Loading...
pc_04 30 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COM MI SSION MINUTE RECORD APRIL 30, 1985 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 10 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 William Ketcher Dorothy Ar nett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Si pes Jo hn Clayton David Jones Jim Sum merlin Id a Boles Bill Rector Pat Benton ) I ) April 30, 1985 Item No. A -Z-4421 Owner: John w. White Applicant: Financial Centre Development Co. Autumn Road North of Hermitage Road Location: Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: Existing Use: 2 .1 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Unclassified-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"-Church, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1.The request is to rezone the 2.1 acres to "C-3" forunspecified co mmercial use. (The property is currentlyoutside the city limits, but an annexation petition hasbeen filed.) The site is located in an area that iseither single family residences or vacant land. OnAutumn Road, south of Hermitage, there is some minorcommercial development. To the east on Hermitage Roadis the Financial Centre area that is primarilydeveloped for office uses. The zoning pattern to theeast {I-630 and Shackleford area) is a mix of "O-2,"0-3" and "C-3," but that is somewhat removed from thisparticular location. The zoning in the Autumn Roadvicinity is "R-2" and "C-3" at the no rtheast andsoutheast corners of Autumn and Hermitage, but a largeportion of it is unclassified. 2.The site is vacant and wooded. 3.It appears that some dedication of additionalright-of-way will be required for Autumn Road. TheMaster Street Plan issue associated with this requestis the Rock Creek Parkway extension from I-630 to thewest. Information provided by Engineering indicatesthat the proposed alignment is just so uth of theproperty {Lot 24) a nd that Autumn Road will beterminated at the parkway extension. April 30, 1985 Item No. A -Continued 4.Engineering has provided the following: Boundary street improvements on .Autumn Road. Depending upon other development from Birchwood to the south end of the property (Lot 24) road will be either 27' or 36'. (This will be discussed at the meeting.) No other adverse comments have been reported by the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented history or neighbor hood positionon this site. 7.The I-430 District Plan does not identify this locationfor commercial use, and staff does not su pport therequest. The plan shows the immediate area no rth ofHermitage for continued single fa mily use, wit h thesouth side of Hermitage being reserved for major officedevelopment. Staff is against the "C-3" rezoning, butfeels the site co uld acco mmodate some low to mediumdensity ho using. The existing "C-3" directly to thesouth and the "C-3" at the southeast co rner of Autumnand Hermitage was acco mplished through a co urt decreeand without input from the st aff or the PlanningCommission. That action occurred in September 1984 andrezoned Lots 25, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the West HighlandSubdivision to "C-3." The rezoning of those lots wasin direct conflict with the adopted plan for the areaand should not provide the justification for theadditional commercial int rusion by approving thisrequest. The proposed alignment of the parkwayextension will impact the "C-3" parcel to the southbecause of the necessary right-of-way. Preliminaryplans indicate that the ro adway will utilizeapproximately on e-half of the "C-3" property at thenortheast corner. Because of this and a moresubstantial "C-3" involvement, approximately 9 acres tothe south, the parkway could define the areas ofnonresidential and residential zoning in the AutumnRoad vicinity. Also, Lot 24 is currently fr onting on aresidential street and somewhat removed from theintersection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request= April 30, 1985 Item No. A -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION: (March 26, 1985) The applicant, Bruce Davis, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the request to the April 30, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTON: (April 30, 1985) The owner was represented by John Burnett. There were no objectors present. Mr. Burnett spoke and described the existing "C-3" tracts in the immediate area. He said that the "C-3" site to the south will be impacted by the extension of the Rock Creek Parkway and make it a difficult tract of land to work with. Mr. Burnett indicated that the plan was to combine the property in question with the existing "C-3" parcel if the rezoning is granted. He pointed out that the applicant controls the "C-3" property directly to the south. Mike Batie of the City Engineering staff then spoke briefly about the Rock Creek Parkway extension. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The Planning Commission agreed with the rezoning proposal because of: (1) the extension of the Rock Creek Parkway and its impact on the "C-3" tract to the south, (2) the existing "C-3" site and its influence on the property in question, and (3) the applicant's plans to combine the two tracts and undertake a comprehensive development approach. April 30, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: LOCATION: Capitol View Mini-Warehouses West 2nd Street at West Markham and Battery APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: Mr. Roger Mears/Eddie Branton A.Site History B. c. At the March public hea ring, a replat was approved onthis site. At that time, the Commission approveddeferment of street imp rovements until the site planwas reviewed. Proposal 1.The construction of a mini-warehouse project on 5.64 acres. 