Loading...
pc_02 26 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 26, 1985 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 9 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Jerilyn Nicholson John Schelereth Richard Massie Bill Rector Betty Sipes Dorothy Arnett David Jones Ida Boles John Clayton William Ketcher Jim Summerlin Vickie Fewell February 26, 1985 Item No. A -Z-4373-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Jesse Smith Same 1518 Wright Avenue Rezone from "R-4" to "C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Parking area Existing Use: 5,700 square feet+ Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West STAFF REPORT -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" -Vacant, Zoned "R-6" -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" -Vacant, Single Family, Zoned "R-4" This issue is on the Planning Commission agenda at the request of the Board of Directors. In December 1984, the Planning Commission denied a rezoning to "C-1" for the property at 1520 Wright Avenue. At the Planning Commission's Public Hearing, a number of residents spoke in opposition to the request and voiced concerns with parking and traffic. The owner, Jesse Smith, appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Directors in February of this year. The Board of Directors deferred action on the "C-1" rezoning at 1520 Wright Avenue (Z-4373) to allow the owner to try to resolve the parking issue. At the direction of the Board of Directors, the owner, Jesse Smith, filed a rezoning application for the lot at 1518 Wright Avenue. Mr. Smith owns both lots at 1518 and 1520 Wright Avenue. The Board of Directors suggested this approach because they thought that the additional lot could provide a solution to the parking problem and that the Planning Commission could address the request as a package because of adequate land area for a commercial use. Some of the Board members were also concerned about another structure, 1520 Wright Avenue, remaining vacant in the neighborhood. February 26, 1985 Item No. A -Continued Staff supported the "C-1" rezoning for 1520 Wright Avenue and supports the current request for 1518 Wright Avenue. A "C-1" reclassification is appropriate for this location on Wright, a minor arterial, and also because of the zoning and land use patterns in the area. Additionally, "C-1" neighborhood commercial district should be more compatible with a residential neighborhood. A two-lot "C-1" site fronting on Wright Avenue should have a minimal impact on the single family neighborhood to the north. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-1" request for 1518 Wright Avenue and still supports the "C-1" reclassification for 1520 Wright Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (Note: Items A and A-1, Z-4373, were discussed at the same time.) The applicant, Jesse Smith, was present. There were seven to eight objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Planning Commission that a petition with 25 signatures was submitted prior to the Public Hearing. James Isum, representing the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Isum said that the residents were opposed to "C-1" for both lots at 1518 and 1520 Wright Avenue. He said that the rezoning would have a severe impact on the neighborhood, and parking would still create a problem, even with the additional lot. Mr. Isum went on to say that the proposed parking lot could add to the problems in the area and the commercial rezoning would increase traffic. This was a major concern to the neighborhood, because Bishop Street is used by children for some of their activities. Mr. Isum pointed out that the location was a high crime area and that there was a need to protect the corner and keep commercial encroachment from turning north on Bishop. Thomas Brodneck, a representative of Arkansas Baptist College, spoke in opposition to the request. He expressed the same concerns as Mr. Isum and stated that the neighborhood needed to remain residential. Mr. L. Carson spoke for Mr. Smith. He said that the property was listed for at least two years and that it was unsuitable for residential use. Mr. Carson said that the commercial rezoning would enhance the area. Jesse Smith then spoke briefly and submitted a proposed parking scheme. Mrs. v. Isum spoke against the rezoning and disagreed with Mr. Carson. She said that a commercial use would create many problems for the neighborhood and that there was a need February 26, 1985 Item No. A -Continued to maintain the residential character. There was some discussion about an "0-1" or "0-3" compromise and filing a conditional use permit for the beauty shop. Mr. Isum again expressed concerns about the parking lot. Another person voiced their thoughts about the parking and traffic problems. Mr. Carson spoke briefly about some of the issues. After additional comments, the Planning Commission voted on the "C-1" rezoning as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The request was denied. -· February 26, 1985 Item No. Al -Z-4373 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jesse Smith Sarne 1510 Wright Avenue Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial Beauty Shop and Retail 5,700 square feet+ Vacant residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East west -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" -Vacant, Zoned "R-6" -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" -Duplex, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal for 1520 Wright Avenue is to convert an existing two story residential structure into a beauty shop with some limited retail. This lot is one of seven lots on the north side of Wright between High and Summit that are still zoned for low density residential use. The remainder of the five block strip from High to Summit is zoned "C-3." In addition, a majority of the south side of Wright along the five block stretch is zoned "C-3" except for the "0-3" and "R-6" lots on the block directly to the south of the property in question. The zoning pattern along Wright is fairly cons is tent with the "C-3" but the land use is more mixed. There is some residential use in the "C-3" area and the commercial uses vary but, for the most part, they are neighborhood oriented. Because of the existing zoning and development found along Wright, the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood. It appears that the long-term desirability of residential use for lots on Wright in this strip is questionable. With the heavy traffic flow and the development trends, the existing residential uses will probably be phased out over the corning years. ,_ , ' February 26, 1985 Item No. Al -Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story structure. