto Sales 0.44 acres Of f ice 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. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • 1 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. Fa May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • 2 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. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 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. K May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z -3121-B (Cont.) A motion was made to defer the item hearing. The motion was approved by 0 nays and 1 absent. (The Planning the bylaw requirement for requesting notice.) 3 to the June 28, 1994 a vote of 10 ayes, Commission also waived a deferral by written May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z -4343-G Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ranch Properties, Inc. Edward K. Willis 6500 Patrick Country Road Rezone from MF -12 to MF -18 Multifamily Development 14.5 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned 0-2 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Commercial, zoned C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is part of The Ranch development, located on Highway 10, and the request is to rezone the site from R-2 and MF -12 to MF -18. A majority of the site is MF - 12 and only a small area of R-2 is included in the proposed reclassification. The land is undeveloped and wooded. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is R-2, 0-2, OS and PCD. The 0-2 area extends from Patrick Country Road to Ranch Blvd. and from the boundary of the existing MF -12 parcel to Highway 10. The west, east and north sides of the site adjoin R-2 land. Within The Ranch development, there are multiple zonings and they range from single family to commercial. The Ranch area was originally rezoned in 1986, and the property in question was reclassified to the current MF -12 in 1990, as part of a reconfiguration of the projects overall zoning. Land use includes single family, office, commercial and a church. A high percentage of the surrounding land is still undeveloped. Increasing the allowable density from MF -12 to MF -18 on the 14 acres is a reasonable option for the site and should not have a noticeable impact on nearby properties. There have always been two areas within The Ranch zoned and/or identified for multifamily use, the MF -12 tract under consideration and a MF -18 site adjacent to Ranch Blvd. Based on information provided by the applicant, a significant portion of the MF -18 area has been sold to a nonresidential user. Therefore, it appears that there will May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • 3 Z -4343-G (Cont.) be a reduction in the total number of multifamily units, even with the granting of the MF -18 reclassification. The proposed rezoning does not change the direction of The Ranch's land use concept, nor does it violate the city's adopted plan. The site is a logical location a multifamily user with a density of 12 to 18 units per acre. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The proposal is in the Pinnacle District. The adopted land use plan recommends multifamily use of the site. There is no land use issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the MF -18 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the MF -18. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5826 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners John W. Hatley 1700, 1705 and 2007 Sanford Drive Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Multifamily 0.82 acres Multifamily (4 units) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Multifamily, zoned R-2 South - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2 East - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2 and R-5 West - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The three lots in question, 1700, 1705 and 2007 Sanford Drive, are nonconforming multifamily uses, zoned R-2. Each property has four units and the request is to rezone the three locations to R-5. The owners would like to do away with nonconforming status and the potential problems associated with such a situation. (Sanford Drive was an "island" and the area was annexed to the city after all the units were constructed.) There is one building on each lot and two of them have off-street parking. The surrounding zoning is R-2, R-5, MF -24 and PRD. The majority of the multifamily zoning is located along Reservoir Road and involves several apartment developments. Along Sanford Drive, there is a total of 33 multifamily lots and only three are zoned R-5. The R-2 zoning is found to the north, south and west. The surrounding land use is either single family or multifamily. There is also one church in the immediate vicinity. Because of the existing land use pattern on Sanford Drive, a R-5 reclassification of the three lots is appropriate. it appears that the rezoning will only change the nonconforming status of the properties and nothing else. In the R-5 district, there is a "lot area per family" requirement which limits the number of units permitted on a tract of land. For the lots in question, 10,000 to 11,000 square feet, the maximum number is five units. The ordinance requires 2,000 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5826 (Cont.) square feet of land area for lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to 1 acre. And finally, some of the existing single family lots were platted and developed after Sanford Drive was annexed. Therefore, the rezoning should not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The proposal is in the Rodney Parham District. The adopted land use plan recommends single family use of the sites. After review staff recommends the existing condition be recognized and the plan amended along Sanford Drive to show multifamily use. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R-5 rezoning for all three lots. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance, and the R-5 rezoning request was placed on the Consent Agenda. A motion was made to recommend approval of the R-5. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5827 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Charles R. Thomas R. Wingfield Martin Frazier Pike (East of Riddick Street) Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Industrial 6.62 acres Pasture SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 and I-2 South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 and AF East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is located east of College Station, and the request is to rezone the acreage to I-2. The land is situated on the north side on Frazier Pike and has 236 feet of street frontage. The site is used primarily for pasture land, but there are several structures on it, including a single family residence. There are no immediate plans for the property other than trying to sell it to an industrial user. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, I-2 and AF (agriculture and forestry). The existing I-2 is located directly to the north and several hundred feet to the east. The I-2 has frontage on Lindsay Road, one of the main entry ways into the Port Industrial District, and extends to Frazier Pike. The AF area is found on the south side of Frazier Pike. Land use includes single family, churches and industrial. The established single family neighborhoods are primarily located to the west. There is undeveloped land found throughout the area. At this time, the adopted land use plan, College Station/Sweet Home, identifies the property for single family use and part of an open space area. The plan shows the recommended industrial areas north and east of the designated "park/open space,, area. Because the developed single family area is situated to the west and the zoning pattern, it appears that an industrial reclassification is a May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5827 (Cont.) reasonable option for the site. The open space area could be modified to continue the buffer between the expanded industrial area and the single family neighborhoods. Increasing the industrial zoning by 6 acres should not create any problems for the surrounding properties, nor alter the direction of the plan. The site is adjacent to a small tract of I-2 and there is a narrow strip of land along the north property that is suppose to be a future street. Therefore, access to some of the land could be from the existing industrial area to the north and minimize the impact on the single family residences along Frazier Pike. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The proposal is in the College Station/Sweet Home District. The adopted land use plan recommends industrial and open space uses of the site. The exact boundary of the industrial use has never surveyed; however, this site is at or near the transition line. If the Commission does not draw the line with this application, in future rezoning requests to the south and west potential plan issues are likely to arise. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Frazier Pike is classified as a minor arterial, and the right-of-way standard is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the I-2 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and item was included on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the I-2 rezoning was recommended for approval. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 01 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5828 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church and Virgil Dexter Doyne Virgil Dexter Doyne Frazier Pike and Stout Street Rezone from AF to R-2 Single -Family and Church 1.5 acres Single -Family and Church SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned AF East - Single -Family, zoned AF West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned AF STAFF ANALYSIS This issue involves a total of seven lots and the request is to rezone them from AF (agriculture and forestry) to R-2. The site is located at the southwest corner of Frazier Pike and Stout Street, which is on the eastern edge of the College Station community. (All the lots are in the city limits.) The property is occupied by a single family residence, a church and several accessory structures. The primary reason for this application is to allow the church to add some additional floor area. In the AF district, churches are not listed as a permitted or conditional use. Therefore, the church is nonconforming and the zoning ordinance prohibits the expansion of nonconforming uses. The church needs to rezone to R-2 and obtain a conditional use permit to allow the new construction. (Item No. 7 is the conditional use permit request for the church.) After discussing the situation with the staff, the adjoining property owner agreed to include his lots in the application because R-2 is the proper zoning for his single family use. Zoning is R-2, I-2 and AF, with the AF area on the south side of Frazier Pike. (After an extensive review of files, the staff was unable to determine why the area was reclassified to AF.) The land use in the immediate vicinity is primarily single family. There are several churches in the neighborhood and there is an elementary school to the May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5828 (Cont.) west. Some of the nearby land is undeveloped and there are some vacant buildings in the area. Rezoning the corner of Frazier Pike and Stout to R-2 is compatible with the existing land use and more appropriate for the location. The AF is somewhat misplaced, and the adopted plan does show the area for single family use. Therefore, the R-2 conforms to the College Station/Sweet Home plan and there are no outstanding zoning issues. