Loading...
pc_04 22 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD APRIL 22, 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: William Ketcher Jim Summerlin Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie Betty Sipes Fred Perkins Ida Boles David Jones John Schlereth City Attorney: Pat Benton April 22, 1986 Item No. A - Z -4621 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: William Terry Larry Terry Baseline Road at Otter Creek Rezone from "R -2" to "AF" Sod Farm 10.65 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone the tract of land to "AF" Agriculture and Forestry for a sod farm. The Zoning Ordinance states that the "AF" zone provides "a usable zoning definition and to provide for certain compatible land uses during the interim period between annexation and final determination of proper zoning districts." Based on this provision and the property's location, staff feels that the request is appropriate and supports the rezoning. The Otter Creek District Plan identifies the area for Single Family use and shows a large floodway between I -430 and Stagecoach Road. This site has some floodway involvement, approximately the west 1/2, so by Board of Directors policy that area will have to be dedicated to the City. Engineering will address this issue at the time of the hearing, but has indicated that a sod farm meets the requirements for an activity located in the floodplain and floodway. Also, the owner should contact the Corps of Engineers regarding the approval of a wetlands permit. The Traffic Engineer requests that the access point be shown and the description of the road and its condition be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. April 22, 1986 Item No. A - Continued One final item is the Master Parks Plan which shows the general area as a proposed lake. The exact status of this concept is unknown at this time and will be clarified by the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "AF" rezoning with the floodway portion being dedicated to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Commission that all the necessary notification materials had not been submitted. A motion was made to defer the request to the April 22, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 22 -86) Staff informed the Commission that the owner had requested that the item be withdrawn from consideration. The rezoning was withdrawn by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. B - Z -4624 Owner: Regina L. Norwood and Rose Bickerstaff Applicant: Ascomb Enterprises, Inc. Location: 13441 Cantrell Road (Hwy. 10) Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -1" Purpose: Laundromat Size: 0.30 acres Existing Use: Vacant Building STTRRC)TTNDTNC, T,ANT) TTRF ANT) 70NTNG! North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone two lots along Highway 10 in the Pankey area to "C -1" to permit a laundromat. The Highway 10 frontage in the immediate vicinity is primarily single family residences or vacant lots. There are also two or three nonconforming uses and a County School District facility. The zoning is "R -2" Single Family with to nearest commercial zoning being approximately 1/4 mile to the west. To the east along Highway 10 there is some office and multifamily zoning. 2. The site is two lots with one nonresidential building on it that is currently unoccupied. 3. Cantrell Road or Highway 10 is classified as a principal arterial which normally requires a right -of -way of 100 feet. The right -of -way along this section of Highway 10 is deficient, so dedication of an additional right -of -way will be necessary. 4. Engineering reports that: 1. Right -of -way dedication shall confirm to current AHTD plans for Highway 10 improvements at this location. 1 April 22, 1986 Item No. B - Continued 2. If development of the property occurs before Highway 10 Project is let for bid, the property owner is required to implement the required street improvements. 3. Access onto Highway 10 shall conform to AHTD plans. It is preferable that only one access point be allowed from this development. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this particular site. In the past the residents of Pankey have indicated their opposition to any commercial reclassifications in the neighborhood and a "PCD" located on the north side of Highway 10 and to the west was denied by the City. 7. The Highway 10 corridor has been a part of a number of plans and planning studies including a current effort to develop a new land use plan for the northwest part of the City. All reports adopted or otherwise, have never recommended any commercial uses within the Pankey neighborhood. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the area for continued Single Family use and the final neighborhood plan as recommended by the CDBG Committee and the resident does not recognize any commercial development. The new proposed Highway 10 Corridor Plan which will begin its formal review shortly, shows the Pankey area for a mix of residential uses. Because of being in conflict with the previously described planning efforts and creating a spot zoning, if granted, staff does not support the request. The "C -1" classification could have an adverse impact not only on the Pankey neighborhood but also on the Highway 10 Corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -1" rezoning as filed. April 22, 1986 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86) The applicant, Bruce Osbourne, of Ascomb Enterprises, Inc., was present. There were four to five objectors in attendance. Mr. Osbourne discussed in some detail the proposal, a laundromat facility, which would serve the neighborhood and a larger area. He also pointed out that at one point the property had been zoned "C -1" and that his company had a lease agreement with the owners based on that information. There was a long discussion about the "C -1" zoning issue and the nonconforming status of the property. After several additional comments, Mr. Osbourne