Loading...
pc_02 25 1986/ LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 25, 1986 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Qu orum A qu orum was present being eight in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved with two minor changes. III.Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Will iam Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes Fred Perkins David Jones Bill Rector (Item No. 5) Jim Summerlin Ida Boles Pat Benton February 25, 1986 Item No. A -Z-4092-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and Chester o. Phillips Robert N. Cearley, Jr. Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge Road Rezone from "MF-12" to "0-3" Office Development 6.2 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant, Zoned "PRO"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "MF-6"-Vacant, Zoned "PRO" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request before the Planning Commission is to rezonethe Cedar Branch Subdivision from "MF-12" to "0-3" foran office use. The property is platted for low densitymultifamily development, but all lots are vacant. Thesite is situated at the northwest corn er of Fairviewand Pleasant Ridge Roads irt�n area that has a mix ofzoning and land use. The zoning includes ·R-2," "PRO,""MF-6" and "0-3" with primary land use being singlefamily residential. There are some nonconformingcommercial uses to the southeast and a high percentageof the land is still vacant including an existing "0-3"tract. The immediate area appears to be better suitedfor a mix of residential uses with single family to thesouth and higher densities to the north of PleasantRidge Road. This is due to the property's locationwhich does not have a great amount of visibility whichis needed for a viable office development. 2.The site is vacant, wooded and increases in elevationfrom east to west. February 25, 1986 Item No. A -Continued 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 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 "MF-12" in October of 1983. 7.Staff's position is that the property is better suitedfor multifamily development and does not support the"O-3" request because the property is too isolated foran office project and the request is in conflict withthe adopted plan. The property is removed from morevisible nonresidential locations and does not lenditself to office development because of that factor andthe existing development pattern. The SuburbanDevelopment Plan identifies an area to the eastprimarily between Woodland Heights and Rodney Parhamfor office development. Staff views that as being amore desirable location. The Highway 10 Study whichwas never formally adopted by the City Board ofDirectors also recommended a multifamily use for thissite with office development being to the east andsoutheast. The existing "MF-12" is comp atible with thearea and should be maintained. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-17-85) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the owner/applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 28, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, O noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-28-86) Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the item be deferred to the February 25, 1986, meeting. A motion was made to defer the request to the February meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, O noes and 2 absent. ,__., February 25, 1986 Item No. A -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-25-86) Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. ·'-...-,· February 25, 1986 Item No. B -Z-4250-A Owner: Hartford and Kadelia Hamilton Carolyn Ulmer Applicant: Location: Fairview Road North of Pleasant Ridge Road Request: Rezone from "PRD" to "O-2" Purpose: Office Development 7.0 acres + Size: Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "MF-12"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "PRO" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone the property from "PRO" to"O-2" for an office development. The site is locatedsouth of Highway 10 in the Fairview and Summit Roadarea. In the immediate vicinity, the zoning isprimarily residential with some "O-3" and "C-1" to thenorth along Pleasant Ridge Road. The land use issingle family residential with a high percentage of thearea still vacant including the "O-3" and "C-1" sites.Because of the property's location and the existingdevelopment pattern, it appears that the mostreasonable use of the land is residential at anappropriate density. The property does not have thenecessary visibility for a viable office location beingnorth of Pleasant Ridge Road. 2.The site is wooded and has a single family residence atthe northeast corner. 3.Fairview Road is classified as a residential streetwhich normally requires 50 feet right-of-way. Thesurvey indicates a right-of-way of 30 feet sodedication of additional right-of-way will be required. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. February 25, 1986 Item No. B -Continued 5.There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. The property was reclassified from "R-2" to "PRD" inAugust 1984. The proposal was for 14 fourplex lots,one tract for 16 units and a singl e fa mily lot with atotal of 73 units or 10 units per acre. There was noneighborhood opposition and several petitions weresubmitted in supp ort of the request. 