pc_01 28 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 28, 1986
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:
William Ketcher
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
John Schlereth
Betty Sipes
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Jim Summerlin
Ida Boles
Dorothy Arnett
Richard Massie
Tom Carpenter
January 28, 1986
Item No. A - Z- 4092 -A
Owner: Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and
Chester D. Phillips
Applicant: Robert N. Cearley, Jr.
Location: Fairview Road and Pleasant
Ridge Road
Request: Rezone from "MF -12" to 110 -3"
Purpose: Office Development
Size: 6.2 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, "MF -6"
West - Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone
the Cedar Branch Subdivision from 'IMF-12" to "0 -3" for
an office use. The property is platted for low density
multifamily development, but all lots are vacant. The
site is situated at the northwest corner of Fairview
and Pleasant Ridge Roads in an area that has a mix of
zoning and land use. The zoning includes "R -2," "PRD,"
"MF -6" and "0 -3" with primary land use being single
family residential. There are some nonconforming
commercial uses to the southeast and a high percentage
of the land is still vacant including an existing "0 -3"
tract. The immediate area appears to be better suited
for a mix of residential uses with single family to the
south and higher densities to the north of Pleasant
Ridge Road. This is due to the property's location
which does not have a great amount of visibility which
is needed for a viable office development.
2. The site is vacant, wooded and increases in elevation
from east to west.
January 28, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
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 documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property was rezoned to "MF -12" in October
of 1983.
7. Staff's position is that the property is better suited
for multifamily development and does not support the
"0 -3" request because the property is too isolated for
an office project and the request is in conflict with
the adopted plan. The property is removed from more
visible nonresidential locations and does not lend
itself to office development because of that factor and
the existing development pattern. The Suburban
Development Plan identifies an area to the east
primarily between Woodland Heights and Rodney Parham
for office development. Staff views that as being a
more desirable location. The Highway 10 Study which
was never formally adopted by the City Board of
Directors also recommended a multifamily use for this
site with office development being to the east and
southeast. The existing "MF -12" is compatible with the
area and should be maintained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0 -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, 0 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, 0 noes and
2 absent.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z- 3731 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Eldo Properties
Joe D. White
Cedar Hill Road East of Riverfront
Drive
Rezone from "MF -18" and "0-2" to
"MF -18" and "0-2"
Multifamily and Office
0.66 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18"
South
- Vacant, Zoned "0-2"
East
- Arkansas River, Unclassifed
West
- Vacant, Zoned "0-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This rezoning proposal is in the Riverdale area and the
request is being made to adjust some zoning lines. Less
than one acre is involved and as the rezoning is proposed,
110-2" will increase by 0.6 acres and the "MF -18" by 0.06
acres. Because of the amount of land involved, staff's
position is that the adjustment is fairly insignificant
towards the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z- 3808 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
J.T. Jaynes
Same
5210 Mabelvale Pike
Rezone from "R -2" to 910 -1"
Office
1.0 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING kAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Residence and Office, Zoned "C -1"
East - Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone approximately one acre to
"0 -1" for an unspecified office use. The property is
located north of Mabelvale Pike and east of Geyer
Springs in an area that has a mix zoning pattern. The
zoning is primarily single family residential to the
west and nonresidential to the east and northeast
along Mabelvale Pike. The site abuts "C -1" zoning on
the south and "C -3" on the east with "R -2" to the west
and north. The land use is predominantly single family
residential with the exception of several tracts of
land that front Mabelvale Pike which have office and
commercial uses on them. Also, there is a multifamily
project in the immediate vicinity and a school to the
west. This property and the "C -1" piece are one tract
so it appears that the site in question has some
nonresidential potential if properly developed. A
freestanding or separate project on the rear portion is
not the most desirable approach for developing the
land.
2. The site is vacant and flat. The "C -1" tract has a
single structure on it with an office and residential
uses.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
January 28, 1986
�. Item No. 2 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In March 1982, an application was filed to rezone the
entire 1.93 acres to "C -1" for commercial and
multifamily uses. The proposal was to convert the
existing residence into an antique shop and construct
some multifamily units on the rear portion. At that
time, the owner had no specifics about the number of
units or the type of development. ( "C -1" permits
multifamily units per the "R -5" district.) Several
residents attended the hearing and voiced their
concerns over a reclassification that permitted
apartments. During the hearing, it was pointed out
that the existing multifamily units created some
problems for the residents. They indicated that they
had no real objections to the proposed commercial
development fronting Mabelvale Pike. Because of the
uncertainty with the multifamily proposal, staff
recommended that only the south 175 feet be rezoned.
Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors
approved the staff's recommendation of the 175 feet.
This figure came from the depth of the commercial use
on the tract to the east. The area zoned "C -3"
directly to the south of the "R -5" is used for part of
the multifamily project that fronts West 51st Street.
7. As was the case in 1982, staff is concerned with the
rezoning of the rear portion of this tract. The owner
has stated that some type of office is the intended
use, but as with "C -1," multifamily units are permitted
in the "O -1" district. Being removed from Mabelvale
Pike, the property has poor visibility which is
normally desired for a nonresidential use. Staff feels
that there are several issues such as access and the
property's relationship to the single family
neighborhood that needs to be addressed prior to
development occurring. Also because of being a single
tract of land, the property should be developed under a
unified site plan. Staff suggests that a PUD for the
entire site be utilized to allow further development of
the property. A PUD would present an overall scheme,
address the concerns mentioned by staff and tie down
specific uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O -1" request as filed at
this time.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, J.T. Jaynes, was present. There were 10
objectors in attendance. Mr. Jaynes spoke and gave a brief
history of the previous rezoning application and discussed
the current proposal. He then presented his reasons for the
"O -1" rezoning and said that he desired the highest and best
use for the land. Mr. Jaynes said that there was a natural
buffer to the west that could protect the single family area
and indicated that he had a conceptual plan for the entire
tract including the "C -1" portion. There was a long
discussion about the property and utilizing the PUD process
for the site. Louise Johnson, representing the residential
neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the request. She
described the area and said that she had problems with any
non - single family use that would generate more traffic and
people. There were additional comments made about the
various issues. A motion was then made to defer the request
for 45 days to the March 11 meeting, convert the application
to a PUD and waive any additional filing fees. The motion
was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The
owner /applicant is to renotify the property owners.)
January 28, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z- 4250 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Hartford and Kadelia Hamilton
Carolyn Ulmer
Fairview Road North of
Pleasant Ridge Road
Rezone from "PRD" to "O -2"
Office Development
7.0 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the property from "PRD" to
"0-2" for an office development. The site is located
south of Highway 10 in the Fairview and Summit Road
area. In the immediate vicinity, the zoning is
primarily residential with some "0-3" and "C -1" to the
north along Pleasant Ridge Road. The land use is
single family residential with a high percentage of the
area still vacant including the "0-3" and "C -1" sites.
Because of the property's location and the existing
development pattern, it appears that the most
reasonable use of the land is residential at an
appropriate density. The property does not have the
necessary visibility for a viable office location being
north of Pleasant Ridge Road.
2. The site is wooded and has a single family residence at
the northeast corner.
3. Fairview Road is classified as a residential street
which normally requires 50 feet right -of -way. The
survey indicates a right -of -way of 30 feet so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. The property was reclassified from "R -2" to "PRD" in
August 1984. The proposal was for 14 fourplex lots,
one tract for 16 units and a single family lot with a
total of 73 units or 10 units per acre. There was no
neighborhood opposition and several petitions were
submitted in support of the request.
7. This property is part of the Suburban Development Plan
area which does not recognize a nonresidential use for
the site. Because of the plan, staff does not support
the rezoning proposal. This position is consistent
with the Highway 10 study which was never adopted by
the City Board of Directors but did recommend a
residential use for the land. The area does not lend
itself to an office development and should remain
residential with a mix of densities. (Staff has also
recommended denial for an "0-3" request on the property
directly to the south of this site.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0-2" rezoning based on the
existing plan, but suggests a deferral as being appropriate
due to the work currently underway to develop a new plan for
this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the item
be deferred for at least 30 days. A motion was made to
defer the request to the February 25, 1986, meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z -4594
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Dwight M. Kendall
Delbert Vanlandingham
Chicot Road (West of Whispering
Hills /Landmark Park)
Rezone from "R -2" to "R -7"
Mobile Home Park
9.71 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -7"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -7"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 9.7 acres to "R -7" for
expansion of an existing mobile home park to the east
and north. The "R -7" district is "created for the
specific purpose of establishing reasonable sites and
providing for the development of mobile home parks or
courts at appropriate locations and to be located so as
not to adversely effect the established residential
development patterns and densities of the City." The
proposal is to create 75 new spaces for rent and extend
the existing street system through the new phase. The
property abuts a single family subdivision to the south
and vacant land to the west. Utilizing this site for
additional mobile home spaces appears to be a
reasonable use of the property provided that the layout
meets all technical requirements and any potential
impacts on the single family subdivision to the south
can be kept at a minimum.