requested that the item be deferred for thirty days. A motion was made to defer the request to the April 22, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 22 -86) The applicant, Bruce Osbourne, was not present. There were several persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the case. Staff informed the Commission that Mr. Osbourne would be unable to attend the hearing because of being out of state and had requested that the rezoning be deferred for another thirty (30) days. Regina Norwood, one of the owners, spoke briefly on the deferral issue. Diane Piggee Kinsey, asked that the item not be deferred. A long discussion was held and then a motion was made to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The deferral request was denied. Ms. Norwood addressed the Commission and discussed the history of the building. Ms. Kinsey said that the residents wanted the neighborhood to remain residential and that they were opposed to any commercial changes. Henry Norwood, a resident, then spoke. He said that Pankey needed a few commercial uses and asked what would be the impact on the neighborhood from some commercial zoning. Mr. Norwood indicated support for the "C -1" rezoning and said that some commerical zoning was needed for the growth of Pankey. Ms. Norwood spoke again and said the proposed use, a laundromat, would not be a problem and would provide a needed service for the community. Barbara Douglas, representing the Pankey Community Improvement Association, said that there was support for the laundromat if it could be established as a nonconforming use. April 22, 1986 Item No. B - Continued Oscar Dyer, then spoke and reinforced what Mr. Norwood had said. The Planning Commission voted on the "C -1" request as filed. The vote 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied. April 22, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z- 4357 -A Owner: Jitendra Patel Applicant: Richard Smith Location: 5325 Asher Avenue Request: Rezone from "C -3" to "C -4" Purpose: Used Car Lot Size: 0.21 acres Existing Use: Used Car Lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "I -2" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the site to "C -4" to permit a used car lot. The lot is currently in operation, an illegal nonconforming use, and the issue is before the Commission as a result of an enforcement action. The property is located at the intersection of two arterials and has been used in the past for auto related uses. At one point, the location was used for a service station, and the most recent use was an auto repair garage (CUP - Z- 4357). Because of the site's location and the mixed zoning pattern in the area, staff supports the request. The "C -4" rezoning will not have an impact on the neighborhood, and the use is compatible with the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -4" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -4" rezoning as filed. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z- 4555 -A Owner: Big K Development Corporation Applicant: Joe D. White Location: Shackleford Road south of Colonel Glenn Road Request: Rezone from "MF -18" to "I -1" Purpose: Industrial Size: 8.9 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The staff recommends that this item be deferred to May 13, 1986, in order to permit further review in connection with the 65th Street West plan being prepared by staff. TT TATAT TAT /T n/lwRl /T['fT Tl�AT A/T T/IAT. The staff rcommended that the item be deferred to the May 13, 1986 meeting. The applicant concurred with the recommendation. A motion was made to defer the request to May 13, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z -4593 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: R.E. Bradshaw Same 3900 -3924 Asher Avenue and 2701 -2711 Cedar Rezone from "R -3" and "C -3" to "C -4" Commercial 1.5 acres Existing Use: Single Family and Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" and "I -2" East - Commercial, Zoned "I -2" West - Commercial and Quasi - public, Zoned "0 -3" and "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the site to "C -4" for a used car lot and possibly some type of storage facilities. A portion of the property has been used for a car sales lot, and the City does recognize the use as having a legitimate nonconforming status. The land is located on Asher Avenue between Pine and Cedar. Several of the lots also have frontage on both Pine and Cedar. The area has a very mixed zoning and land use pattern. The zoning includes "R -3," "R -4," "R -5," 110 -3," "C -3" and "I -2" with similar uses. On the "0 -3" tract to the west, there is a charitable organization located there, a quasi - public use. For the most part, the existing land use conforms to the zoning. A "C -4" reclassification for this particular location should not have an impact on the neighborhood especially since it has had a "C -4" use on it in the past. The primary issue associated with this request is how far should the commercial zoning be extended north of Asher. 2. The site is made up of several residential lots and an abandoned street right -of -way. There are two nonresidential structures located along Asher and three single family residences on the Cedar Street lots. April 22, 1986 Item No. 3 - 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 history on the site. In 1962, a zoning variance was approved for the used car lot. Recently, the City has initiated some enforcement action against the owner because of some outdoor storage. It's the staff's understanding that the items in question will be removed in the near future. 7. The site under consideration is part of the Stephens School Neighborhood Plan area. The plan does identify some of the property for commercial use and does draw a line between the commercial and residential about mid - block. Staff feels that this is a reasonable approach and recommends that only the portion currently zoned "C -3" be rezoned to "C -4." This would exclude the two "R -3" lots on Cedar. Staff's position is that allowing commercial zoning to West 27th could have an impact on the neighborhood to the north, and the corner of Cedar and West 27th is not a desirable "C -4" location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that only those lots zoned "C -3" be rezoned to "C -4." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, R.E. Bradshaw, was present. There were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Bradshaw presented some history on the site and described the existing nonconforming use on the "C -3" property. He then indicated that he would accept the staff's position to delete the two "R -3" lots at West 27th and Cedar from the "C -4" request. Mary Jane McDonald, then addressed the Commisison. She said that the property had problems because of existing storage and that she was opposed to the rezoning. Kenny Scott, of the City Staff, then dicussed the enforcement issue attached to the storage activity taking place on the site. Mr. Bradshaw then spoke and said that all the items in question have been removed. Ms. McDonald made some additional comments and asked that only the Asher frontage be rezoned. April 22, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued Another resident of the area spoke and discussed the appearance of the property. There was a long discussion about the various issues. The Commission then voted on the amended application to only recommend approval of a rezoning from "C -3" to "C -4" and exclude the two "R -3" lots from consideration. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z -4627 Owner: James H. and Janet Adams Applicant: James H. Adams Location: 7214 Asher Avenue Request: Rezone from "C -3" to "I -2" Purpose: Tire and Heavy Equipment Company Size: 0.72 acres Existing Use: Tire and Heavy Equipment Company (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" West - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This rezoning issue is before the Commission because of an enforcement action, establishing a use on the property prior to obtaining the necessary zoning. The use is truck storage and associated with the nonconforming industrial operation to the west. The property is located on Asher Avenue west of Rock Creek. The land use in the area is fairly mixed with nonresidential uses restricted to Asher for the most part and the residential uses off Asher. The primary use found along Asher is commercial with nonconforming industrial uses to the west and east which is an Arkla facility. Also, in the neighborhood, there are two major public uses, a school and post office branch currently under construction. This section of Asher does not lend itself well to being a mix of commercial and industrial uses because of the single family neighborhoods and the existing zoning which is either "R -2," "C -3" or "C -4." 2. The site is occupied by two structures and used for storage of vehicles. At one time, the two buildings were used as eating establishments. I April 22, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued 3. Asher Avenue is identified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the existing right -of -way is deficient. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The only documented history on the site is the current enforcement action by the City. Staff has received several calls and some concern was expressed over the possibility of an industrial rezoning at this particular location. 7. The area is part of the Boyle Park District, which identifies the property for commercial use. Staff feels that a "C -3" or "C -4" classification is better suited for the site and "I -2" rezoning could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Also, should the "I -2" be granted, it would create a spot zone. The property in question is somewhat unsightly, and it appears that is due in part to the site being too small for the use. The area is more appropriate for commercial or service commercial and not an industrial use such as this. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I -2" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, James Adams, was present and represented by Josh McHughes. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. McHughes addressed the Commission discuss the immediate area including the property to the west also owned by Mr. Adams. Mr. McHughes went on to describe the use of the property which he referred to as truck sales. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office then spoke and said that the City was in court with Mr. Adams concerning the property in question. There was a long discussion. A motion was presented to defer the request to the May 27, 1986, meeting because of the court action. After additional comments, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. McHughes spoke again and discussed the site and area in detail. Several statements were made by Mr. Scott and Pat Benton of the City Attorney's Office concerning the enforcement issue. Evelyn Stafford then addressed the Commission and indicated her opposition April 22, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued to the "I -2" rezoning. She said that it would impact property value in the neighborhood and described the junk that was being kept on the rear portion of the property. Mr. McHughes made some additional comments. The Commission then voted on the "I -2" rezoning as requested. The vote 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied. April 22, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z -4634 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Billie Jean Barkley Walter Hyde 9202 Stagecoach Road Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Beauty Shop 1.7 acres Single Family and Beauty Shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue before the Commission is to rezone the property to "C -3" for an existing beauty shop. The shop was in operation prior to being annexed, but some time after coming into the City expansion took place which is not permitted because of being a nonconforming use. After that was determined, the owners were issued an enforcement notice, and then filed the rezoning request. The site is located on Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) south of Baseline Road in the Otter Creek area. The land use is primarily vacant or single family on large tracts. There are some nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the intersection of Baseline Road and Stagecoach Road. The zoning is "R -2" with some multifamily to the south and commercial at the intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach. 2. The site is a level piece of ground with a single family residence on it and the building is being used for a beauty shop. 3. Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) is identified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. The existing right -of -way is deficient for an arterial so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. April 22, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued 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 annexed into the City in 1980. 7. The adopted Land Use Plan for the Otter Creek District recommends a multifamily use for the property not commercial as is being requested. The plan shows commercial uses to the north of this tract and concentrated at the intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach. Staff believes that the plan's concept should be maintained and does not support the "C -3" request. The rezoning of this tract to commercial could lead to the stripping out of Stagecoach which would create an undesirable development pattern. The "C -3" parcel on the east side of Stagecoach was accomplished with staff support because of being a large tract and having frontage on both Baseline and Stagecoach. (The application for Z -4325 was filed prior to the adoption of the Otter Creek Plan but was not acted upon until the plan had been completed. During that time period, an amended rezoning plan was submitted based on input from the staff and the Otter Creek Property Owners' Association. The southern portion of the parcel is not identified on the plan for commercial use.) Staff feels that a "C -3" rezoning of this site could have a greater impact on the area than allowing the "C -3" tract on the east side to extend south of the commercial line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Walter Hyde, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hyde described the area and said that there was only one building on the site and not two as stated in the staff writeup. He said that a carport was enclosed to provide the space for the beauty shop. There was a long discussion about the possibility of a nonconforming use and structure. Kenny Scott, of the City Staff, addressed th-e enforcement action because of the sign. He said that his office had no information on the nonconforming status of the property. Betty Jean Hyde then spoke and said that equipment had been stored on the site but not in use since 1962. April 22, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued Tommy Evans then addressed the Commission and said that he was speaking for the Hyde's. He said that the beauty shop was an asset for the community and would not cause any problems. There was a long discussion about the various issues. The Commission voted on the "C -3" request as filed. The vote was 0 ayes, 4 noes, 3 absent and 4 abstentions (Jim Summerlin, Jerilyn Nicholson, Betty Sipes and Richard Massie). Because of failing to recieve a majority vote, the rezoning was deferred to the May 27, 1986, meeting (Commissioner Massie requested that the Planning Staff study the area along Stagecoach south of Baseline Road and review the existing Otter Creek plan). April 22, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z -4635 Owner: William L. Huffstutlar Applicant: Same Location: 10,510 and 10,600 I -30 Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" and "C -4" Purpose: Office and Commercial Size: 12.9 acres + Existing Use: Office and Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Residential, Zoned "R -2" South - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family and Vacant Buildings, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" West - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone a 2.3 acre tract to "C -3" and an 10.5 acre site to "C -4." Both parcels are currently occupied with nonconforming uses, sales lots for metal (storage) buildings and a structure with some office and retail uses. The property is located on I -30, west of the Baseline Road overpass, in the area that has a mixed land use pattern and zoning that includes "R -2," C -4" and "I -2." Some of the uses are single family residences, a mobile home park and a used car lot. This area is part of the Otter Creek District Plan which identifies the general location for strip development along the I -30 frontage. The proposed districts, "C -3" and "C -4" are normally associated with that type of land use pattern, and because of that, staff supports the rezoning concept but recommends that the north 150 to 200 feet of the "C -4" tract be left "R -2." This would be consistent with the zoning line established by the "I -2" rezoning to the east and with the adopted plan. April 22, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" zoning as filed and the "C -4" with the exception of the north 200 feet. This should maintain the line created by the "I -2" zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, William Huffstutlar, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Huffstutlar said that he had problems with the staff's recommendation for the proposed "C -4" tract because it would reduce the possibility of selling the property with a decrease in size. He went on the describe the area and again stressed his reluctance to have split zoning on the "C -4" tract. There was a long discussion and at that point Mr. Huffstutlar