2.Project data: Mark Size Area A 225' X 30' 6,750 sq. ft. 200' X 30' 6,000 sq. ft. C 150' X 30' 4,500 sq. ft. D 100' X 30' 3,000 sq. ft. E 75' X 40' 3,000 sq. ft. F 250' X 30' 7,500 sq. ft. 225' X 30' 6,750 sq. ft. 250' X 30' 7,500 sq. ft. I 300' X 30' 9,000 sq .. ft. J 350' X 30' 10,500 sq. ft. K 350' X 30' 10,500 sq. ft. L 310' X 30' 9,300 sq. ft. 84,300 sq. ft. Staff Analysis Both the Fire Department and Water Works have su bmitted comments. Staff is not opposed to the project. April 30, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B -Continued D.Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to street improvements required byEngineering. E. Subdivision Committee Review The application was passed to the Commission. F. Planning Commission Action: The applicant was present. There were no objectors.The item was discussed by the Planning Commission andit was determined that notices should be sent out tothe surrounding area, including the State Capitol,since the project had su ch a visual impact on the area.The plan was reported to be in conformance with theordinance, technically. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks so that notices could be sent out. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-30-85) The applicant was present. Two persons presented concerns about the development. On e gentlemen represented the American Lung Association. He expressed concerns that the development may adversely affect their property in the area. Mr. Ron Newman, Director of the Capitol Zoning District, expressed similar concerns about the visual impact of such a development. One Commissioner expressed sympathy with the concerns raised, but explained that the property was zoned in accordance with the use proposed. Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 30, 1985 Item No. 1 -Z-649-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Melvin Brown Same By: Robert A. Newcomb 1706, 1712 and 1714 East 2nd Street Rezone from "I-2" Light Industrial to "C-3" General Commercial Lodge 0.71 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -River, Unclassif ied-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-4"-Vacant, Zoned "I-3"-Vacant, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal is to rezone the site to "C-3" for the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge. The property is located in a part of east Little Rock that has very mixed land use and zoning patterns. In the immediate vicinity of the location under consideration, the zoning includes "R-4," "C-3," "I-2," and "I-3." The land use is similar with single family, commercial and industrial uses present. Land on the nort h side of East 2nd from this property to the east is vacant. To the west, there is a large parking area for use on the south side of East 2nd. 2.The site includes three lots that are vacant andcovered with concrete. The property at one time was occupied by a structure. 3.East 2nd Street is ident ified as a minor arterialwhich normally re quires 80 feet of right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is 60 feet. Engineering will discuss the need of additional right-of-way at the hearing. April 30, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite. The property was rezoned to "I-2" a number of years ago. 7.Staff's position is that the proposed use isappropriate for the site and supports the request.Because of the makeup of the area, the lodge shouldhave only a minimal impact, if any, on the surroundinguses. There is no established zoning pattern or planfor the neighborhood, so the rezoning will not be inconflict with those types of concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Staff infor med the Planning Commission that the applicant had failed to notify the required property owners. A motion was made to defer the request to the May 28, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. j April 30, 198 5 Item No. 2 -Z-2780-A Owner: .Applicant: Kenneth w. Johnson Same Location: 5015 West 65th Street (East of Lancaster) Request: Rezone from "C-3" General Commercial to "C-4" Open Display Purpose: Used Car Lot Size: Existing Use: 0.46 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Corrnnerc ial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"-Multifamily, Zoned "C-3"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1.The request is to rezone the tr act to "C-4" for a usedcar lot. The property is located in close proximity tothe West 65th and Lancaster intersection that has "C-3"on three corners and "C-4" on the northeast corner.The zoning on both sides of West 65th from GeyerSprings to the ea st is primarily nonresidential with amix of "C-3" and "I-2" being the predominantclassifications. The land use pattern includes somevacant land, various types of commercial uses and alarge multifamily complex in the immediate vicinity.On the north side of West 65th, west of Lancaster,there is an auto dealership in place. It appears thatthe proposed use and rezoning are compatible with thearea. 2.The site is vacant and flat. On the ea st side of theproperty, there is a 30-foot utility ea sement that is alarge embankment. This creates a definite bufferbetween this tr act and the use to the ea st, themultifamily project. 