7.This property is part of the Suburban Development Planarea which does not recognize a nonresidential use forthe site. Because of the plan, st aff does not su pportthe rezoning proposal. This position is consistentwith the Highway 10 study which was never adopted bythe City Board of Directors but did recommend aresidential use for the land. The area does not lenditself to an office development and should remainresidential with a mix of densities. (Staff has alsorecommended denial for an "0-3" request on the propertydirectly to the south of this site.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-2" rezoning based on the existing pl an, but sugg ests a deferral as being appropriate due to the work currently underway to develop a new plan for this area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-28-86) Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the item be deferred for at least 30 days. A motion was ma de to defer the request to the February 25, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-25-86) Staff recomended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A motion was ma de to defer the rezoning issue to the March 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 1 -z-4599 Owner: Kenneth F. Porter Sarne Applicant: Location: 122 West 2nd Street (Mabelvale) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Plumbing Shop 0.49 acres Size: Existing Use: Plumbing Shop (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family and Industrial, Zoned "R-2"and "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone three lots in Mabelvale to"I-2." The site is currently used as a plumbing shopwhich is nonconforming. The plans are to maintain theplumbing shop and expand it at some point in thefuture. This proposed expansion cannot be accomplishedwithout first having the property rezoned to anappropriate classification. The lots are located in asection of Mabelvale that has a number of differentland uses, but in the immediate vicinity, thepredominant use is single family. For the most part,the site is surrounded by single family residences withthe exception to the northwest which is a conforminglight industrial use. The conditional use to the eastis a large church and there is a significant amount ofnonresidential uses along West 3rd Street. Because ofthe land use in the immediate area, an "I-2" rezoningis questionable and should be carefully examined. 2.The site is made up of three typical residential lotsand has one structure on it. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. -·· Febru ary 25, 1986 Item No. 1 -Continued 4.There have been no adverse comments recei ved from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neig hborhood position on thesite. The Mabelvale area was annexed to the City in 1979. 7.Mabelvale is part of the Otter Creek District Planarea. The plan recognizes the large industrial area tothe west of the property in question, the existing"I-2" on the accompanying sketch and recomm endsresidential uses for the land to the east of ElmStreet. The request to "I-2" is in conflict with theadopted plan and staff does not support the rezoning.Allowing industrial zoning to encroach into blockswhere that are primarily residential could create somepotential problems. If this site and othernonconforming uses in Mabelvale are rezoned to "C-4" or"I-2," that pattern could have a very adverse impact onresidential properties in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Kenneth Porter, was present. There were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Porter addressed the Commission about his rezoning request. He said that been operating his business at the location for more he had than He seven years, prior to the area coming into the City. indicated that he wanted to add a met al building for additional storage but had problems because of expanding a nonconforming use. Mr. Porter then described the area and said that his proposal would be an imp rovement. He also described the site and what was taking place on it. There was a discussion about "I-2" in the general area and when the property was annexed into the City. Carlton Miller spoke in opposition to the rezoning and presented a petition with 33 names opposed to the "I-2" request. He said that the expansion could cause some problems and other nonresidential uses were a concern to the residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Porter made some additional comments and discussed the area at length. Mr. Miller said that the neighborhood wanted to remain residential and described some existing traffic problems. The Planning Commission then voted on the "I-2" request as fi led. The vote -0 ayes, 7 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). The rezoning was denied. February 25, 1986 Item No. 2 -Z-4603 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND North -Commer cial,South -Commercial,East -Commer cial,West -Comme rcial, STAFF ANALYSIS: Ger ald F. Hamra and James H. Keet III, Tr ustee John L. Burnett 8703 and 8705 Geyer Springs Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Restaurant and Auto Lubr ication Se rvice 1.5 acres Restaurant ZONING: Zoned "C-3" Zoned "C-3" Zoned "C-3" Zoned "C-3" The request is to rezone two tracts of land to "C-3." One site is currently occupied by a restaurant which will remain and the ot her piece will be an auto lubr ication service oper ation. This location had been previously utilized by a restaurant. Both properties are nonconforming and are the last two remaining "R-2" tracts along Geyer Springs between I-30 and Baseline Road. The site was just annexed into the City in April 1985. The rezoning con forms to the proposed Geyer Springs East Plan and staff supports the request. The plan recommends a large commercial area for the northeast corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads. The "C-3" rezoning will not impact any of the surr ounding properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. Februa ry 25, 1986 Item No. 2 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objector s. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. The vote 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 3 -Z-4604 Owner: Thomas and Barbara Taylor Thomas Taylor Applicant: Location: East 25th between Main and Scott Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Request: Purpose: Auto Sales Size: 0.44 acres Existing Use: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-5"-Quasipublic, Zoned "C-3"-Vacant, Zoned "R-5"-Commercial, Zoned "C-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezonefour lots to "C-4" to permit expansion of the used caroperation in the existing "C-4" location to the east.It should be pointed out that the south 28 feet of eachlot is not involved in this request because that stripis owned by the City of Little Rock. It is the staff'sunderstanding that the applicant has proposed a landuse agreement with the City to utilize the 28 feet forsome parking and landscaping. The agreement is stillbeing reviewed and has not been finalized. Theproperty in question is located in close proximity tothe intersection of Main and Roosevelt with all fourcorners zoned for commercial uses. The zoning patternis very mixed in the general area and includes "R-3,""R-4," "R-5," "R-6," "O-1," "O-3," "C-3" and "C-4."The land use is somewhat similar except for the "R-4,""R-5" and "R-6" locations which have single family useson them for the most part. The "R-5" tract to the eastis vacant and the "C-3" site across Roosevelt isoccupied by public and quasipublic uses. 2.The site is four residential lots and all four areoccupied by single family residences. The structures are all in substandard condition and it appears that only one is occupied at this time. The proposal is to remove 3 of the 4 houses and utilize only the one on ·- February 25, 1986 Item No. 3 -Continued the easternmost lot for an office. There is a grade difference from north to sout h with the Roosevelt si de being the low point. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no adver se comm ents received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighbor hood position or hi storyon the site. 7.Staff is concerned with expanding the "C-4" at thislocation and cannot su pport the rezoning at this time.The rezoning to "C-4" could have an adverse impact onthe residential area to the north and also there is aquestion of adequate access to the site. Withuncertainty associated with the Roosevelt frontage,some type of access would probably have to be fromeither West 25th or Scott and that could create anundesirable situation. Staff feels that "C-3" shouldbe the most intensive zoning in this area and has notsupported "C-4" at other locations, sp ecifically thesouthwest corner of Louisiana and Roosevelt. Thisneighborhood has been impacted by previous zoningactions and this should not be encouraged byrecommending approval of this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Thomas Taylor, was represented by R.E. Combs. There was one objector in attendance. Staff reminded the Commission of a letter in opposition from Jim Lynch of the Downtown Neighbor hood Association. Mr. Combs then discussed Mr. Lynch's letter briefly and presented a pet ition with 155 signatures in su pport of the rezoning. He then described the reasons for su pport and how the rez oning could present potential progress for the neighborhood. Mr. Combs out lined the proposal and said that it would have to be a terraced type development. There was a long discussion about the various issues including the sout h 28 feet of each lot currently zoned by the City. There were also some comm ents February 25, 1986 Item No. 3 -Continued about utilizing a PUD for the project. Mr. Combs said that the existing operation on the corner needed some expansion and access would be from Scott and Roo sevelt. Cheryl Nichols of the Quapaw Quarter sp oke against the rezoning. She described the downtown area and previous rezoning actions. She went on to say that there were too many problems with the rezoning and it could an impact on the neighborhood to the north. There were a number of comments including the suggestion to refile the request as a PCD and include all the property owned by Mr. Taylor. There was more discussion about a PCD and withdrawing the "C-4" proposal. Mr. Combs then agreed to ut ilizing a "PCD" for the development and withdrawing "C-4" rezoning requests. A motion was made to withdraw the "C-4" application without prejudice and to waive any additional fees and renotification should a PCD be filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 4 -Z-4605 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: John Norris Jimmie M. Treadway 2224 Biscayne Drive Rezone from "R-2" to "O-1" Office 1.0 acres Existing Use: Single