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The proposal is in the College Station/Sweet Home District. The adopted land use plan recommends single family use. There is no land use issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The site has frontage on the three streets and all the rights-of-way are deficient. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required to satisfy the Master Street Plan. The right-of-way standards are as follows: • Frazier Pike - 45 feet from the centerline • Stout - 25 feet from the centerline • Avant - 25 feet from the centerline STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R-2 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the R-2 rezoning. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -5828-A NAME: LOCATION: Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit 5100 Frazier Pike OWNER/APPLICANT: Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church by Virgil Dexter Doyne PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the addition of educational space and a porch to this existing church. The church property is currently zoned AF, Agriculture and Forestry. An application has been filed to rezone this property to R-2 (Z-5828). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The church is located on the south side of Frazier Pike, just west of Stout Street; in the College Station Community. 2. Compatibility with Neicxhborhood The adjacent neighborhood is zoned R-2 and AF and is occupied almost exclusively by smaller single family homes. There are a few other nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity including two other small churches, an elementary school and a construction company. Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church has existed in the neighborhood for many years. This proposed addition will not affect the church's continued compatibility with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkincr The existing sanctuary has a seating capacity of 200 persons. No expansion of the sanctuary is proposed. A 200 seat sanctuary requires 50 on-site parking spaces. 46 parking spaces exist on-site at the present. The church does have additional space on its property to expand the parking lot if necessary. 4. Screening and Buffers An upgrade in landscaping equal to the percentage of expansion of the building is required; approximately 25%. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5828-A 5. City Engineer Comments Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline on Frazier Pike. Construct half of minor arterial street standard improvements on Frazier Pike. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on Avant Street. Construct half of residential street standard improvements on Avant Street. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church requests a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of a porch and an 1,140 square foot classroom addition to this existing, nonconforming church. The conditional use permit is contingent upon the property being rezoned from AF to R-2. Staff is supportive of the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance and compliance with the City Engineer Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MATT 17, 1994) The applicant, Dexter Doyne, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. Staff advised the Commission that the applicant was requesting a variance to allow for a reduced front yard setback of 20 feet to compensate for the increased right-of-way being granted for Frazier Pike. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Fa May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5828-A As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff, including the requested variance. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5829 NAME: Word of Outreach Staff Housing - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 2517 Brown Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Word of Outreach by James Washington, Director of Church Affairs PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 16 -unit staff housing complex on this R-3 zoned site. The units will serve as housing for staff members of the Word of Outreach Christian Center Academy and Missions Institute. Also requested is approval to construct two storage buildings, one to serve the occupants of the staff housing complex and one to serve the general storage needs of the Word of Outreach campus, such as lawn maintenance equipment. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of Brown Street, one block south of Asher Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood Although all property in the immediate vicinity of the site is zoned R-3 and occupied by small single family residential homes, there are many other nonresidential uses in the neighborhood. The Word of Outreach Ministries occupies several pieces of property located one block north and west of this site. These ministries include a church and private school. A large area of C-3 zoning extends along Roosevelt Road, located one block south of this site. Uses in this area range from a beauty shop to restaurants and a hotel. The Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility and a nursing home are also located in this area. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5829 With proper attention given to screening the adjacent single family residential properties, this proposed use should be compatible with the neighborhood and in fact could provide a stabilizing, residential influence. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This 16 -unit housing complex requires a total of 24 on-site parking spaces. 42 on-site parking spaces are proposed. Two handicapped accessible spaces are required. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the north and east property lines where adjacent to residential properties. Interior landscaping must comprise at least 6% of the vehicular use area. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Dedicate right-of-way on Brown Street and West 26th Street to 25 feet from the centerline and construct half -street improvements to Master Street Plan standards on both Brown Street and West 26th Street. 6. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 6 foot easement along the east property line. 7. Analysis word of Outreach is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 16 -unit housing complex to serve as staff housing for the church and private school. The proposal includes the construction of two buildings containing eight 3 -bedroom units each. The units are ancillary to the church and private school and will not be available for rent. The housing will be included in a benefit package offered to those individuals on staff at the Word of Outreach Ministries. With proper attention to screening the adjacent single family residential properties, this proposed use should be compatible with the neighborhood and could provide a stabilizing, residential influence. Fa May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5829 Word of Outreach Ministries has experienced phenomenal growth in the past few years. The ministries have continued to expand onto additional properties both north and south of Asher Avenue. Staff feels that the time has come for Word of Outreach to design and submit a Master Plan for future growth in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and explained the relationship of the housing to the overall Word of Outreach campus. The Committee agreed that the time has come for Word of Outreach to submit a Master Plan for future growth in the area. The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant, James Washington, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues and that a revised site plan had been submitted which addressed all staff concerns. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S -964-A NAME: WAL-MART -- REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the southwest corner of S. Bowman Rd. and Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: WAL-MART Bentonville, AR AREA: 9.13 ACRES ZONING• C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 ENGINEER• CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Attn.: Todd A. Butler 110 W. Central Bentonville, AR 727121 273-0472 NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Commercial In approving the rezoning of the tract for the Wal -Mart -Sam's Club Stores, the Board of Directors imposed conditions on the approval and required site plan review of the development to assure compliance with the conditions which had been imposed. This ordinance, Ordinance 16,235, was passed by the Board on July 7, 1992. The Planning Commission subsequently was presented with and approved the site development plan on January 26, 1993. The approved site plan included a "T.B.O." (Tire, Battery, Oil) area on the north site of the building entailing 5,170 square feet of building and some outside, screened -in storage. At the northeast corner of the Wal-Mart building, a garden center was included, involving 4982 square feet of building area, or "enclosed season room", and 9354 square feet of fenced area which was to be partially covered with shadecloth. The applicant now requests a revision to the approved site plan to include the elimination of the "T.B.O." area and the enlargement and enhancement of the garden center facility. The building, or "enclosed season room" portion of the garden center is proposed to be a 70 foot by 77 foot (or, 5,390 square foot) wing on the building. The enclosed, fenced area is proposed to be increased to 34,080 square feet to include 6,370 square feet of shadecloth covered area and the remaining 27,710 square feet of open air area. The fence is to be 20 feet high. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A Additionally, a conditioned greenhouse totaling 10,758 square feet is proposed to be added. This greenhouse is described as being constructed of translucent plastic on a steel frame. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission is requested for a revised site plan for the Wal-Mart Store at Bowman Rd. and Chenal Parkway. In lieu of the 5,170 square foot "T.B.O." (Tire, Battery, Oil) area, the 4,982 square foot "enclosed season room", and the 9,354 square foot open, fenced space, the applicant proposes a 5,390 square foot "enclosed season room", a 10,758 square foot conditioned greenhouse, and a 34,080 square foot fenced garden center area to include a 6,370 square foot shadecloth covered area and 27,710 square foot open -to -air area. The fence surrounding the open area is to be 20 feet high. The greenhouse is translucent plastic on a steel frame construction. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Construction activity at the site has begun, with rough site work being substantially complete. Construction on the building is immanent. The revised site plan submitted for review indicates the size of the Wal-Mart building to be 152,917 square feet. This is compared with the 121,267 square foot building on the approved site plan. Staff had approved the increase in building size at Wal -Mart's request when Wal-Mart indicated that the Sam's Club building would be decreased in size so that the total square footage of approved building would not be increased. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Because the proposal involves only a change in the footprint of the building, elimination of one proposed activity and the enlargement of another, the plans were not submitted to engineering or the utility companies for comment. There are, then, no additional comments. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The applicant needs to furnish additional information on the type of perimeter fencing at the garden center and the proposed height of the greenhouse. The revised site plan does not include the future Sam's Club building on the drawing. The current request does not, however, affect the approval of the Sam's Club building. It is not shown on this plan because the plan reflects only the current construction activity. E May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A E. ANALYSIS• Areas that were either building or driveways and parking are proposed to be used for building and fenced garden center area. The originally approved "T.B.O." and garden center were surrounded on the north, east, and west by concrete and asphalt areas. A parking area was approved to the north extending to Chenal Parkway. The revised site plan simply includes much of the area within the fence as a garden area, leaving a driveway at the north perimeter. Beyond the drive, extending to Chenal, is an area reserved for a "green area". F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Staff outlined the request to the Committee, reviewing the proposed changes in the in the site plan as indicated on the approved versus the revised drawings. The Committee forwarded the proposal to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) Staff explained that Wal-Mart had requested approval of a change in the approved site plan to delete the "Tire, Battery, Oil" (T.B.O.) service area and its drives and parking area, and substitute a garden center area. Staff noted that, since the originally approved site plan, a large area north of the building, between the "T.B.O." and Chenal Parkway, had been changed from parking to landscaped area, and that the drive off Chenal Parkway had been moved further to the east. Staff related that the applicant had submitted all required drawings and information concerning the design and lighting for the proposed garden center. Chairperson Chachere asked the Wal-Mart representative, Mr. Todd Butler, if he wished to make a presentation to the Commission. Mr. Butler deferred until those who were present in opposition to the request could relate their concerns. Mr. Cleve Jones spoke in opposition to the requested change. He stated that he and his family lived in a home which backs up to the site and is the one which is closest to Chenal Parkway. He complained that in the eight years they had lived in their home, they had had to endure the construction of Chenal Parkway and now 3 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A Wal-Mart; that when they had bought the home, they had been surrounded by trees and beautiful land, and between the two construction projects, they had lost practically all of these amenities. He complained that he and his family had sacrificed all this, and that they did not feel that they should have to sacrifice any more. He said that the proposed garden center would add traffic, noise, and light, and that these would be a detriment to their sleep and peace. He said that there was supposed to be a 50 foot natural buffer left along the west property line of the Wal-Mart site, but that, because they are at the north end of the site against Chenal Parkway, the 50 foot buffer is reduced. Utility construction on the Chenal Parkway right-of-way behind their home had involved the removal of trees. They had lost almost all the trees, and the noise from Chenal Parkway, plus the added noise from Wal-Mart was more sacrifice than they though they should have to endure. Wal-Mart had proposed a site plan, and they should, Mr. Jones contended, have to live with their decision. Tracy Jones spoke in opposition to the proposal. She recalled that, in January of 1993, Wal -Mart's Todd Butler has assured those in attendance at the meeting that there would be a dawn to dusk rule enforced for the construction activity, but that this has been disregarded. Construction activity until 11:00 or 12:00 at night was bad, but, she said, she could live with this intrusion because it was temporary. A garden center, on the other hand, would be permanent. Its lights and traffic would be on-going. There is a curb cut at the northwest corner of the site which is right behind their home, and traffic will be in and out all the time. She and her husband have, she said, been pushed far enough, and it is time for Wal-Mart to have to live with their original decision and not be granted the change to add the garden center. She added that she had measured and taken pictures to be sure that the required open space was not disturbed. She was convinced that the utility work and the removal of the trees had occurred on Chenal Parkway right-of-way. Commissioner McDaniel confirmed with Mrs. Jones that the open space had not been disturbed, and asked if she would be happier if the trees in the right-of-way had not been removed. Mrs. Jones replied that it would help if there were a tree buffer at the rear of their home, including on that portion of the rear of their property which is abutted by Chenal Parkway. Mr. Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney, indicated that utility contractors must restore the land following utility construction, but that trees cannot be placed back over utility lines. Mrs. Jones returned to the discussion of the construction activity in that portion of the utility easement which lies within hers and her husband's property, and said that their fence �, I May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A and railroad ties had been torn up. She said that, over the nine years they had lived at the location, contractors had been in the utility easement a number of times, and that always before, the fence and railroad ties had been replaced. She said that Todd Butler had told her following Wal -Mart's contractor's work that they were not required to replace the ties and landscaping. The job superintendent, though, has told her that he would be certain that the dirt and ties would be replaced. Mrs. Jones concluded by saying that, if the trees in the easement had been left in place, they would have been a buffer between them and the site, and the garden center would not be as much of a problem as it would without the trees. Mr. Todd Butler explained that the Joneses had done landscaping work in the easement area, and that Wal-Mart would do what is required, but explained to the Commissioners that the replacement of landscaping or asphalt in easements is the responsibility of the landowner. The Joneses had placed landscaping in the sewer easement over the sewer line, and to gain access to the sewer line, the landscaping had had to be removed. Commissioner Walker confirmed that Wal-Mart had done the minimum necessary to tap onto the existing sewer line which is in the sewer easement lying partially on the Joneses property. Mr. Butler explained that, because of the excessive depth of the sewer line, 12 feet, the ditch was required to be wide at the top, but that all work had been done in the easement. Commissioner Oleson complained about the developer accessing the sewer main through the designated open space, and said that citizens are assured that there would be an open space in a location such as this, then the developer disregards the assurances, Mr. Jones interjected that he wanted to be certain that the Commissioners realized how bright the lights are on the Home Quarters garden center across Bowman Road, and realized how this type of lighting would light up the area around the Wal-Mart site. Mr. Butler replied that, when the site was originally approved, the lighting at the rear of the site was to be 4 foot high bollard lights to reduce the blead-over lighting to the adjoining property, and that the light standards on the rest of the property were of a reduced height to limit the light spread to the adjoining properties. He stated that the lighting design would be handled to limit the effect of the lighting on the properties to the west. 5 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-964-A Mr. Butler reminded the Commission that, when the original site had been approved, the neighbors had complained about the "T.B.O." being behind their homes and about seeing all the cars and having the traffic and noise in the area that would be produced. Now, the parking, drives, and that use had been eliminated, and there is proposed a landscaped area with landscaping materials and plant sales which should look better than the auto parts sales and installation. Commissioner Walker asked for confirmation on the appropriateness of a discussion of use issues on a site plan review, to which Mr. Giles indicated that the discussion of the lighting and location of the garden center is an appropriate discussion. Commissioner McDaniel, addressing the Joneses, asked for a listing of accommodations which could be provided which would make the approval of the revised site plan less objectionable to them. Mrs. Jones stated that she wanted the 8 foot high privacy fence to extend the entire length of their rear property line. She stated that they wanted some trees planted in the area to buffer them from the driveway off Chenal Parkway. Mr. Butler replied that Wal-Mart would extend the 8 foot high fence to the Chenal Parkway right-of-way, and would work with Wastewater to replace as many of the trees in the easement as would be allowed, realizing that trees cannot be planted over sewer lines. Commissioner McDaniel asked if Wal-Mart could not plant evergreen trees to the east of the open space which would help shield the drive from the Joneses property. Mr. Butler responded that additional landscape buffer depth to include the planting of evergreen trees could be added at the northwest corner of the Wal-Mart site in the area between the drive off Chenal Parkway and the property line to the west. After a lengthy discussion involving Commissioners, the planning staff, and Mr. Giles on the appropriateness of discussions on use issues versus site plan issues, a motion was made and seconded to approve the revised site plan, subject to Wal-Mart extending an 8 foot high "good neighbor" privacy fence along the rear of the Joneses property line to its intersection with the Chenal Parkway right-of-way, re -planting trees in the utility easement to the extent allowed by Wastewater Utility, and adding evergreen trees to the east of the open space buffer to shield the Jones, and other homes from the effects of the lights and traffic on the Wal-Mart site. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4973-B NAME: IBSEN IMPORTS 3021 CANTRELL ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PCD LOCATION: 3021 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: MICHAEL D. IBSEN Ibsen Imports P. O. Box 25065 Little Rock, AR 72225 AREA: 0.894 ACRES ZONING• PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 15 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PROPOSED USES: VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: FT. NEW STREET: 0 Auto sales and display On August 14, 1990, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a PCD for "boat sales and display" for Red River Marine; the request at that time included a request for approval of all other uses by right in the C-3 zoning district, and this request was included in the approval. The Board of Directors established the PCD on September 12, 1990 in Ordinance No. 15,932. Since Red River Marine occupied the site under the initial PCD approval, that use ceased, and Brown's Carpets & Custom Rugs, a C-3 use, has occupied the site. Brown's is now ceasing operation at the site, and Ibsen Imports is requesting approval to occupy the site. Ibsen Imports proposes the addition of the sale and display of automobiles to the list of permitted uses in the PCD. Ibsen Imports indicates that they propose no changes in the landscaping, pavement, or structures on the site; however, they propose to install a wrought iron fence at the perimeter of the site in the location of the previously approved chain link fence which surrounded the display area. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amendment to the present PCD to permit the sales and display of automobiles. The existing PCD allows the sales and display of boats, plus all other uses by right in the C-3 zoning district. No changes in the landscaping, pavement, or structures are requested; May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4973-B however, approval is requested for a wrought iron fence along the perimeter of the property in the location of the previously approved chain link fence. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is the current location of the Brown's Carpets ,& Custom Rugs which is closing, and was the previous location for Red River Marine for which the PCD was originally established. There were conditions attached to the original approval, and these were: 1) the chain link fence was to maintain the same setback as the building; 2) exterior lighting was to be directed inward and downward; 3) landscaping of the site was to be as shown of the revised site plan; 4) temporary display of merchandise was to be allowed outside the fence area; 5) the location of the proposed sign was to be identified on the revised site plan; 6) the hours of operation were to be from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM; 7) the site was to be used for a showroom and sales facility only, and no maintenance of boats or related equipment was to occur on the site; 8) all C-3 uses and boat sales and display were to be permitted; 9) a note was to be included on the revised site plan excluding from approval the billboard which stood on the site; and, 10) the chain link fence which was to surround the open display area was to be removed when Red River Marine vacated the property. The billboard has subsequently been removed. The chain link fence was removed when Red River Marine vacated the site. The zoning to the east and south is C-3. Across Cantrell Rd. to the north is I-2 and 0-2 zoning. To the west, on the bluff overlooking Cantrell Rd. is R-2 zoning. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering, for the 1990 approval, required the dedication of additional right-of-way. This was done. There are no additional engineering comments. The plan was not distributed to the utility companies for this request, since the request is for the addition of a single use to the list of permitted uses in the PCD. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The landscaping has deteriorated over time. Plantings need to be reestablished, then properly maintained. There is a 20 foot fire lane easement along the east property line which needs to be left unobstructed. Oa May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4973-B E. ANALYSIS• Prior to the establishment of the PCD, the site was utilized in a number of different ways. Records indicate that the initial use was a service station, and it has also been used for auto sales. It has had various retail users in the building. In the original write-up from the 1990 Commission review of the PCD request, staff supported the boat sales and display as "a reasonable option for the property", and stated that the proposal was "consistent with the proposed PCD for the auto sales location to the east". Staff reaffirms this position. The staff review for the 1990 Commission hearing included the concern that boat sales and display was a C-4 use, but staff supported the use if a PCD was the mechanism whereby the use was approved and there was site design control. It was observed that use of the site would have practical limitations imposed because of the limited lot depth, and because, in the C-4 zoning district, no open display is permitted in the first 20 feet of the front yard setback. The PCD was a means of permitting the desired use within the limitations of the site, yet imposing site design controls. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request, with the condition that the landscaping be reinstalled and, thereafter, maintained, and that, should Ibsen Imports vacate the site, the fence be removed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant, Michael Ibsen, was present. Staff presented the item, and Mr. Ibsen made his request for the modification of the existing PCD to permit automobile sales and display. Mr. Ibsen presented a rendering of the front view of the site showing the landscaping improvements which are anticipated, and showing the wrought iron fence which is proposed. He indicated that a chain link fence would be installed at the rear and sides of the property, with the wrought iron fence being limited to the front building line location. Commissioner Oleson stated that the Commission had wrestled with the approval of the original PCD, concerned about the C-4 use for boat sales and display in the C-3 area. The Commission had also been concerned about the fence which had been requested with the original PCD application for Red River Marine, and, consequently, the stipulation had been placed in the approval of the PCD that 3 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) ___ _______ FILE NO.: z -4973-B the fence was to be removed when Red River Marine vacated the property. As required, Ms. Oleson added, the fence had been removed and the billboard which had stood on the property had been taken down. She explained that the removal of the billboard as a condition of the approval of the PCD was a primary reason for her affirmative vote on the request when the PCD was originally approved. Mr. Ibsen responded that he felt that an automobile sales and display use was appropriate, since there is another dealer just two doors to the east, and there is another dealer a couple of blocks to the east. Commissioner Oleson complained that the dealer two door down was not in compliance with their PCD restrictions, since they place display cars on the right-of-way/green space along Cantrell Rd. Mr. Ibsen replied that the problems with the other dealers was not his doing, and that he would like to explain what he planned to do with his new site. He stated that, unlike the other dealers in the area who have dozens of cars, he keeps in inventory 12-20 cars, with an average cost of $50,000 each. He will not have 50-100 cars sitting on his lot, since the cost is so high, he explained. The majority of his cars, he said, will be inside the showroom. The landscaping will be upgraded and be attractive, as will the wrought iron fence, he concluded. Commissioner Willis agreed that the issues to be discussed needed to deal with the applicant's request. Staff explained that the difference between boat sales and display and automobile sales and display was not that much different, and staff had felt that, since the PCD had been approved and used for the boat sales and display use, and, since there were automobile uses in the area, the applicant's request had not seemed inappropriate. Commissioner Walker interjected that he was supportive of the revitalization efforts along Cantrell Rd, and said that it appears that "the valley" is evolving as premium automobile dealer area. He stated, though, that the paved -over right-of-way should be returned to landscaping; that in the area from the curb to the edge of the right-of-way the asphalt should be removed and landscaping installed. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Walker asked if the applicant planned to display automobiles in the right-of-way. Mr. Ibsen replied that he would like to retain the option of displaying 1-4 cars during the day in that area; that at night, his insurance requires that all cars be behind the fence. Commissioner Oleson asked about the planned signage. 4 May 17, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4973-B Mr. Ibsen produced a rendering of the proposed sign, and this rendering showed a marquee below the identification sigh. Commissioner Oleson suggested that there was a need to tie down the number and location of the cars to be displayed in front of the building. Mr. Ibsen replied that he would like to be allowed as many as 4 cars, but that it would probably be fewer than that number, and that the location would be in front of the showroom. Commissioner Walker asked if a franchise needed to be sought from the Board of Directors for display on the right-of-way. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded to the question and indicated that a franchise approved by the Board was not needed. Commissioner Walker encouraged the applicant to return as much of the paved area behind the curb to landscaping as possible. Commissioner Oleson returned to the question of signage, and asked the applicant if he was interested in removing the marquee from the proposed sign. Mr. Ibsen replied that he was not. A motion was made and seconded to approve the modification to the PCD, with the stipulation that no more than 4 cars can be displayed at any one time in front of the building line on the right-of-way. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. U3 w io- Lij I ►: OEO .. z LLJ C!) m Q LLJ a Z Ll -n T I� I I lll�` II uj �Qp II � M I <I I'�.IIII I :�I II�IIII IiII�II 1� lilllll II I II I � LLJ Z E LLJ Z = 0 J CL LL) -' W LLJ J -- z CL u�=c�zOOU<C)LLJ L� Q J LJ U L1J J -�O--m `� Q J Z Z Y CL Z c:: O O N Q J �ZE=L) I� —� 2ZO U_ >— E-L O 3: Lo 3: I ►: OEO .. z LLJ C!) m Q LLJ a Z Ll -n T I II II � M I :�I II�IIII IiII�II 1� lilllll II I II I ��IIII SII I II II I� VIII `m d ` LJ.J J LLl T2 < _ � LLJ J t-'�C�Lu0-'� Jz Z2= Q¢ LLJ LLJ --lo! LLJ J z v mwCID Uj O ci Z= -I U c/� Z O O cn U Q Z -� �j LLJ Y Q Q -� U _U J m >- O uJ,J Q F- = U Z O 3: Cf) 3: I ►: OEO .. z LLJ C!) m Q LLJ a Z Ll May 17, 1994 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Date Chairman