3 o There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this requesto April 30, 1985 Item No. 2 -Continued 4.The Engineering Division has commented that the lotseems too small for proper access to the proposed usedcar lot. No other adverse comments have been reportedas of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thelot. The lot was originally rezoned for a used car lot some years back. 7.This particular location is within the SuburbanDevelopment Plan which identifies the south side ofWest 65th as a strip development district. Normally,the "C-3" and "C-4" districts are associated with thattype of land use pattern. Staff feels that therezoning is reasonable and supports the request. Thetract is triangular in shape so that places somerestrictions on it, but it do0 have approximately a150 foot frontage, excluding the utility easement onWest 65th. It appears that the site could accommodatea small used car dealership. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion, the Planning Co mmission voted to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as filed. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. April 30, 1985 Item No. 3 -Z-4423 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Gene Carter Brooks Jackson Bowman and Kanis Roads Northwest Corner Rezone from "R-2" and "MF-12" to "MF-18" Existing Use: Multifamily Units 21.7 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Zoned "MF-12"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2,""0-3" and "C-3" (Unclassified)-Vacant and Single Family (Unclassified)-Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1.The proposal is to rezone ap proximately 22 acres to"MF-18." The owne rs have also requested that the west50 feet of the property be rezoned to "OS" Open Space.The site is located in an area of west Little Rockwhere the primary land use is still single family withlarge tracts of vacant land. The nonresidential usesin the im mediate vicinity are primarily concentrated atthe intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads. There areother minor nonresidential uses along Kanis and onBowman south of Kanis. The zoning pattern is somewhatmore mixed wit h "MF-18," "MF-24," "0-3," "C-3" and some"I-2" to the north. Most of those tracts are stillundeveloped. North of the existing "MF-12' property,the land is zoned "C-3" to Markham Street with an "I-2"parcel. The existing "R-2" strip that creates thenorthern boundary for the "MF-12" tract is the proposedalignment for the Rock Creek Parkway extension. Becauseof the property's location and the existing zoning, itappears that a mu ltifamily density for the site isreasonable. April 30, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued 2.The site is vacant, hilly and he avily wooded. Alongthe southeast boundary of the property, there is alarge Southwestern Bell easement. The tract is alsobisected by a 50-foot ri ght-of-way for what would bethe extension of Hermitage Road. 3.The only Master Street Plan issue remotely effectingthis property is Bowman Road which is classified as aminor arterial, but the site does not have any frontageon Bowman so there should be no dedication re quirement. 4.Engineering has provided the following comments: {l) Hermitage Road will need to be built to collector standards. (2)Discuss whether a collector should be re quiredalong the west boundary to tie into Rock Creekparkway. (Hermitage Road west of Bowman will be utilized to provide access to the site.) The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has provided the following statement: No sanitary sewer is available at this location. Sanitary sewer service is available at Bowman and Pilgrim roads. This sewer drains to the Rock Creek watershed of which District 230 is a part. The property under consideration in this zoning change does not have gravity sewer se rvice immediately available to it at the present. To serve the property by gravity would require a main extension from District 219 in the Brodie Creek watershed. District 219 sewers are design to serve 12.6 people/gross acre at ultimate "build out" of the area within the district. The utility policy through the years has been to restrict developments within the Brodie Creek watershed to population densities of 12.6 people/gross acre or less so that the ultimate sewer is not exceeded. The upshot with regard to item Z-4423 is that the utility must oppose the zoning change to "MF-18" at this time because we believe it will result in densities exceeding the figure mentioned above. Pumping over the ridge and into the Rock Creek watershed/District 230 is unacceptable because it would set a precedent which leads to problems similar to District 222 and the Grassy Flat interceptor. April 30, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.Some of the property is currently outside the Citylimits, but it is part of the referendum area that theCity is still waiting for a final decision on. TheSupreme Court ruled in favor of the City, but apetition for a rehearing has been filed. Prior toapplying for the rezoning, the owners filed anannexation petition, but the status of that is unknownat this time. Staff has received some informationalcalls regarding this request. 7.The I-430 District Plan identifies the site formultifamily development, and staff supports that typeof land use pattern with some modifications to thedensities. Because of an existing single familysubdivision to the west, staff recommends the followingrezoning pattern: the west 50 feet to "OS," the next250 feet to "MF-12" and the balance to "MF-18." Thisapproach has been used at another location, Napa Valleyand Mara Lynn, because of adjacent single familysubdivisions. Staff feels that the stepping ofdensities can provide a reasonable number of units andat the same time protect the single family developmentto the west. Extending multifamily zoning south of the"MF-12" should not adversely impact the area. Theissue of the collectors will have to be addressed atthe time of the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request with the following densities: "OS" for the west 50 feet, "MF-12" for the next 250 feet and "MF-18" for the balance. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Brooks Jackson was present and represented the owner of the property. There were approximately five interested residents in attendance. Mr. Jackson described the proposed project and its high level of quality. Mike Batie of the City's Engineering staff addressed the proposed north/south collector on the west side of the property intersecting with the Rock Creek Parkway extension. Mr. Batie indicated that the Engineering staff recommended that the collector on the west side of the site was necessary and be maintained on the .April 30, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued Rock Creek Parkway Plan. At this point, the Planning Commission was informed that the collector in question was not currently shown on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Batie went on to say that the plan for the extension was to try to avoid excessive curb cuts and limit access to specific intersections. There was a long discussion about the collector issue. Mr. Jackson spoke again and discussed the property to the north which is under the same ownership. He said the plans are to develop it for commercial uses. He also addressed access to the property in question. There were some additional comments about the proposed collector on the west side of the property. Marie Taylor had some questions about the standards for a collector and the right-of-way for a strip (Hermitage west of Bowman Road). John Brooks expressed concerns about the drainage in the area and the proposed zoning. Mr. Brooks indicated that his property was adjacent to the site in question at a lower elevation, and he wanted to know how he would be protected from the development. He was informed that the site plan would address those types of issues. Gene Carter, owner of the property, de-cribed the proposed project and gave some specifics. There were additional comments about the street issues. Brooks Jackson then amended the application to reflect the staff's recommendation of "OS" for the west 50 feet, "MF-12" for the next 250 feet and "MF-18" for the balance. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as amended. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The Planning Commission also recommended that the collector on the west side and that a portion of Hermitage be constructed to collector standards. ) .April 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Z-4429 Owner: International Computer Systems, Inc. Applicant: Reba N. Cargile Location: North Street west of Izard Street Request: Rezone from "R-5" to "0-3" Purpose: Parking Size: 3900 sq. ft. Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "I-2"-Vacant, Zoned "O-3"-Parking, Zoned "O-3"-Office, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDER ATIONS 1.The request is to rezone a single lot from "R-5" to"O-3" for a parking area. An ex isting office to the west will utilize the parking. The property is currently to be used for parking, but the lot does not meet City st andards. The site is situated between two "O-3" tracts on the ea st and west sides with an "O-3" lot to the south. Across North Street, the property is zoned "I-2." In the immediate area, the zoning pattern is very mixed and includes "R-5," "O-1," "O-3," "I-2" and "I-3." The most significant land is a large auto dealership to the west. Because of the existing situation, the proposed rezoning is appropriate for the property. 2.The site is flat and occupied by an unpaved parkingarea. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no ad verse comments reported by thereviewing agencies as of this writing. April 30, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position or historyon the site. 7.Staff sees no potential adverse impacts from therezoning and supports the request. This location is within the Downtown Plan area which identifies the neighborhood for mixed used, office and residential. An "O-3" rezoning is appropriate for the property because of the proposed land use. The staff would like to point out that the rezoning approval is not an endorsement of the current situation. The lot will have to be paved and brought up to City standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission discussed the request briefly and then voted to recommend approval of the rezoning. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. April 30, 1985 Item No. 5 -Z-4431 Owner: App licant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Al Deaver and A.C. Freeman Same By: Al Deaver 14,900 Ca ntrell Road Re zone from "R-2" to "C-3" Commercial 2.0 acres + Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2"and "C-3"-Commercial, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1.The property in question is located in the vicinity ofthe Highway IO/Taylor Loop Ro ad intersection, and therezoning request is for "C-3." No specific plans havebeen provided at this time other than some type ofcommercial or ret ail use. This section of Highway 10from Pinnacle Valley to the west is made up ofresidential and nonresidential uses which include achurch, landscaping operation and a food store. Amajority of the nonresidential uses along this corridorare also nonconforming with the exception of the foodstore east of Taylor Loop and an antique shop west ofTaylor Loop. Those properties and a tr act of land onthe north side of Highway 10 were rezoned to "C-3"within the last six months. The site being consideredfor rezoning with this request does not have anonconforming use on it. 2.The site is relatively flat and occupied by a one-st oryresidence with a barn in the rear. 3.State Highway No. 10 (Ca ntrell Road) is classified as amajor arterial on the Master Street Plan, so dedicationof additional right -of-way will be necessary because .April 30, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued the existing right-of-way is deficient. The required right-of-way is 50 feet from the centerline of Highway No. 10. 