Family Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Day-Care, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Office, Zoned "C-3"-Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned"R-2" and "MF-6" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone approximately one acre to"O-1" for an unspecified office use. The property islocated on Biscayne, west of Cantrell Road, but has nodirect access point onto Biscayne. The areas to thenortheast and southeast are nonresidential uses for themost part. Directly to the north is a day-care center,zoned "R-2," and north of that is a large multifamilyproject, zoned "C-1." .In the immediate vicinity, themajority of the nonresidential uses, office andcommercial, are east of the site in question. The landuses to the south and west are primarily single familyand a low density condominium project. This tract actsas an entrance into the single family neighborhood andwould be the first zoning encroachment west of thepreviously described line should the request begranted. 2.The site is primarily flat with one single familystructure on the eastern one-half. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. February 25, 1986 Item No. 4 -Continued 5.There are no apparent legal issues. 6.There is no documented position or history on the site. 7.Because of the property's location and relatively pooraccess, st aff cannot supp ort the rezoning request.Staff's position is that the zoning line to the eastshould be maintained and any disruption of that linecould have an adverse impact on the properties to thesouth and west. Tr affic flow and parking are already a problem in the area and any additi onal nonresidential zoning will only intensify that situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the wo-1" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The owner, John Norris, was present. There was on e objector in att endance. Mr. Norris spoke about the property and gave a brief hi story of its use. He said that he plan ned to sell it and the new owners were proposing to utilize the existing structure. There was a long discussion about va rious issues. B.L. Gibson, owner of the property directly to the southwest, voiced his opposition to the re quest. He described the area and said that there were problems with drainage and Glover Street. There were some comments made about a site pl an and refiling the re quest as a "PCD." At this point, Mr. Norris agreed to withdrawing the "0-1" rezoning. A motion was then made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 5 -Z-4606 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: James A. Lott Same 12300 Stagecoach Road Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Mixed Uses 16.5 acres Vacant, Residential and Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Vacant, Zoned "I-2"South -Commercial, Zoned "C-3"East -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"West -Vacant and Industrial, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is-to rezone 16.5 acres to "C-3" for mixeduses. The property is currently occupied by two commercial buildings and a single family residence along Stagecoach Road. The remaining portion is vacant with the exception of a community softball field in the northeast corner. The owner is planning to make an addition to one of the commercial structures, but being a nonconforming use, this could not be accomplished without first obtaining the necessary zoning. The site has nonresidential zoning on three sides and there is very little "R-2" zoning left in the area. The most significant residential uses in the immediate vicinity are some mobile home parks zoned "R-7." It appears that other nonresidential rezonings have not adversely effected the parks and with this land being across Stagecoach Road, it should not have an impact either. Because of the location, some type of nonresidential rezoning is appropriate. 2.The site is primarily and vacant with the exception ofthe three structures fronting Stagecoach Road. ·.._. February 25, 1986 Item No. 5 -Continued 3.Stagec oach Road or State Highway No. 5 is identified asa principal arterial on the Master Street Plan with arecommended right-of-way width for a principal arterialbeing 100 feet. Some additional dedication will berequired because the survey reflects an existingright-of-way of 60 feet. 4.There ha ve been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.The property was annexed into the City in 1979. Staffhas received several informational calls concerningthis request. 7.The site is part of the Otter Creek District Plan areaand the land use plan proposes a mix of commercial andindustrial uses for this tract of land. Staff'sposition is that the plan's concept should bemaintained and recommends "C-3" for the south 300 feetand "I-2" Light Industrial for the remaining portion.The 300 feet depth should provide an adequate area forany proposed expansion of the existing structures ordeveloping a new commercial project. This type ofzoning pattern should not ha ve any impacts on thesurrounding properties and conforms to the adoptedplan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-3" for the south 300 feet and "I-2" for the balance of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, James Lott, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Lott described the property and his plans for expansion of one of the commercial structures which created the need for rezoning. There was a discussion ab out the staff's