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position or documented history on the site. 7. With "C-3" being the predominant zoning classification in the immediate area and continued residential use becoming less desirable along Wright Avenue, staff supports the rezoning. The proposed use, a beauty shop, is more neighborhood oreiented and should hae very little impact on the surrounding properties. In addition, the "C-1" zone is the neighborhood commercial district so that makes it more appropriate for the location being at the corner of a minor arterial right and a residential street. It is anticipated that the remaining residential lots in the immediate area will be considered for rezoning changes in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-1" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-18-84) The applicant, Jesse Smith, was present. There were four objectors also present. Staff indicated that a petition opposing the request had been submitted prior to the public hearing. James Ison spoke and objected to the request because of a number of problems in the area including traffic and parking. Mr. Smith said parking would be provided on-site. Another resident voiced his opposition and said that the corner could not accommodate the proposed use. Jo Martin, a property owner, said she had problems with the use and expressed other concerns because of the elderly and children in the neighborhood. Jesse Smith spoke again. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-1" request. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. February 26, 1985 Item No. Al -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-26-85) (Note: record. Refer to Item A, Z-4373-A for the complete minute The two items were discussed together.} The Planning Commission reaffirmed their previous denial of Z-4373 at this hearing by voting O ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The "C-1" rezoning was denied. February 26, 1985 Item No. l -Z-1716-C Owner: Pleasant Ridge Development Co. Same by Chris Barrier Applicant: Location: State Highway 110, north side, east of South Ridge Drive Request: Rezone from "R-4" Single Family to "0-2" Office and Institutional Purpose: Office Development Size: 2.40 acres+ Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -vacant, Zoned "R-2" South -vacant, Zoned "R-2" East -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" west -Public, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to develop the site for an office use. The property is located along a section of Highway #10 that is beginning to experience a change in land use. To the east, a church is under construction and to the west and south substantial zoning changes are being proposed for a large tract of land. If all the requests are granted, the character of the area will be completely changed and create a significant office/retail location along the Highway #10 corridor. The property in question should be viewed as having some land use potential other than residential because of being part of this larger area. A quality office project should not detract from the immediate vicinity and not adversely impact the surrounding properties. 2. The site is occupied by a single family residence and the remainder of it is vacant with woods. The property has some grade, but it is not of a difficult degree. 3. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway #10 will be required. The City Engineer has determined that SO feet from the centerline is necessary for Highway 110. February 26, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued 4. Engineering reports limited access on Highway #10 and street improvements for Highway #10. There have been no other adverse problems received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. This site in question has a lengthy history to it. In September of 1983, an application was filed for "0-3." That request received strong opposition from the Walton Heights neighborhood. A petition with 310 signatures was submitted and the rezoning was denied. No appeal was made to the Board of Directors. In December of 1983, a PCD was applied for and approved by the Planning Commission, but denied by the Board of Directors. Again, the Walton Heights residents objected to the proposed PCD and presented a petition with 372 names opposed to the request. The neighborhood expressed their support for the Suburban Development Plan in both instances. With the two requests, staff recommended denial. (These two applications were filed for the larger of two tracts that have been combined for this rezoning proposal.) 7. In the past, staff did not support any reclassification for the location because of the Suburban Development Plan and other concerns. Staff's position has now changed because of a recent planning study undertaken for Highway #10 from I-430 to Pankey. The committee that was responsible for formulating the plan for that corridor has recommended office use for this site and staff is in agreement with that concept. Staff feels that an office reclassification is appropriate for the site but not for an entire tract as filed. Staff's recommendation is "0-2" for the property west of the east boundary extended from Highway #10 to Southridge. This would exclude that portion that abuts the curve in Southridge Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends "0-2" for the tract west of the east property line extended from Highway #10 north to Southridge Drive. February 26, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (Note: Items No. 1 -Z-1716-C, No. 8 -Z-4410 and No. 9 - Z-4411 were discussed at the same time.