4.Engineering reports that boundary street improvementswill be required and ac cess must be approved by theTraffic Engineer. No other comments have been receivedas of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6.There is no history on the site. The property wasannexed into the City in 1979. The neighborhood'sposition either for or aga inst commercial rezonings inthe area has been well documented over the years. 7.In November 1984, the City Board of Directors amendedthe Suburban Development Plan over the objections ofthe staff to designate the intersection of Taylor Loopand Highway 10 for neighb orhood commercial. Thisaction included both the north and south sides ofHighway 10. This property is just west of thecommercial area shown on the amended SuburbanDevelopment Plan, and staff does not support therequest. Three properties within the proposedcommercial area have been rezoned to "C-3." Staff isconcerned that granting a "C-3" rezoning to a tra ctbeyond the established commercial area will make itvery difficult to stop fu ture rezoning requests outsidethe identified area on the Suburban Development Plan.The stripping out of Highway 10 will become very realin this location if the plan is not maintained. Staffis satisfied that an adequate amount of land wasdesignated for commercial use at the Highway 10/TaylorLoop intersection and should not be increased byapproving this rezoning. Along Highway 10, both to theeast and west, there are significant tracts of landzoned for commercial development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. April 30, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant/owner was represented by Beth Stephens. There were three objectors in attendance. Ms. Stephens spoke and discussed the rezoning proposal. She said that the property was in a bad situation and had problems because of the current "R-2" zoning. Ms. Stephens indicated that the site was unsuitable for residential use because of its location. There was a long discussion about the Suburban Development Plan and the property's relationship to the recommended commercial location at Highway 10 and Taylor Loop. Bentley Stracener spoke against the rezoning. Mr. Stracener said that the property had residential potential because he had tried to acquire it for that purpose. Betty Saugey voiced her opposition to the "C-3" request. She said that it was not the time to rezone other properties beyond what was shown on the plan. Ms. Saugey also described the history of the property's ownership. Ms. Stephens then addressed some of the issues and said that the site had been purchased for investment purposes. She said that the property could be a buffer to the commercial uses to the east and amended the request to "O-3." The Planning Commission then voted on the amended application to "O-3." The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied. ) April 30, 1985 Item No. 6 -Z-4436 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purp ose: Size: Burl and Helena Purkiss Helena Purkiss 4612 and 4614 West 30th (west of Adams Street) Rezone fr om "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Co mmercial Existing Use: 13,200 square feet + Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-3"-Single Family, Zoned "R-3"-Parking, Zoned "O-3"-Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDER ATIONS 1.The request is to rezone two lots to "C-3" for anunspecified commercial use. The property is locatedapproximately two blocks north and west of Asher Avenueon a street that dead-ends at a creek one and one-halfblocks to the west. The land use in the immediate areato the north, west and south is primarily si nglefamily, and the zoning is "R-3." On West 30th to theeast, land use is indu strial with "I-2" zoning an dfurther to the south along Asher, the zonig is "C-3"and "I-2" with a nu mber of nonresidential uses.Directly to the east adjacent to this property is an "0-3" lo t that is being used for parking. The "O-3"tract does ap pear to create a go od buffer for theresidential uses to the west and could be an ideallocation for terminating the nonresidential uses thatare found to the east. Because of the property's location, it does no t lend itself to being a viable commercial use. The two lots are also removed from the intense co mmercial ac tivities found in the ne ighb orhood primarily along Asher Avenue. In this type of situation, it could be questioned whether a desirable use would locate on the site if the "C-3" rezoning was granted .. April 30, 1985 Item No. 6 -Continued 3.The site is made up of two typical residential lotsboth 50 feet in width. One lot has a residence on it with one accessory building, and the other lot has a single family unit with two accessory structures. 3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Planrequirements associated with this request. 