recommen dation, and Mr. Lott agreed to mod ifying his request to "C-3" for the south 300 feet. A motion was made to recommend approval of an amended application to "C-3" for the south 300 feet only and the balance of the property rema in "R-2." The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 6 -Z-4607 Owner: First Commercial National Bank Joseph Love Applicant: Location: 1501 Izard Street Request: Rezone from "R-4" to "C-1" Purpose: Beauty Shop 0.23 acres Size: Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-4"-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"-Single Family, Zoned "R-4"-Mixed Uses, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone the southeast corner ofWest 15th and Izard to "C-1" for a beauty shop. Theproperty is located in a neighborhood that has a verymixed use zoning pattern which includes "R-4," "R-6,""O-3," "C-3" and "I-2." The land use is not as diverseas the zoning with residential being the primary use.South of West 14th there is a substantial amount of"C-3" land, but a majority of it is either vacant orused for residential purposes. There are also somenonresidential uses, such as churches, on the "C-3"lots. Because of the situation, the need foradditional commercial land is questionable. It doesnot appear that the request is being made because thereis a demand for more commercial land in the area.Based on the existing land use, the neighborhood isover zoned and some of the zoning is misplaced. 2.The site is a vacant 100' x 100' tract of land. 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. February 25, 1986 Item No. 6 -Continued 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position or hi storyon the site. 7.Staff's position is that the existing commercial zoningpattern and line should be maintained and does notsupport the "C-1" rezoning. A majority of the currentzoning was accomplished through the High Street UrbanRenewal Plan and provided for more than an adequateamount of commercial property. Allowing the zoninglines to be changed at this ti me co uld establishundesirable precedent. The rezoning, if granted, wouldbe an intrusion into a residential bl ock and co uld ha vean adverse impact on those lots and other pro perti es inthe immediate area. And finally , there is no realdemand or need for the additional commercially zonedland. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" request as fil ed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Joe Love, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Commission that the necessary notice materials ha d not been submitted. Mr. Love addressed the notification issue and said that a majority of the notices had been return ed. He went on to discuss this proposal and the surr ounding area. Because of the notification probl em, a motion was made to defer the request for 30 days to the March 25, 1986, meeting and for the appl icant to renotify the property owners. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 7 -Z-4608 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Gary G. Ferrell Same 1221 and 1223 Bowman Road Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Commercial 1.0 acres Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the property to "C-3" for some type of commercial use. The site is located in the I-430 District plan area and the adopted land use plan identifies the intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads primarily for commercial uses, including the property in question. Because of being in conformance with the plan, staff supports the requested rezoning. There are a number of nonconforming uses in the immediate vicinity so the commercial reclassification should not have an impact on the surrounding properties. There is a Master Street Plan issue associated with this request. Bowman Road is ide ntified as a minor arterial which normally requires a right-of-way of 80 feet. Based on the survey, the existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of some additional right-of-way will be necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. February 25, 1986 Item No. 8 -Z-4609 Owner: Lorin and Cecelia Fleming Same Applicant: Location: Sardis Road South of Alexander Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4" Purpose: Office Warehouse 3.0 acres + Vacant Size: Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Industrial, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Fa mily, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to rezone the site to "C-4" for anoffice warehouse development. The property is locatedon Sardis Road in an area that is primarily residentialwith a high percentage of the land vacant. Directlynorth of the tract there are two nonconforming lightindustrial uses and the "C-3" location at the southwestcorner of Sardis and Alexander Roads is a conveniencestore. That is the extent of the nonresidential usesin the immediate area. 2.The property is vacant and heavily wooded.It is also part of a larger 10 acre tract of land. 3.Sardis Road is identified as a minor arterial on theMaster St reet Plan. The recommended right-of-way for aminor arterial is 80 feet so some additional dedicationwill be required. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. February 25, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received some informational calls concerning this request. The property was annexed into the City in 1979. 