} The applicants, Winrock Development Company and Pleasant Ridge Development Company, were present. Both parties were represented by Chris Barrier, Attorney. There were approximately 20 objectors in attendance. The first items to be discussed were the proposed land use plan and the realignment of Southridge Drive. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff addressed those issues and spoke at length about the Southridge Drive realignment. The discussion centered around how the City would be assured of the street improvements taking place. Mr. Lawson described two possible options: (1) a tri-party agreement, or (2) filing a final plat. There was a long discussion about those items. The City Attorney present expressed some concerns with the proposed agreements because of the possibility of contract zoning. The Planning Commission then turned their attention to the three rezoning requests before them. Chris Barrier addressed the proposed rezonings. He first spoke about Item No. 9 -Z-4411, and presented a new zoning proposal which showed all the commercial land to be located on the east side of Pleasant Ridge Drive with some office zoning on both sides of Pleasant Ridge Drive. There was a long discussion about the alternative plan. Mr. Barrier then went on to indicate that the Pleasant Ridge Development Company agreed with the staff recommendation for Z-1716-C, and Winrock was not opposed to the 75 foot "OS" strip, as suggested by the staff for Z-4410. Again, there was a lengthy discussion about the issue of contract zoning. Ron Tyne of Winrock spoke briefly and discussed the various concerns. At this point, John Schlereth, suggested that the Planning Commission could adopt a resolution rescinding the plat if the rezonings were not approved by the Board of Directors. David Henry, a resident on Woodland Heights Road, then addressed the Commission. He presented some background information on the area and Highway #10. He said that the proposed rezoning would have an impact on the area. He also discussed the various planning efforts addressing the Highway #10 area. He pointed out that the Suburban Development Plan recommended two sites for neighborhood commercial, not stripping out Highway #10, and preserving the Highway #10 corridor. Mr. Henry then presented a 1980 letter from Pleasant Ridge Development Company that described the proposed plan for the land in question. The development concept then was very limited. He expressed February 26, 1985 Item No. l -Continued some concerns with the proposed site plan and stated that the area's residents were opposed to the three rezoning requests, Z-1716-C, Z-4410 and Z-4411. A petition with 138 signatures against the rezonings was then presented to the Planning Commission. J.D. Crockett, representing the Walton Heights neighborhood, spoke and addressed the Highway #10 Study Plan. He indicated that they were not opposed to the rezonings because of the proposed signalization of the Highway #10 and Southridge intersection. John Hugg, a resident on Summit Road, spoke against the rezoning and said that the request was inconsistent with basic zoning because of the conflict between residential and nonresidential uses. Ernest Rush was opposed to the proposal and said that the quality of life in the area was disappearing. Kurt Henley spoke against the Highway #10 Study, because he said it had too many problems. He said there was a lot of opposition to the plan and rezonings. Chris Barrier addressed the Commission about the various concerns. He said that the developers were opposed to stripping out Highway #10, and the residential area could be protected. There was a long discussion by the Planning Commission about various issues. The Commission members decided to vote on each request, but not to forward the recommendations to the Board of Directors until the final plat has been filed for the Winrock property on the north side of Highway #10. The Commission then voted to recommend approval of Z-1716-C, as amended, and not forward it to the Board of Directors until the final plat has been filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ,._ February 26, 1985 Item No. 2 -Z-4393 Owner: John B. McDaniel/Robert and Becky Fain Applicant: John B. McDaniel Location: Mann Road and Walnut Street (Mabel vale) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-1" and "C-3" Purpose: Office and commercial 0.86 acres+ Residential Size: Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2" -Vacant, Single Family, Zoned "R-2" -Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" -Church, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is for a total of five lots, four for "C-3" and one for "O-1." The property is located in a part of Mabelvale that has a mix of land uses, including a large church and an industrial operation. In addition, there are some railroad tracks directly across the lots fronting Mann Road. Because of these existing conditions in the immediate vicinity, it appears that this particular area on the south side of the tracks is appropriate for some nonresidential rezoning. 2. The site is made up of five typical residential lots with a single family residence on the Mann Road frontage and one building on the Walnut Street lot. The structure on Walnut Street is known as the Cochran House, and is reported to be the oldest existing structure in Mabelvale. The owners have provided the staff with a written history of the property and house, which will be available for review at the Pubic Hearing. ~- February 26, 1985 Item No. 2 -Continued 3. Both Mann Road and Walnut Streets are currently shown on the Master Street Plan. Because of this, dedication of additional right-of-way will be required for both roads. Engineering will provide the amount of right-of-way needed and address the possibility of downgrading Walnut to a collector, because of some proposed Master Street Plan changes in the general area. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. Street improvements will be required for both Mann Road and Walnut Street. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The area was annexed into the City in 1977. 7. This location is part of the Otter Creek Plan and the preliminary draft of the plan only identifies a strip north of the railroad tracks along Mabelvale Pike for commercial use. Staff agrees with this, but also feels that there could be an area south of the railroad tracks for commercial development, and the property in question appears to be the best suited for this. Because of the existing uses in the area and being located at the intersection of two potential major streets, the site does lend itself to some nonresidential zoning, especially for the lots fronting the railroad tracks. In this particular situation, staff supports the "C-3" rezoning but not the "0-1" request. The block is divided by an alley, and staff feels that this is an appropriate division between residential and nonresidential zoning in the area. Nonresidential rezoning south of the alley could create some problems in the future, because there would not be an adequate physical separation between the different zoning districts. The alley does provide a good buffer and would be easier to maintain as a zoning line at that point. Going beyond the alley is encroaching into the area that has stronger residential characteristics. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-3" as filed, but not the 11 0-1. II February 26, 1985 Item No. 2 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, John McDaniel, was present and was represented by Robert McHenry. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. McHenry addressed the proposal, especially the "0-1" request for Lot 7 on Walnut Street. He then went on to describe the "Cochran House" and presented some photos of it. Mr. McHenry also informed the Planning Commission that the alley that the staff identified had been closed for years. There was a long discussion about the land use in the immediate vicinity. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "0-1" and "C-3" requests as filed. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 26, 1985 Item No. 3 -Z-4394 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Bonnie Williams Same 7177 Mabelvale Cut-Off (West of Chicot Road) Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3 Fruit Stand 9,100 square feet vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" -Duplex, Zoned "R-2" -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" -Church, Zoned "R-2" NOTE: The owner has requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted to withdraw this item from the agenda at the request of the owner. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. February 26, 1985 Item No. 4 -Z-4395 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Curtistene Barnes Same 4118 West 11th Street Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial Beauty Shop 5,980 square feet Existing Use: Single Family Residence/Beauty Shop (nonconforming} SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" -Commercial, Zoned "C-3" -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" -Office, Zoned "O-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This request is before the Planning Commission as a result of an enforcement action by the City Zoning Office. The beauty shop is currently in place and operating. The property is located just north of an area along West 12th that has had a number of rezoning changes, primarily to "C-3." For the most part, the existing commercial zoning is restricted to the block between 11th and 12th on both the north and south sides of West 12th. There is exception to that pattern, and that is along West 13th from Cedar to Oak. The "C-3" zoning is along the south side of West 13th, but that area has been zoned for years and has the potential of being a neighborhood commercial center. Also, the majority of the structures are commercial buildings with very few single family residences. The lot at 4118 West 11th is across the street from "C-3" zoning, a food store, but is located in a block that is all single family except for the use to the west, which is an office. In the immediate vicinity north of West 11th, the primary land use is still single family. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with two structures on it. The accessory structure at the rear of the property is being used for the beauty shop. February 26, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Engineering reports that parking and access are a problem; parking must be provided to meet current Code. There have been no other comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history of the site. Staff has received some informational calls concerning the request. 7. This area is part of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan, which does not reflect a commercial zoning at this location. Because of this and the possibility of encouraging further commercial encroachment north of West 11th, staff does not support the "C-1" request. The use of a beauty shop does not seem to have created problems for the neighborhood, but there are other uses permitted in "C-1" that could have a negative impact on the area. The owner does have another option, and that is requesting either "0-1" or "0-3" which does permit beauty shops as conditional uses. Staff feels that this is a viable alternative because of the large commercial involvement to the south and the "0-3" lot to the west. An office reclassification is more appropriate for this location and should have less of an impact on the neighborhood than a commercial rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "C-1." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Curtistene Barnes, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Barnes spoke briefly and agreed to amending her request to "0-1." There was some discussion about the conditional use permit that would be required for the beauty shop. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended application to "0-1," waive additional filing fees, no renotification of property owners be required and that the use continue to operate. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 -Z-4404 Owner: o.c. Flynn Same Applicant: Location: 512 North Oak Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily/3 Units Size: Existing Use: 7,000 square feet Multifamily (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" -Duplex, Zoned "R-5" -Single Family, zoned "R-3" -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a single lot to "R-5" to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. The structure currently has three units, and the owner wishes to place a 14 1/2 x 26 1/2 foot addition at the rear of the building to enlarge one of the existing units. Expanding a nonconforming use cannot be done without first gaining proper zoning. The lot is located in a block that has a very mixed zoning pattern, including "C-3" and "I-2", and the land use is somewhat similar. A majority of the properties are residential, with the exception of one lot on Kavanaugh that has a commercial use. The property in question abuts an "R-5" lot to the south that was rezoned in the mid-60's and, from the field check, it appears to be used for a duplex. Across North Oak, there are two "R-4" lots, but the entire half block is only single family residences. In this block, the primary use is single family or duplex with "MF" multifamily to the south on Lee. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued 4. Engineering has suggested that improved parking should be required on the property. There have been no other comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has received some informational calls, and a few of the residents have expressed concerns with parking. 7. Staff's position is one of nonsupport for the "R-5" request. The staff recognizes the existing three units, but is concerned with additional "R-5" encroachment in the mid-block and the potential for increasing the number of units if the zoning is granted. The three units seem to have had minimal impact on the neighborhood, but rezoning the lot could change that. Staff realizes that the lot at 512 North Oak abuts an "R-5" property to the south, but that appears to be misplaced, and staff would not have supported the rezoning at that location. The continued zoning disruption of the block is inappropriate and should not be advocated by approving this request. The Heights Hillcrest Plan recommends an area along Kavanaugh for multifamily use where "R-5" is in place and staff agrees with that. The plan shows the multifamily to include the first three lots south of Kavanaugh along North Oak and not beyond that point. One final item is the parking. Several residents have said that it is currently a problem, and "R-5" zoning could aggravate that situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, O.C. Flynn, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Flynn addressed the Commission and stated that the structure had been used as a triplex for approximately 15 years. He went on to say that the building needed to be enlarged and that the three units would be maintained. Ron Newman, a resident of the area, expressed concerns with the "R-5" zoning because of the possibility of increasing the number of units. Mr. Newman also pointed out that there was a parking problem on the street. At this point, there was a long discussion about utilizing a PRD for the location. Mr. Flynn indicated that he had no plans for February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued adding additional units and was receptive to the PRD concept. A motion was made to recommend that the request for 512 North Oak be converted to a PRD, that additional filing fees be waived and no further notification be required with the exception of those property owners that submitted written objections to the staff. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. .. --. February 26, 1985 Item No. 6 -Z-4408 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Perry w. Norwood Darcia Norwood 1608 Nichols Road Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Office and Contractor Yard 7,000 square feet Parking and Storage (nonconforming} SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Industrial, zoned "R-2" -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" -vacant, Zoned "R-2" -vacant, zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone one lot to "I-2" for a paving company office. An existing mobile home is currently being utilized for the office, and it is the owner's plan to replace that with a newer structure. The lot will also be used for storage and parking for the paving company. The entire operation is on four or five lots, so it is a substantial noncomforming use in the area. At this time, it is unknown as to how long the use has been in place. The surrounding neighborhood is either single family residences or vacant lots. There are some minor commercial uses found in the area, but not to the scale of this particular use. It does not appear that legitimizing an industrial use at this location would be beneficial for the neighborhood or the most appropriate action to take. It is anticipated that some type of redevelopment will occur in the area, but not for heavy commercial or industrial uses. Those types of developments are not compatible with the surrounding area. The only recent rezoning activity in the vicinity has been for "R-4" to the south of West 20th Street. February 26, 1985 Item No. 6 -Continued 2. The site is primarily asphalted with a metal building at the rear of the property. 