4.Engineering has stated that: (1) curb and gutterimprovements are needed; and (2) parking requirementsmust be met, and it appears that this is not possiblewith the existing structures. No other adversecomments have been received as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position or historyon the site. 7.The Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which this area is apart of does not identify the location in question forcommercial use. Because of this and the two lots notbeing sutiable commercial property, staff does notsupport the requested rezoning. Staff does recognizethat nonresidential zoning does exist on West 30th tothe east, but over the years, it has stopped just tothe east of the property in question. The site is nota viable commercial location and would be removed fromthe more traditional commercial areas in theneighborhood. Finally, staff is concerned that if therezoning is granted, it will have a negative impact onthe single family uses in the neighborhood because ofbeing a misplaced commercial location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Helena Purkiss, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Ms. Purkiss spoke and described the area. She said the neighborhood had many problems and had been impacted by certain uses found on Asher Avenue, such as the adult theatres. Ms . Purkiss said it would probably be very difficult trying to sell the lots as residential property and that was the primary reason for requesting the "C-3" rezoning. She felt that it would be } I April 30, 1985 Item No. 6 -Continued easier to sell the property with the commercial classification. Ms. Purkiss went on to describe other problems such as traffic and noise. The Planning Commi ssion then voted on the "C-3" request. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied. ) April 30, 1985 Item No. 7 -Other Matters/Appeal Name: Subject: Location: Request: STAFF REPORT Robert J. Richardson Agent for the Owner Appeal of Planning Staff Denial of a Lot Split Plat Titled "Cantrell Place West Addition Lot 2 Replat" Approximately 150 feet South of the Intersection of Cantrell Road at Misty Lane on the East Side of the Street This request is for a yes or no response to the subject appeal. The question basically being does the Planning Commission support the staff's rejection of the plat. This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of the staff rejecting a second lot split within the boundary of the first split. The sequence of events leading to the rejection are as follows: Mr. Richardson filed a preliminary plat on the subject property in August of 1984 after having withdrawn a controversial condominium project on the site. The plat consisted of four residential lots, three in a conventional fashion and one as a pipe stem. The plat was submitted to the Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee for review. The Commission's public hearing was held on September 11, 1984, at which time the plat was denied by a vote of O ayes, 8 noes, 3 abstaining (see attached minutes of the September meeting). In December of 1984, Mr. Richardson filed with the Planning staff a subdivision plat entitled "Ca ntrell Place West, Lots 1 and 2 11 as a lot split. The staff review indicated that the proposed lot split was in technical compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. However, the staff determined that contact should be made with the Planning Commission chairman and the City Attorney for instruction as to our options. After several discussions of the matter, we were instructed to permit the lot split inasmuch as the ordinance was quite clear and no denial mechanism indicated. The plat was signed on December 11, 1984, and recorded, thereby creating two lots, one on Cantrell Road in a conventional corner lot relationship and one lot fronting only on Misty Lane. ) April 30, 1985 Item No. 7 -Continued The next event was a filing by Mr. Richardson of a two lot split of Lot 2 of the first lot split. Lot 2 being the lot fronting on Misty Lane. This action occurred during March and April when staff had several conversations and written communication with Mr. Richardson whereby we re jected his platting effort (see staff letter April 5, 1985). The formal filing occurred April 9, and a second response by the staff followed April 10, 1985 (see attached staff letter April 10, 1985). In our letter of April 5, 1985, it was stated that we understood the appeals process included the Planning Commission as the next step although not specifically indicated in the ordinance. The request before the Commission at this time is that a simple yes or no answer be given Mr. Richardson in or der that he might take the appropriate follow-up actions. PLANNING COM M ISSION ACTION: (4-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no other in terested parties in attendance. The Planning staff made a presentation of the issues and additional background. A lengthy discussion was held during which Mr. Richardson offered comments. A motion was made to request a legal opinion from the City At torney's Office, in asmuch as a written opinion has not been presented. Several members stated support for the request for the opinion. A vote on the motion resulted in its passage by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). A second motion then followed for purposes of deferring the request to the May 14th Subdivision Public Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. Canfre// F/acelA.Jesf Piaf &nc/ Lo/- Sphf proposals� 7 City of Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning April 5, 1985 City Hall Markham at Broadway llttle Rock. Arkansas 72201 371-4790 Mr. Robert J. Richardson Consulting Engineer 1717 Rebsamen Park Rd. Little Rock, AR 72202 Re: Cantrell Place West Subdivision Lot