7. The request to "C -4" rezoning is in conflict with the Otter Creek District Plan and staff does not support the request. In addition to the plan issue, the rezoning could create a significant spot zoning which staff does try to discourage as much as possible. The Otter Creek Plan identifies a large light industrial area north of Alexander Road which a majority of the land is already zoned. A high percentage of that land is vacant and staff feels that those properties should be developed prior to other locations being rezoned for heavy commercial and light industrial uses. The need for more nonresidential zoned land has not been established at this time, and the site appears to be removed from what would be considered more viable "C -4" or 11I -2" locations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Lorin Fleming, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Fleming described the surrounding area and the nonconforming uses to the south and north of his property. He indicated that he owned the entire 10 acres, but his immediate plans were only for the front three acres. There was a long discussion about several issues including the Otter Creek District Plan and Mr. Fleming's plans for the remaining portion of the property. Because several Commissioners were unfamiliar with the area, a deferral was suggested so the Commissioners could visit the site and view the other land uses. Mr. Fleming agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 11, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Jerilyn Nicholson and John Schlereth). February 25, 1986 Item No. 9 -z-4610 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: David J. Jones Same Mabelvale West and Main Street Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Commercial 0.70 acres Vacant and former Mabelvale Post Office Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North South East West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2"-Commercial, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2 11 STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the property to "C-3" for a small scale commercial center. The Otter Creek District Plan identifies the location for neighborhood commerci al so the rezoning proposal is compatible with the plan. Staff feels that there will be no problems created by the rezoning and supports the request. This general location, Mabelvale West and Main Street, has alw ays had the appearance of a small neighborhood commercial area. On the east side of Main Street there is a small grocery store and one of the lots in question was previously the site of the Mabelvale Post Office. That building is currently being used by the Little Rock Police Department as a substation. In both directions along Mabelvale West there are other nonresidential uses. This proposal should enhance that image and make the property a quality commercial center for the Mabelvale neighborhood. It is an ideal location for such a use. One possible issue has been raised by the City Engineer and that is the future alignment of streets in the immed iate area. Currently, the Master Street Plan identifies Mabelvale West as a minor arterial wit h the railroad crossing one block to the east at Walnut. The City Engineer February 25, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued is now advocating an above grade crossing at Main Street which would then be extended to the northwest and Mabelvale West would be terminated in some fashion at Main Street. Because of this future alignment question, the City Engineer has expressed some concerns with the rezoning of the site in question at this time. It appears that with either option, some additional right -of -way dedication will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of "C -3" as filed. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 25, 1986 Item No. 10 - Other Matters - Appointment of Committees Tfor 1986 The Planning Commission chairman offered the committee assignments for 1986 involving the Subdivision Committee and the Zoning /Plans Committee. The assignments were as follows: to the Subdivision Committee: Mr. Fred Perkins, Mr. Richard Massie, Mr. Jim Summerlin, Mr. John Schlereth and Mr. Bill Rector will continue as Chairman for 1986. To the Zoning and Plans Committee: Ms. Jerilyn Nicholson, Ms. Betty Sipes, Mr. David Jones, Ms. Ida Boles and Ms. Dorothy Arnett. A second matter discussed by the Commission was the retreat for spring 1986. The staff offered April 18, on a Friday, as a good meeting time. The Commission determined they would accept this date subject to determination as to whether a sufficient number of members could attend on that date. oArrEdebruq{y d5� 1991:, 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 ZONING · SUBDIVISION MEMBER A B I z.. J • �uffllTl�rlin A• • J.Schlereth ,/ ,,I ,./ R.Massie ,/ I , ,/ ,I ,,. ,, ,/ B.Sipes ,I J.Nicholson ti I , v w.Rector II•• W.Ketcher ,/ / • a/ D.Arnett ,I ,/ , � D.J. Jones ./,/ ' ,/ I.Boles II,, 3 'I / v ./t// v I I _A -,, I II ,I I ,I F.Perkins ,/,11,/// ITEM NUMBERS 5 � ,, � q , .. ,/ ,I ,/ 4tl ,,/ ,/' V ,,,, .. ,/,/v ,/ V ,/ �., ,/,I �,/y .I A / A (' ,I v' ,/ ,/v': v ,/ y"./'I' v' ,/ I,,/' ,/ 7/ I I i/ ./ ,,/ VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT ":.e_ABSTAIN I ) ) ) February 25, 1986 There being no further business before the Commission, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3 p.m. Chairman --S -��� Date Se --ret