Loading...
pc_03 25 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD MARCH 25, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 11 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: William Ketcher Jim Summerlin j Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Betty Sipes Richard Massie Jerilyn Nicholson Fred Perkins John Schlereth Ida Boles David Jones Members Absent: None City Attorney Dub Elrod 9 March 25, 1986 Item No. A - Z- 4092 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and Chester D. Phillips Robert N. Cearley, Jr. Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge Road Rezone from "MF -12" to 110-3" Office Development 6.2 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "PRD" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -6" West - Vacant, Zoned "PRD" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone the Cedar Branch Subdivision from "MF -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. March 25, 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 110 -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 1 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. March 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86) The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief status report on the request. A motion was made to withdraw the item without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. a l March 25, 1986 Item No. B - Z- 4250 -A Owner: Hartford and Kadelia Hamilton Applicant: Carolyn Ulmer Location: Fairview Road North of Pleasant Ridge Road Request: Rezone from "PRD" to 110 -2" Purpose: Office Development Size: 7.0 acres + Existing Use: 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. March 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" 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: (1- 28 -86) 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 25 -86) Staff recomended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A motion was made 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86) The applicant, Carolyn Ulmer, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Ulmer requested that the item be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. C - Z -4607 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: First Commercial National Bank Joseph Love 1501 Izard Street Rezone from "R -4" to "C -1" Beauty Shop 0.23 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" West - Mixed Uses, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the southeast corner of West 15th and Izard to "C -1" for a beauty shop. The property is located in a neighborhood that has a very mixed use zoning pattern which includes "R -4," "R -6," 110 -3," "C -3" and "I -2." The land use is not as diverse as 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 or used for residential purposes. There are also some nonresidential uses, such as churches, on the "C -3" lots. Because of the situation, the need for additional commercial land is questionable. It does not appear that the request is being made because there is a demand for more commercial land in the area. Based on the existing land use, the neighborhood is over 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 Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. March 25, 1986 Item No. C - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the existing commercial zoning pattern and line should be maintained and does not support the "C -1" rezoning. A majority of the current zoning was accomplished through the High Street Urban Renewal Plan and provided for more than an adequate amount of commercial property. Allowing the zoning lines to be changed at this time could establish undesirable precedent. The rezoning, if granted, would be an intrusion into a residential block and could have an adverse impact on those lots and other properties in the immediate area. And finally, there is no real demand or need for the additional commercially zoned land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -1" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 25 -86) The applicant, Joe Love, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Commission that the necessary notice materials had not been submitted. Mr. Love addressed the notification issue and said that a majority of the notices had been returned. He went on to discuss this proposal and the surrounding area. Because of the notification problem, a motion was made to defer the request for 30 days to the March 25, 1986, meeting and for the applicant to renotify the property owners. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86) The applicant, Joe Love, was not present. There were six objectors in attendance. Staff reported to the Planning Commission on the status of the request and that it was unknown whether any renotification had been accomplished. The Planning Commission then voted on the request as filed. The vote 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The "C -1" rezoning was denied. March 25, 1986 Item No. D NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Woodlawn, Inc. Markham and State Little Rock, AR Phone: 372 -7700 Pleasant View Revised Preliminary Northend of Sugar Maple Lane, Northwest of Sam Peck Road ENGINEER: 011en Dee Wilson 212 South Victory Little Rock, AR Phone: 375 -7222 AREA: 1 acre NO. OF LOTS: k2 FT. NEW STREET: 250 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Staff Report This is a request by the applicant to add one acre to an existing single family subdivision. This tract will add an extra 12 lots to the subdivision. The amount of new street to be provided is 250 feet. Staff has no problems with the request. B. EnQineerinq Comments None. C. Staff Recommendation Approval. March 25, 1986 Item No. D - Continued D. Subdivision Committee Staff was requested to research plans for the extension of Peckerwood Drive. The applicant was asked to submit a hillside analysis. Utility Comments: Water - Extension of main required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 11 -86) Staff reported that Peckerwood Drive was on the Master Street Plan and would affect a portion of this plat. Engineering stated that they wanted the street to remain on the plan. The application was represented by Mr. Dee Wilson. A hillside analysis was not submitted. A motion was made for a two week deferral, subject to the applicant: (1) meeting with Engineering and working out the street problem; and (2) submitting a hillside analysis. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 25 -86) The applicant was present. Engineering decided that there was not a need for the extension of Peckerwood Drive on the Master Street Plan. Staff explained that a hillside analysis was not needed since the plan served as a revision of most of the lots with a gain of only two new lots. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z- 3613 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Properties West, Inc. Joe D. White Shadow Lake Drive at Nix Road Rezone from "MF -18" to "R -2" Single Family 10.0 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the 10 acres from "MF -18" to "R -2" for a single family subdivision. A preliminary plat, Shadow Ridge, has already been filed and appears that the street construction has been started. The addition to the west is fairly new, but there are a number of houses that have been constructed. The "MF -18" tract to the north is developed with a quality multifamily project. This area is shown for single family development on the Suburban Development Plan and staff supports the request. There are no outstanding issues associated with this rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R -2" zoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z- 4339 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Mike Trusty Larry W. Carter 6401 Asher Avenue Rezone from "C -3" to 11C -4" Auto Sales 2.1 acres Auto Sales (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" West - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: 1 The proposal is to rezone the tract to "C -4" to permit auto sales, an used car lot. The applicant began to display and sell cars prior to getting the necessary zoning so this request is before the Planning Commission because of an enforcement action. The site is located on Asher Avenue, west of University Avenue, and is part of the Boyle Park District Plan which recommends a service commercial use for the property. "C -4" zoning is normally associated with this type of land use pattern and staff supports the rezoning. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance states that appropriate locations for the "C -4" District are along heavily traveled, major traffic arterials such as Asher Avenue. There are two items that the applicant and /or owner should be made aware of. The first being that in a "C -4" District, "there shall be no open display of any kind whatsoever in the first 20 feet of the required front yard setback ". The second has to do with the possibile dedication of additional right -of -way for Asher Avenue. Recently, on the north side of Asher, in this immediate vicinity, there was some right -of -way dedication through a Board of Adjustment action. March 25, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued Engineering has provided the following comments: 1. Boundary street improvements for a five lane section of Asher Avenue corresponding to the AHTD design are required as well as right -of -way dedication for a 100 foot wide right -of -way on Asher Avenue. This requires the property owner to furnish dedication of 50 feet from the centerline. 2. It appears that a very small portion of the floodway area is located on the south end of the property. Also, approximately 120 feet from the south property line north is located within a floodplain. Therefore, the property owner should furnish a survey showing a floodway and floodplain area on the south end of the property, located either by a professional engineer or a land surveyor. 3. Access points to the property shall be located on the east side of the property and approved by the Traffic Engineer before any construction begins. The Board of Adjustment case on this property involved the placement of satellite receiving dishes between the street right -of -way and the principal structure. The variance was approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -4" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -4" rezoning as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z -4614 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Russell Clark Adams and West 30th Southeast Corner Rezone from "R -3" to 11I -2" Industrial 0.46 acres Vacant and Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -5" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the site to "I -2" for some type of industrial use. The property is one block north of Asher Avenue in a neighborhood that has experienced some substantial zoning changes. In the general area the zoning includes "R -3," 11R -4," "R -5," "C -3" and "I -2" with a wide range of land uses, especially adjacent to Asher Avenue. Along Asher there is a mix of commercial and industrial uses with this pattern extending 1 to 1 1/2 blocks north of Asher. Along with the nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity, there is a fairly stable single family neighborhood to the west and north. The zoning is still "R -3" in those areas for the most part and there have been very few rezoning changes. Because of this tract's particular location, a transitional area, a nonresidential use of a site is reasonable if property developed. 2. The site is three typical residential lots with a single family structure on the middle lot. The remaining two are vacant. 3. Some dedication right -of -way will be required for Adams because it is a 40 foot residential street. March 25, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued 4. Boundary street improvements and dedication are required on Adams and on West 30th Street. This includes drainage improvements on both streets and stormwater detention on -site is required. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the property could be developed for an "I -2" use if done in the manner that would not impact the residential area to the west and staff supports the rezoning request. To lessen the effects on the residential uses, the site should be oriented to the north towards the existing "I -2" and provide screening along the west and south sides. It appears that this can be accomplished through a Subdivision Ordinance which requires lots to be replatted into one industrial lot. In this neighborhood Adams Street north of West 31st has been used to limit nonresidential zoning to the west, and that line could be reinforced by creating West 30th as the frontage for this piece of property. This would, hopefully, direct the nonresidential traffic to West 30th and Washington Street. The area is part of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which recommends a multifamily use for the property or kind of a holding zone. Staff feels that "I -2" is reasonable because of the existing zoning pattern and it should have a minimum impact on the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Russell Clark, was present. There was objector in attendance. Mr. Clark spoke and said that property would be primarily used for storage. He then on to describe the neighborhood. Staff made several comments and there was a long discussion about various issues. Mr. B. Mullen, then addressed the Commission voiced some concerns about the rezoning. He gave some one the went and history on the "R -5" zoning to the south of the property question and suggested that a more comprehensive approach rezoning should be taken in the area. There were some additional comments made. A motion was then made to in to March 25, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued recommend approval of the "I -2" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z -4618 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Earsell R. Braswell Jimmie L. Davis 3400 and 3402 Mabelvale Pike Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3" Commercial 0.32 acres Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "C -3" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: } The request is to rezone the 2 lots to "C -3" for a commercial use. Currently, there is one residential structure on each lot. The immediate area has been heavily impacted by previous zoning actions with this site abutting "C -3" on two sides and with "I -2" on the east side of Mabelvale Pike. Because of the location, with frontage on Mabelvale Pike, and the existing land use and zoning patterns, staff supports the "C -3" rezoning. There is a Master Street Plan issue associated with this request. Mabelvale Pike is identified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial which normally requires a right -of -way of 80 feet. Based on a survey provided by the applicant, the existing right -of -way is 40 feet, so dedication of the additional right -of -way will be necessary. Engineering has provided the following comments: 1. Boundary street improvements are required on both 34th Street and Mabelvale Pike. 2. Mabelvale Pike is a minor arterial, therefore a total of 80 feet of right -of -way is required. The property owner is required to furnish from the centerline to his property line a 40 foot right -of -way. Sidewalks are also required. March 25, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued 3. Access to the property shall be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Traffic Engineer before any construction begins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. 5 - 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. March 25, 1986 Item No. 5 - 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: 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. i March 25, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z -4623 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: C.E. Miller and Brenda Bewley Ron T. Broadway 5504 Baseline Road Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Commercial 0.47 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Mobile Home Park & Commercial, Zoned "R -2" East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" West - Commercial, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the site to "C -3" for a commercial use and the land is vacant so a new building will be constructed. The property is on Baseline Road east of Geyer Springs and in the area that was annexed into the City in April of 1985. Because of this, the frontage along Baseline in the immediate vicinity is primarily made up of nonconforming uses. To the west and east of the property is adjacent to commercial uses and across Baseline there is a mobile home park and commercial uses. The proposed Geyer Springs East Plan recommends a commercial strip from Shelley to Geyer Springs Road and "C -3" is appropriate for that type of land use pattern. Because of the location and the land use plan, staff supports the rezoning. If permanent boundary street improvements are not in place, they will be required before any building permit is issued. Additional right -of -way required for any future project will be necessary at this time. On Baseline Road the total right -of -way is 100 feet, therefore, a 50 feet right -of -way from centerline is required from this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed. March 25, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z -4623 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" request as filed. The vote 11 ayes, 0 ones and 0 absent. March 25, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z -4624 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Regina L. Norwood and Rose Bickerstaff Ascomb Enterprises, Inc. 13441 Cantrell Road (Hwy. 10) Rezone from "R -2" to "C -1" Laundromat 0.30 acres Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: 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. March 25, 1986 Item No. 7 - 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. March 25, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 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 discussion about the nonconforming status additional comments, item be deferred for defer the request to motion was approved absent. information. There was a long "C -1" zoning issue and the of the property. After several Mr. Osbourne requested that the thirty days. A motion was made to the April 22, 1986, meeting. The by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 March 25, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z -4625 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jim E. Goad S ame 1200 -1206 North University Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3" Office 0.49 acres Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Office, Zoned "0 -3" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property (three lots) to "0 -3" for an office use. The tract is located at the northwest corner of University and Evergreen which is all zoned "R -2." The zoning on the other corners include "MF -6," "0 -2" and "0 -3" with the land uses being very similar. The only exception to that pattern is an "MF -6" tract which is being used for parking. On the northeast corner directly adjacent to University, there is a 100 foot "R -2" strip that functions as a buffer between the "0 -3" area to the east and the residential neighborhood on the west side of University Avenue. By establishing the "R -2" area at the northeast corner which also includes a 50 foot strip along Evergreen, an attempt has been made to discourage any nonresidential zoning west of University on the north side of Evergreen. A majority of the office land is developed with the exception of the "0 -2" tract at the southeast corner of University and Evergreen. That piece of property was rezoned approximately three years ago and with it still being vacant, the need for additional land for office use becomes an issue. 