2. The site is vacant, heavily wooded and has about a
30 -foot grade difference from east to west.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
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 documented history on the site. Staff has
received several calls objecting to the rezoning
proposal. (The existing "R -7" zoning was accomplished
in 1981 with the adoption of the South Central Island
Plan.)
7. This particular site is part of the South Central
Island Plan which identifies it and the existing mobile
home park for multifamily use. The intent of the plan
was to phase out the mobile home use, but permit higher
densities than detached single family. It appears now
that the mobile home park is a permanent use especially
with the pending zoning application. Staff does have
concerns with the proposal such as buffering the single
family area to the south and the street layout. The
expanded use of the mobile home park appears to be
reasonable provided that all technical aspects are
adequately addressed in the site plan. Without the
benefit of reviewing the necessary site plan prior to
the rezoning hearing, staff is not prepared to make a
formal recommendation at this time. The site plan
should show how the park expansion will not impact the
single family subdivision and address other concerns
mentioned by the staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that action on the rezoning request be
deferred to the February 11 meeting to allow for adequate
review of the site plan and preliminary plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Delbert Vanlandingham, was present and
representing the proposed developer. There were
approximately 15 to 20 objectors in attendance.
Mr. Vanlandingham then spoke. He said that the proposed
developer owns the existing "R -7" mobile home park which
they propose to upgrade and clean up. He also indicated
that the developer was willing to establish a buffer or
anything else necessary to isolate the mobile home park from
the single family subdivision to the south.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
Mr. Vanlandingham said there were 184 spaces in the existing
park and that 75 new spaces were being proposed. He also
said that the developer had no problems with deferring the
rezoning action to the February 11 meeting as recommended by
the staff.
Bob Fullmer, representing the developer of Oxford Valley,
the subdivision to the south, spoke in opposition to the
rezoning. He said that the "R -7" was incompatible with the
single family neighborhood.
Gerri Prince, a resident of Oxford Valley, then presented a
petition against the rezoning. The petition contained 61
signatures. Ms. Prince reviewed major points of the
petition which included the proposed density being a
problem, the area could not accommodate the additional
demands, the noise level was a major problem in the existing
park, and that the rezoning would not be in the best
interest to the residents in Oxford Valley. She also
presented some photos of the existing park.
James Rigan spoke against the request. He said that there
were many fire code problems in the existing park and that
the rezoning would devaluate property values.
Allen Dawson objected to the "R -7" rezoning and said that no
buffer would protect the residential property values.
Mr. Dawson described problems with the existing park and
asked that action be taken on the rezoning request.
Glenda Perciful said that there were too many problems with
the existing park and opposed the "R -7" request.
Keith Smith with Jim Tucker & Associates spoke in support of
the rezoning, and he said that the park would be upgraded
and discussed other items.
Janet Persons, Dennis Prince and Jim Dowell all spoke in
opposition to the rezoning and said that there were too many
problems with the existing park and described some examples.