Split file S-572 & S-572A Dear Mr. Richardson: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your communication with City Man ager Susan Fleming on March 28, 1985. We feel that a proper response to your letter should contain more than a single acceptance or rejection of the proposed lot split. Therefore, the site history and basis for the various action s are included. The case history of Cantrell Place Subdivision began with your filing of a P.U.D. application in the summer of 1984. The request drew significant opposition from both Planning Commission and the neighborhood. As you will recall, the P.U.D. application was refiled for a following �eeting as a four (-4) lot preliminary plat. The plat as filed apparently conformed to both submittal and technical requirements of the Ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on that plat on August 14, 1984. That hearing resulted in a deferral fo r 30 days or September 11, 1984. The primary reason for deferral was the Commission's question concerning their position relative to voting against a plat that apparently complied with all technical requirements. A request for a legal opinion was made of the City Attorney. The rehearing of the plat on September 11th, 1984 resulted in: 1) the City Attorney offering an opinion which stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to deny the plat although technically complying with Ordinance7 2) the Commission establishing the basis for rejection of the plati 3) a.vote ) to approve the plat as filed, being rejected by a 0 aye, 8 nayes, 3 abstaining votes. The stated reasons for denial were: 1) incompatibility with adjoining estate size single family lots. The general composition of the Robinwood Subdivision along Cantrell Road is large lot with frontages of 200 ft. and ove r 300 ft. in depth in some instances; 2) appropriateness of lot orientation; 3) potential conflict with Bill of Assurance provisions in the plat area; 4) potential for reducing the quality of life inherent in a neighborhood which has been established for many years with higher standards than those embodied in.�l.he Suhdivision Ordinance; 5) J:Q 9on�er.ve-th��-___ _ value/�nvestment by neighbor-s in_. the��i��P8fl��;:�--6) the orientation of the lots could result in mOrEr --curb ·· -·-- cuts than would be acceptable on State Highway 10. The third event in the recent history of this site occurred during December, 1984, with the requested lot split titled "Cantrell Place West•. The request and supporting documentation were reviewed and determined to be in orde r. However, the reviewing pers·onnel questioned their authority to sign the instrument in light of the previous denial. Contact was made with the Planning Commission Chairman and City Attorney wi'th the result being instructions to permit the one lot split as outlined within the Ordinance. The plat and supporting materials were signed and the plat recorded. At the time staff received comment from you that additional lot splits might be forthcoming. During the period of December 11th, 1984 to March 28, 1985 we received contact from you attempting to determine whether we would accept a second lot split for review. As you may recall, you were advised that the planning staff viewed such a move as an attempt to subvert the actions of the Planning Commission in their rejection of the four lot pl�t. The final plat administrator was directed to tell you that should a lot split be filed, it would be rejected. The staff position on a second lot split was based on our interpretation of the Ordinance and state statutes as follows: 1) the Ordinanc e construction was clear in that a second action within the confines of the same plat boundary clearly creates more than two lots; 2) our reading of the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, contained in Section 37.2 was that the public interest and general welfare was not served by allowing the second lot split, especially since it violated subsection D; 3) that lot splits are customarily delegated to administrative personnel only when they are clearly of no concern to the Planning Commission or do not require public scrutiny; 4) the state law on pl�nning when creating the Planning Commission states that; (a) ) } ) cities shall have the power to adopt and enforce plans for coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development, and (b) these plans are prepared to promote general welfare, appropriate and best use of the land, and good civic design and arrangement among other things. The Subdivision Ordinance is a basic component of the City Master Plan; 5) the split would violate Section 37.24A of the Subdivision Ordinance. The above represents a general overview of the Cantrell Place Subdivision experience. However, we feel that it adequately represents the posture of both Commission and Staff. ;In summation, we again offer rejection of the proposed second lot split although a formal filing has not occurred. As to the appeals process involved, all interpretations of the staff are subject to review by the Planning Commission. Appeals of actions by the Commission are to 'the appropriate court of jurisdiction. If you desire a review by the' Planning Commission, a proper filing should be completed with a written request for a hearing on the interpretation. If I can assist you in initiating your appeals process, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, &���t Planning Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning RW/se cc: file ) ) City of Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning April 10, 1985 City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 