agreed to amending the application to leave 150 foot strip south of Baseline Road as "R -2." The Commission voted on the request as amended the exclude the north 150 feet of the "C -4" site. The vote 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z -4636 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: William L. Huffstutlar S ame 4918 Baseline Road (at Stanton) Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Office and Commercial 2.81 acres + Office and Commercial (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - School, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Residential, Office and Commercial, Zoned "R -2't STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone an existing strip center to accommodate both office and commercial uses. The property is nonconforming and was annexed to the City in April 1985, as part of the referendum area. The immediate neighborhood has a mix of land uses including single family, commercial and a mobile home park. This particular location is part of the Geyer Springs East Plan area. The plan has yet to be formally adopted by the City, but it does recognize a commercial use for the site. Based on the proposed plan, staff supports the request and feels that it will have no impact on the surrounding properties. Baseline Road is identified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan which recommends a 100 -foot right -of -way. The existing right -of -way is deficient, so dedication of additional right -of -way will required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed. ) April 22, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" rezoning as requested. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z -4637 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Kathleen Hope James A. and Ginger L. Mansfield 8720 and 8720 1/2 Stanton Road Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3" Office 0.4 acres Existing Use: Office (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the site to "0 -3" to accommodate an existing office. The property is located on Stanton Road north of Baseline Road, in an area that has a number of different land uses. In the immediate vicinity, the uses include single family, a mobile home park, a school, auto repair garage and some office space. The property in question abuts a mobile home park on two sides, and a single family residence on the north. Across Stanton Road to the east, there is some vacant land that is in the process of being rezoned (Item No. 7 - Z -4636 on this agenda). Based on the existing land use pattern, it appears that both the zoning and use are compatible with the area. 2. The site is approximately 1/2 acre in size and is occupied by two structures. 3. Stanton Road is identified as a collector on the Master Street Plan. The recommended right -of -way for a collector is 60 feet so some additional dedication will probably required because the existing survey reflects a right -of -way of 50 feet for Stanton Road. April 22, 1986 1 Item No. 8 - Continued 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 annexed to the City in April 1985. 7. This location is part of the Geyer Springs East Plan area. The plan has not been formally adopted by the City, but the recommended land use for the site is mixed density residential. The plan also shows the land to the east across Stanton Road for commercial use and also the northwest corner of Baseline and Stanton Road for commercial. Because of this proposed land use pattern and the existing uses, staff feels that "0-3" is appropriate for this particular tract and the rezoning should only have a minimal impact, if any, on the neighborhood. An office use and reclassification could function as a transition area between Baseline Road and the neighborhood to the north. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "0 -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commisison voted to recommend approval of the "0-3" rezoning as requested. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 9 - Z -4639 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Parkway West Ltd. Brad Walker Bowman Road north of Hermitage Rezone from "MF -12" to "C -3" Commercial 5.2 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "MF -12" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12" and "MF -18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a five -acre tract to "C -3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property is located at what will be the intersection of Bowman Road and the future extension of the Rock Creek Parkway. The 150 -foot "R -2" strip is the proposed alignment of the parkway. The zoning is "R -2," "MF -12," "MF -18" and "C -3" with the land use still being single family and some vacant parcels, including the "C -3" area to the north. The future extension of the Rock Creek Parkway will have some impact on the area, but also it provides the potential for establishing good and workable zoning lines. A large portion of the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity was accomplished through the Rock Creek Plan which identified significant amounts of land for commercial use and recognized the area in question for multifamily development which is a reasonable use of the land. The most recent rezoning action in the area was "MF -18" to the south. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. April 22, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued 3. Bowman Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with the future extension of the Rock Creek Parkway being identified as an expressway. Engineering will provide specifics on the need for dedication of additional right -of -way. 4. There have been no comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Any planning effort that has been undertaken for this area has always shown commercial land to be north of the future extension of the parkway. The I -430 Plan is no exception and recommends multifamily use for the site. Staff's position is that the adopted land use plan should be maintained and does not support the request. There is an adequate amount of commercial land in the area that is undeveloped, including some to the east at Autumn and Hermitage Road which was accomplished through a court action and rezoning by the City. The need for additional commercial land does not exist at this time, and the property does have some development potential as a multifamily project. The plan shows a large commercial area at Markham and Bowman with another commercial node at Bowman and Kanis. Between those areas, land is identified for multifamily development which should be viewed as a viable transition zone. The rezoning of this land could encourage other commercial applications and the potential stripping out of Bowman between Markham and Kanis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Brad Walker, was present. There were seven objectors in attendance. Mr. Walker described the property in question and the general area. He went on to discuss the parkway extension and the need for it. Mr. Walker made a long presentation including traffic counts and discussion of the "C -3" district and the I -430 plan. Mary Laurie, a resident of the area, said she was representing the neighborhood and presented two petitions opposed to the April 22, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued rezoning and a written statement. One petition was from the immediate area along Bowman Road and contained twenty -two names. The other petition represented residential neighborhoods to the west and had eighty -one signatures. Ms. Laurie said that the neighborhood was concerned with how commercial zoning would be stopped in the future if this request was approved. She went on to describe the existing zoning in the area and said that there was more than adequate amount of commercial land available. She pointed out that the quality of life was good in the neighorhood and that "C -3" was inappropriate for it. She also questioned the long range impacts of the proposed zoning on the area and said that the site had development potential because of existing "MF -12" zoning. Charles Lord discussed the I -430 plan in the area. He said that there was no demand for additional commercial zoning and read a statement from Rodney Parham, who opposed the C -3" request. Mr. Lord said that there was no reason to extend the commercial zoning on the south side of the proposed parkway and presented a written statement from Kay Kelly. Walter Kamps described the area and said that he enjoyed it becuase it was quiet. He also said that the area did not need any more commercial zoning. Marie Taylor said it would be better to keep the property multifamily and asked several questions. She felt that the "C -3" request was premature. Robert Chowning then addressed the Commission discuss the economic considerations and extension of the parkway. He said that the parkway is to be constructed through a voluntary improvement district and that the existing multifamily zoning on the property could not support the cost of the road. He also pointed out that without the rezoning, the property in question could not be part of the improvement district. Mr. Chowning said that the rezoning was compatible with the area and was needed for the improvement district to construct the road. Charles Lord spoke again and discussed the parkway and costs. Mr. Chowning made additional comments about the improvement district and said it could be formed within the next thirty days. Mr. Lord said the viability of the neighborhood was a major issue that needed to be addressed. Mr. Chowning and Joe White, engineer for the improvement district, discussed the parkway and the property in question. There was a long discussion about the all the issues. The Commission then voted on the "C -3" request as filed. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 2 abstentions (William Ketcher and Dorothy Arnett). The rezoning was recommended for approval. A motion was then made and approved that directed the Planning Staff to reexamine the impact of the parkway. April 22, 1986 } Item No. 10 - Z -4641 Owner: Grover C. and Betty Bolin and Big K Development Applicant: Joe D. White Location: West of Shackleford Road south of Colonel Glenn Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" and "MF -18" to "I -1" Purpose: Maintenance /Distribution Center Size: 26.5 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "MF -18" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The staff recommends that this item be deferred to May 13, 1986, in order to permit further review in connection with the 65th Street West plan being prepared by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the May 13, 1986, meeting. Joe White, the applicant, agreed to the deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the May 13, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 22, 1986 Item No. 11 - Z -4644 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Francis K. Wood and Telka K. Connerly William H. Asti 1900 Block of South University Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Auto Speciality Shopping Center 10.0 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 10 -acre site from "R -2" to "C -3," and the proposed use is an auto speciality shopping center. It appears that certain uses that are to be included in the center will require conditional use approval also. The property is located on South University just south of the commercial strip between West 12th and West 19th /Boyle Park Drive. The site abuts single family residences on three sides, and on the east side of University, there is a large vacant tract which is owned by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. At the northeast corner of the property, there is a commercial use zoned "C -3." The remaining portion of the land is surrounded by "R -2" zoning. The property in question appears to be removed from what would be considered a more desirable commercial location and has significant issues that need to be addressed, such as access and its relationship to the single family neighborhood. For an auto related use such as being proposed, the site has very inadequate access because there is no median cut along University in that area, and direct access at this time is only from the north. April 22, 1986 Item No. 11 - Continued 2. The property is vacant and has been significantly modified over the years because of some site work. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received some information calls regarding the rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. Staff feels that the site is not a viable commercial location, especially because of the access issue and does not support the request. Another major concern is that a "C -3" rezoning could have some adverse impacts on the surrounding single family neighborhoods which appear to be very stable. A use such as is being proposed could disrupt the livability of those neighborhoods because of generating excessive noise levels and needing bright lights. The Boyle Park District Plan which this location is a part recognizes that the site is not a single family area and recommends an office use for the property. The intent of the plan was to provide some development potential for the site with a use that would not create heavy traffic loads. Because of being in conflict with the plan, the access question and the potential impact on a single family neighborhood, the "C -3" reclassification should not be granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, William Asti, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to allow the City's Traffic Engineer to review the access issue. Mr. Asti indicated they had no problems with the deferral and presented some information to the Commission. A resident of the neighborhood then spoke. He said he opposed the "C -3" rezoning and objected to the deferral request. Mr. Asti made some additional comments. A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the May 13, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes 0 noes and 5 absent. April 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: Parkway Place Conditional Use Permit (Z -4650) LOCATION: The Southwest corner of the Intersection of W. Markham Street and Parkway Place Drive (300 Parkway Place Drive) OWNER /APPLICANT: Parkway Place Baptist Church/ R.H. Keen PROPOSAL: To construct a 13,400 square classrooms, seats 525 and is provide a total of 100 paved land that is zoned "R -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location feet sanctuary (includes six 43' 5 3/8" in height) and parking spaces on 6.15 acres of Located at the intersection of two collector streets (West Markham Street and Parkway Place Drive). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site currently contains a church education building and a parking area. The six acre tract is abutted by single family uses on three sides with a vacant area adjacent to the north. This proposal will be compatible with the surrounding area with proper landscaping. The large size of the tract, as well as the fact that the sanctuary will be below grade from the closest single family use, enchances its compatibility. April 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The site contains two primary access points (one on Parkway Place Drive, and one on West Markham Street). A secondary access to a small handicapped parking area is located on Markham Place Circle. The proposal initially calls for 100 paved parking spaces with an additional 56 spaces to be added in Phase II. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. 5. Analysis The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surrounding area resulting from the proposed use. There are, however, some clarifications and issues that need to be resolved. The site plan needs to include dimensions of the proposed drives as well as the dimensions of the existing building. The applicant also needs to submit a landscape plan. The parking requirements are 105 spaces. The site plan needs to be revised to include five additional parking spaces to meet ordinance requirements. The church apparently has been driving across the curb (on West Markham Street) in order to park their bus (adjacent to a single family use). The church should refrain from this access and parking in the future. Finally, the height of the proposed sanctuary is 43 feet 5 3/8 inches which is 8 feet 5 3/8 inches in excess of the requirements (maximum allowable height in "R -2" is 35 feet). Approval of this height is subject to the Commission's recomemndation to the Board of Directors. *Staff has not received comment from the City Engineers or the Utilities. Approval is subject to their comments. 6. Staff Recommendation The Staff recommends approval provided: (1) the applicant agrees to submit a landscape plan; (2) the applicant submits a revised site plan that includes the dimensions of all buildings, accesses and five additional parking spaces; (3) the applicant agrees to refrain from parking and taking access from April 22, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued West Markham Street (on other than the approved access point) ; ( 4 ) the Commission approves the height of the proposed sanctuary; and (5) the applicant agrees to comply with the City Engineering requirements and the Utility request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (4 -8 -86) The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had received responses from the utilities as well as from all City departments. The Traffic Engineer had requested some minor design revisions. The applicant stated that they would comply with all staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that the applicant had complied with all requests. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. April 22, 1986 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Chairman Date Secret ry