The Planning Commission then voted on the "R -7" request as
filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The request
was denied.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z -4595
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Delmar Parish
Carl Matson
5716 and 5720 Young Road
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4"
Office and Warehouse
5.0 acres +
Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Vacant
and
Single
Family, Zoned "R -2"
South
- Vacant
and
Industrial, Zoned "R -2"
East
- Vacant
and
Single
Family, Zoned "R -2"
West
- Single
Family and
Multifamily, Zoned "R -2"
and "R -5"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the site to "C -4" to permit an
office warehouse development. The property is located
on Young Road just north of I -30 and east of Geyer
Springs. Young Road's relationship to the interstate
is different from that of a frontage road because there
is a strip south of Young that is not part of the
interstate right -of -way which is occupied by different
types of land uses. The zoning to the east is "R -2"
and to the west is a mix of "0-3," "C -3," "C -4," "PCD"
and "R -5." The land use corresponds to the zoning for
the most part. There are some nonconforming uses along
the south side of Young Road and to the east of the
property in question there are several churches and
day -care facilities. Because of the existing
development and zoning in the area, it appears that
this particular tract of land has a stronger
relationship to the properties to the east instead of
the commercial strip along Geyer Springs Road.
2. The southern portion along Young Road is occupied by
two single family structures and the rear is vacant.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
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 documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The site is part of the Geyer Springs East Plan area.
The Plan which has not been formally adopted by the
City does not recognize the property in question for
anything other than continued single family residential
use. Staff believes that the plan's concept should be
maintained and does not support the rezoning proposal.
The plan proposes to keep the commercial and
multifamily uses west of the site's west property line
extended to the north. The primary intent of the plan
is to keep the commercial properties in this area
oriented to Geyer Springs. Staff is also concerned
with Young Road which is a substandard street and how
the rezoning will effect it. Young Road is identified
as a collector on the Master Street Plan which is not
normally considered as a desirable "C -4" location.
Another issue is the potential problems from the
rezoning on the single family area to the east. The
neighborhood is fairly stable and a "C -4"
reclassification could have an adverse impact on it.
There are a number of "C -4" uses that are incompatible
with the residential area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Pat Tipton. There were two
objectors present. Ms. Tipton requested that the item be
withdrawn from the agenda. A motion was made to withdraw
the rezoning without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 28, 1986
d..� Item No. 6 - Z -4596
Owner: Morris Moore
Applicant: Lundy Colvert
Location: 9620 Baseline Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to 11I -2"
Purpose: Auto Repair
Size: 2.31 acres +
Existing Use: Auto Repair (Nonconforming)
STIRROTINDING LAND TISF, AND ZONTNC,
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2"
East - Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone an existing nonconforming
piece of property to "I -2." The site is currently used
for auto repair and other related activities. The
property abuts a single family subdivision on two sides
with a large parking area for the Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Department on the east and a mobile home
park on the south side of Baseline Road. Most of the
zoning activity in the immediate area has been
restricted to sites adjacent to I -30. The land use on
the north side of Baseline is primarily residential
with the exception of this tract and the Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Department property.
Because of the tract's location and its relationship to
the single family neighborhood, the property is not
good industrial site.
2. The property is flat with several structures on it.
3. Baseline Road is classified as a minor arterial so
additional dedication of right -of -way will be required.
A recommended right -of -way standard for minor arterial
is 80 feet.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property was annexed in 1979 as part of the large
I -30 annexation. There is no documented neighborhood
position on the site.
7. Staff's position is that the property has a legitimate
nonconforming use on it and should remain that way.
The site is not a viable industrial location and
rezoning could create some problems for the area
especially a single family subdivision to the west and
north. The depth of the lot is also a concern because
it would be possible to gain access from the east and
establish separate industrial uses. The adopted Otter
Creek Plan recommends that nonresidential uses be
restricted to the south side of Baseline and this
property remain single family. Staff believes that
Baseline Road is a reasonable line between residential
and nonresidential zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "I -2" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner, Morris Moore, was present. There were 6 to 8
objectors in attendance. Mr. Moore spoke about the rezoning
request. He pointed out that he had purchased the property
in 1956 and started the business before there any residences
in the area. He said that he was proposing to upgrade the
property and to expand one of the existing buildings.
Lajuana Krippendorf, a resident to the west, said that there
were problems with the existing uses and the rezoning would
probably increase those problems. Mr. L. McDonald expressed
concerns with the rezoning because of other possible uses
permitted in the "I -2" district and said that there was a
problem with noise. Mr. Moore made some additional comments
and described the current operation on the site. Mrs. James
Hartnett questioned the effect of the rezoning on property
values. There was a long discussion about the existing
nonconforming use and using a PID as a possible option.