Mr. Robert J. Richardson Consulting Engineer 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Re: Cantrell Place West Lot Split No. 2 Southeast Corner of Cantrell Road at Misty Lane. S-572/S-572-A/S-572-B Dear Mr. Richardson: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your filing of the referenced plat as required by ordinance. The plat has been accepted for review as required by Section 37.16.C. The plat as filed has not been reviewed for specific conformance to all technical requirements of ordinance. However, an assessment of conformance with the criteria contained within Section 37.16.C.3. reveals that the plat conforms to items a. through g. but fails item h. The ordinance requires a written response to your filing within thirty (30) days. This letter is intended to serve as formal notice of rejection of the plat. The reasons for denial are as follows: 1.The establishment of a second lot split is not inkeeping with the intent of Section 37.16.C.3 in thatit would establish three (3) lots. 2.That the action is not in the public interest andwelfare. 3.That lot splits are a delegated authority to adminis­trative personnel only when they are IlQ.t. concerns ofthe Planning Commission. 4.State law on planning provides for enforcement of plans,i.e. subdivision regulations, in a coordinated, adjusted } l ) and harmonious fashion. Further that such plans or regulations promote general welfare, appropriate andbest use of the land and good civic design and arrangement. 5.The plat would violate the provisions of Section37.24.A, Lots. (Location and orientatio n) The request for review by the Planning Commission has been set for April 30th, 1985. The staff has been instructed to prepare a background paper for placement within that agenda. If you have questions concerning our actions or to thescheduled meeting, do not hesitate to cal l. Yours very truly, j.;J rlw�- ��ood, Current Planning ChiefOffice of Comprehensive Planning cc: File Bernadette Bettard ) April 30, 1985 Item No. 8 -Other Matters Reconsideration This office has been advised by the City Attorney's Office that there are several legal questions concerning the approval of the Tri-party Agreement associated with the tennis center site plan review. As you may recall at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission authorized a Tri-Party Agreement in connection with the tennis center whereby certain improvements would be attached that are not normally included. The City Attor ney's Office would like to discuss this matter with the Commission in public hearing for purposes of redirecting the approval process .. PLANNING COMM ISS ION ACTION: (4-30-85) The Planning staff made a brief presentation of the issues. The City Attorney added additional comment re lative to their position on the structure of this agreement. A lengthy discussion followed with both staff and Planning Commission offering reservations concerning the signing of a tri-party agreement in place of the Mayor. A motion was made that the tri-party agreement be so structured that only the Mayor or the City Manager or their designated agent could sign such instruments, that any on-site improvements be handled by the City with written commitments at the building permit level and that they be handled through the normal building permit process. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. ) ) April 30, 1985 Item No. 9 -A Proposed Change to the Highway 10 Corridor Study The staff has proposed a change to the Highway 10 Corridor Study. The change involves reducing the multifamily designation between Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road. The staff feels that it would be premature to show this area as multifamily. It is a single family area now and could remain so for many years. In the future if the su rrounding area changes and multifamily is warranted, then the staff would probably want to see a low density PUD project for approximately six units per acre. The parcel to the west is currently zoned "MF-6." By showing "MF" on the plan, you are implying a density of 12 units per acre. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the amendment to the Highway 10 Corridor Plan to reduce the "MF" involvement between Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACT ION: Jim Lawson gave a brief presentation on the staff's proposed amendment to the Highway 10 Corridor Plan. He explained that the staff was directed by the Board of Directors to bring the amendment back to the Planning Commission for their review. After some discussion by the staff and the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission moved to adopt the amendment to the plan with the understanding that the Planning Commission and staff could su pport a low density "PRD" for the area at a later date. The vote was: 8 ayes, O noes and 3 absent. DATE A�,L 3CJ1l-l 1985 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS -ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER A B I 2 3 4 5 0 J • <-:·:-::-:.=--�-1 in V v v v v (I; " J.Schlereth v v v v v v •• R.Massie v' v v ,/ A / A A B.Sipes V J/ v v v v •• J.Nicholson v t/ v v v v e e A w.Rector ------� ---- W.Ketcher v v t/ .A v A " • D.Arnett v v v v V ,/� • 0.J. Jones v v v v y v • • I.Boles � J/ v v y J' • � J; Clayton L A A A v A -••• VAYE -NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN 7 v As A V' ,/ v � v ,/ t/ g v / A i/ v -- V· v J/ / A 9 v v A v / :------/ � / i/ 1-i ,, -----A ) April 30, 1985 There being no further business before the Co mmission, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m • . L�. s-L25/'t_r Date 1