3. The survey shows 40 feet of right-of-way for Nichols Street, so it appears that some additional dedication will be required to meet standards for a residential street. The normal right-of-way for a residential street is 50 feet. 4. Engineering states that: (1) boundary street requirements (1/2 street construction to industrial standards) along Nichols Street and (2) Planning Commission should be made aware that area streets are inadequate for industrial traffic. There have been no other adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. The only apparent issue is the creation of a spot zoning. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The area was annexed to the City in 1983. 7. The I-430 District Plan addresses this area, and the Land Use Plan shows continued residential use for the neighborhood. The Plan recommends small lot single family development with the closest nonresidential use, suburban office, located on the west side of Aldersgate Road. Because of this and other concerns, staff does not support the "I-2" rezoning. The I-430 Plan specifically addresses this area, The Hicks Interurban Addition on pages 13-15. The text describes the subdivision and then goes on to list three possible options for the neighborhood: (1) maintaining the status quo: (2) upgrading the area; or (3) total redevelopment. None of the alternatives make mention of commercial and industrial uses as a possibility for the future. The redevelopment section states that, "the optimal use of the area is residential given the surrounding existing and proposed land uses." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" request. February 26, 1985 Item No. 6 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Darcia Norwood, was present. There were approximately 14 persons objecting to the request in attendance. Ms. Norwood spoke and gave a history of the location occupied by the paving company. She stated that the operation relocated to Lots 16 and 17 in 1981 and then enlarged to Lots 14 and 15 at a later date. She also indicated that Lot 17 would primarily be used for an office and that it was a good location for their use because of its proximity to I-430 and I-630. Ms. Norwood then presented some slides of the area and discussed at length the Hicks Interurban Addition, including land use and other nonconforming uses. Because of the makeup of the area, she felt that it was losing its desirability as a residential neighborhood. Mr. J. Wallace spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the streets were a problem and that it should be kept as a residential neighborhood. Danny Nash discussed Ms. Norwood's presentation and slides. He then presented photos of the neighborhood and the property in question. He said that he was against the rezoning because the area is inadequate for the use and was creating many problems. Another resident spoke about various problems. Wanda Shipp, the property owner to the north, indicated that she was totally opposed to the request. George Snider, representing the property owner on the east side of Nichols then spoke. He said that he recognized the nonconforming aspect, but the continued use would impact properties in the area. He also expressed concern with the issue of spot zoning. Lauren Milligan spoke against the rezoning because of children and their safety. Ms. Norwood spoke again and addressed the various issues raised by the residents. There was a long discussion about the request and its appropriateness. A vote was then taken on the "I-2" request. The vote: 0 ayes, 7 noes and 4 absent. The rezoning was denied. February 26, 1985 Item No. 7 -Z-4409 Owner: Lenon Bradford Same Applicant: Location: East 9th and Picron Street, southwest corner Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating place Size: Existing Use: 5290 Square Feet+ Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East west -Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3" -Single Family, zoned "R-3" -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1 • The proposal is to rezone the property to "C-3" for a restaurant. The site is located in an area that is primarily occupied by residential uses. The predominant zoning classification is "R-3" with some nonresidential zoning to the northeast "I-2" and to the south along East 10th. Lots that are on East 10th with "C-3" or "I-2" zoning are across the street from the Airport's property, a major nonresidential use in the area. A use such as the airport with related facilities could provide some justification for the commercial/industrial zoning on the north side of East 10th. Those lots are confined to just a three-block area along this portion of East 10th. The land use on East 10th is still mixed with some "C-3" and "I-2" lots occupied by residential uses. North of East 10th, the land use in the immediate vicinity is residential with the exception of one block north of East 9th, and that site was rezoned a number of years ago to "I-2." It appears that a commercial reclassification for this property is inappropriate and could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential uses. There are also some questions as to whether the property could accommodate a quality commercial use with the necessary parking and other requirements. February 26, 1985 Item No. 7 -Continued 2. The site is a vacant lot with street frontage on three sides. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. (Access shall be coordinated with the City Engineer before any permit is approved.) 