Mr. James Hartnett then described some other problems in the
area. Mr. Moore indicated that he agreed with the PID
approach. A motion was made to withdraw the "I -2" rezoning
and resubmit the request as a PID waiving any additional
filing fees. (The owner will have to renotify property
owners if he files a PID.) The motion was approved by a
vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z -4597
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Browning- Ferris Inc.
Edward G. Adcock
South end of Allied Way (South of
West 65th)
Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2"
Industrial
17.224 acres +
Industrial (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I -3"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Mixed Uses, Unclassified
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
�-' The request is to rezone the property to "I -2" to place the
existing use in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The
site is currently utilized for an office and truck storage
and service for a waste disposal operation. The land is
zoned "R -2" because this area was recently annexed to the
City by the State Supreme Court upholding the City's
annexation referendum.
The property is located south of West 65th and at the end of
Allied Way which is just west of Arch Street Pike. The area
to the north is zoned "I -3" and with the railroad tracks
along the east side, an "I -2" reclassification is a
reasonable rezoning for the property. The use and zoning
will not have any impacts on the surrounding property and
staff supports the request.
Along the west side of the property, there is some floodway
involvement and a large portion of the site is in the
floodplain. The City's position relative to floodway lands
has been to zone it "OS" Open Space and have the owners
dedicate the floodway portion to the City. Engineering will
provide a formal recommendation regarding the floodway at
the time of the hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "I -2" and "OS" for the
floodway.
January 28, 1986
`—" Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Frank Mackey, Jr., was present. There was
one other person in attendance who expressed an interest in
the item. Mr. Mackey said that the current use, truck
repair and storage, had occupied the site since 1973. He
also indicated that there would be no deposit of waste at
the location under consideration. He then pointed out that
because of the nonconforming use, a rezoning was necessary
to allow for expansion of the office and truck facility.
Mr. Mackey went on to say that he had not received a final
decision on the floodway land, but he saw no problems with
the "OS" rezoning and dedication of the floodway area,
approximately 4 acres. Richard C. Butler, a property owner
in the area, had some questions about the request, but did
not object to the rezoning. A motion was made to recommend
approval of "I -2" and "OS" for designated floodway which is
to be dedicated to the City. The motion was approved by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 8 - Z -4598
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Scott Martin and Todd Larson
Todd Larson
1017 and 1019 West Markham
Rezone from "C -4" to "0 -1"
Duplex
0.21 acres +
Duplex (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "C -4"
South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3"
East - Multifamily, Zoned "C -4"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C -4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This request is to rezone the lot from "C -4" to "O -1" to
make an existing duplex conforming. The "C -4" district does
not allow any residential uses. "O -1" was chosen because it
does provide for a better mix of office and residential uses
to a maximum density as per the "R -5" district. The owners
are hoping at some point in the future to possibly add a
third unit or have some office space along with one or two
residential units. Staff sees no problems with the "O -1"
rezoning and supports the request.
This type of rezoning action in the downtown area west of
Broadway is quite common as reflected by the accompanying
zoning sketch. The existing "C -4" was a conversion from the
old Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of 110 -1" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 28, 1986
Item No. 9 -,Bylaws Amendment
Proposed Bylaw Amendment - Amend Article II, Section B.l.a.
to read as of ows: "The off ices of Chairman and
Vice - Chairman shall be filled for terms of one year each.
The Chairman, and likewise the Vice - Chairman, may not
succeed himself in office."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
L
The Planning Commission voted to approve the bylaw
amendment with the word "himself" changed to the word
"themselves." The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V 0 T E R E C O R D
DAT
ITEM NUMBERS
tooZOO SUBDIVISION :5 0 ^
��neee�eraer�n
■s
■
■
■�
■
MOEN
J. Schlereth
Win—
=====
"�
■�■�
■��
■
■
■��
��on
°o°eo
°e
°neoii�iii�
■iii
�ooroeoeooe
■
■�������C
�000�eneo�oi�
■�
■
■
■�iiii
D. Arnett
Ise
°000
°0000r°.oiiiiiiii
■�i�
F. Perkins
YAYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN
January 28, 1986
There being no further business before the Commission, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3 p.m.
P-T � 6fttz�
Mirman
�-M*= • i�
c etary