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. Staff's position is that this rezoning, if granted, would create a commercial spot zoning at an inappropriate location along East 9th, and is opposed to the request. The potential for this proposed rezoning to /adversely impact the residential character of the immediate neighborhood is too great and outweighs any benefits from the project. The long-term goal of the East Little Rock community is to concentrate and establish a quality neighborhood commercial center on East 6th Street in close proximity to the East Little Rock Community Complex. This proposal is counter to that objective and should not be granted. Every effort should be made to strengthen and preserve this residential neighborhood, and this rezoning could disrupt that. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the owner/applicant had not notified the required property owners and the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 26, 1985 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ,,.--, February 26, 1985 Item No. 8 -Z-4410 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Winrock Development Company Joe White State Highway #10, North Side, West of Southridge Drive Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "OS" Open Space, "MF" Multifamily and "0-2" Office and Institutional Multifamily and office development "OS": 7.51 acres "O-2": 7.37 acres Multifamily, "MF-12": 13.69 acres Total: 28.57 acres Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East west -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" -Vacant, Multifamily & Commercial, Zoned "MF-12 and 18", "C-1" and "C-2" -Vacant and Public, Zoned "R-2" -AP&L Substation, Zoned "R-2" STAFF REPORT: This proposal is part of the Highway #10 corridor that was addressed by the Highway #10 Study Committee. This request, as is submitted, conforms to the proposed land use plan that has been recommended by the Committee. The plan/report has not been acted on by the Board of Directors. The comments from Engineering are: 1. Southridge Drive to be relocated to Pleasant Ridge Road. 2. The intersection required to be signalized. February 26, 1985 Item No. 8 -Continued 3. Right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from centerline for Highway #10. 4. Boundary street improvements required. 5. All improvements must conform to Highway #10 Study Committee requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "OS,11 "02" and "MF12" with an "OS" strip for the north 75 feet of the MF tract. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (Note: Refer to Item 1 -Z-1716-C for the complete minute record.) Ron Tyne of Winrock Development Company discussed the recommended "OS" strip and agreed to amending the application to include a 75-foot "OS" strip for multifamily tract. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amended request and not forward the recommendation to the Board of Directors until a final plat has been filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The amended request was approved. ,,,,._ ._ -- February 26, Item No. 9 - Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: 1985 Z-4411 Pleasant Ridge Development Co. Same by Chris Barrier State Highway #10 at Pleasant Ridge and Woodland Heights Roads Rezone from "R-2", "C-1" and "C-2" to "0-2" and "C-2" Mixed Use -Commercial Center and Office "0-2": "C-2": Total: 6.81 acres 8.13 acres 14.94 acres Existing Use: Vacant and Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Single Family and Public, Zoned "R-2" -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "0-3" Single Family, Zoned "R-2" -Multifamily, Zoned "MF-18" STAFF REPORT: This request is for land located along Highway #10 that is included in the document prepared by the Highway il0 Study Committee. The plan/report has yet to be formally acted on by the City. The proposal, for the most part, conforms to the land use plan as recommended by the Committee. Staff is in agreement with a mix of commercial and office uses, but feels uncomfortable with the proposed zoning lines as submitted with this request. Because of this concern, staff is preparing several options to the requested rezoning that will be presented at the public hearing. Staff recognizes the report's recommendation of 12 acres for commercial use, and that is not at issue, but rather the location and size of some of the proposed tracts. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of two acres for "0-2" and five acres for "C-2." Several of the parcels are less than the Ordinance requirements in terms of size. Also, February 26, 1985 Item No. 9 -Continued staff is concerned with the general configuration of the various zoning proposals and how the different sites will work together. The Engineering staff has provided the following comments: 1. Intersection required to be signalized. 2. Right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from centerline for Highway #10. 3. Boundary street improvements required. 4. Access onto Highway #10 must be coordinated and approved by City Engineer. 5. All improvements must conform to Highway #10 Study Committee requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the rezoning as proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (Note: Refer to Item No. 1 -Z-1716-C for complete minute record.) Jim Lawson of the Planning staff and Lou Schickel, one of the developers, addressed the Planning Commission about the various issues prior to a vote being taken on the request. After additional comments, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the amended application as submitted by the owner, and that the item not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until a final plat has been filed. Also included in the vote was a provision that the required site plan review occur prior to any excavation taking place on the property. The vote: 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. The amended request was approved. The Planning Commission then acted on a motion to approve a resolution stating that if one of the three rezoning proposals, Z-1716-C, Z-4410 and Z-4411, is not approved by the City Board of Directors, the final plat for the Winrock property on the north side of Highway #10 will be rescinded. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.