2. The site is made up of three lots 0.5 acres in size. Two of the lots are vacant and the northern most lot has a single family residence on it. March 25, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued 3. The dedication of additional right -of -way will be required for both University and Evergreen. The exact amount of dedication is unknown at this time. 4. Right -of -way and boundary street improvements on Evergreen and University shall be required. The boundary street requirements shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer with regard to access before any construction begins. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In March 1985, an attempt was made to reclassify the southern lot (Z -4333) to "PCD" for a real estate office. There was susbtantial neighborhood opposition and the request was denied by the Planning Commission by a vote of 3 ayes and 6 noes. Staff recommended denial of the initial proposal which was for a 2500 square foot two -story building. A revised plan was submitted reducing the size and staff supported it. The other two lots were not part of the previous application. 7. Because of this sites location which does create some problems, such as access, staff does not support the "0 -3" rezoning. Based on the existing zoning pattern and the "R -2" buffer on the east side, it would be inappropriate to allow a nonresidential district to encroach into the residential neighborhood at the northwest corner of University and Evergreen. Also, it appears that the office or nonsingle family zoning has not had an effect on the quality of the residential area and finally, the need for additional office property should be addressed because of the existing vacant "0 -2" site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "0 -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jim Goad, was present. There were eight objectors in attendance. Mr. Goad indicated that he had discussed the rezoning with the neighbors and because of that he was now accepting the staff's recommendation of denial. After some additional comments, the Planning Commission voted on the "0 -3" rezoning as requested. The vote 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The request was denied. March 25, 1986 Item No. 9 - Geyer Springs East District Plan The Geyer Springs East District Plan is a land use plan for an area east of Geyer Springs Road and west of Arch Street Pike. The southern boundary is Green Road, the northern boundary is a line roughly 1/4 mile north of I -30. This area has recently been annexed by the City of Little Rock. A public meeting was held in the district to discuss the plan on August 5, 1985. The first Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting was held October 17, 1985. The staff has mailed copies of the plan document to all members of the Citizen's Committee. The staff has received no negative comments. In many areas the plan reflects existing land uses. Baseline Road is shown as primarily commercial, with some mixed density residential. In response to citizen input on the sensitive nature of the Young Road area, staff has recently made some changes for the western portion of Young Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The item was approved by the Planning Commission with one change. This change showed an extension of commercial /office land use on the south side of Young Road. There were no objections. The vote for approval was 11 -0. March 25, 1986 Item No. 10 - Highway 10 District Land Use Plan - Extraterritorial Study The first of the district level land use plans for the extraterritorial plan has been prepared by the consultant and staff. The Highway 10 Plan has been reviewed by the Extraterritorial Citizen Advisory Group, the Highway 10 Citizen Group and the Plans Committee. The details of the plan will be discussed at the meeting by the consultant and staff. The Plans Committee has recommended the adoption of the plan with two areas of concern. These are the 150' building setback line and the preservation of Pankey for single family. The Plans Committee felt that Pankey should have two land use options for discussion: (1) single family and (2) transition zone. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jack Castin, representing the consultant firm Manes, Castin, Massie and McGetrick, presented the plan, discussing the goals and objectives and giving particular attention to the proposed transition zones, the Pankey Community and proposed setback requirements. A 2 -hour discussion followed. Ten people spoke in favor of the plan and five against. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing and to vote on the Highway 10 District Plan at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 1 March 25, 1986 Item No. 11 - Other Matters A discussion of a request to notify property owners within 200 feet by a method other than what the Planning Commisison Bylaws require. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Because of the nature of this matter it was discussed at the Agenda Meeting. Walter Hyde asked that he be permitted to hand carry a rezoning notice to the property owners. The Planning Commission instructed Mr. Hyde to follow the Bylaws for the necessary notification which includes obtaining a list of property owners from an abstract company and mailing the notices by certified or registered mail. DATE�o(�/B PLAN NIN-G ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ·ZONING ·SUBDIVISION MEMBER ll F> e 1) J.�ummt\rlin / / " I lJ. Schlereth / J/ • a/ R.Massie ,/ J/ • ,/ B.Sipes / / � v"' J.Nicholson ,/ / -,/ w.Rector ,/ ,/ • / W.Ketcher ,/ ,/ A v D.Arnett ,/ ,/ • / D.J. Jones / a/' # ,/ I.Boles i/ ./ • / F.Perkins I ,I , ,I I ,/ ,/ / � / / i/ ,/ y ,/ J/ ITEM NUMBERS z 3 'I-5 (t:, r; / ,/ / / / � v / i/ J/ // y / / A / / t/' / / v / ,/ / / ,/ ,/ ,// / / / / ,// / I / f / / / I ,/ / / / / I / / v / / I V f i/A y" ,/ / f v' ,/ VAYE ct NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN 'rf q-./{) � / / •/ /•v �•V /, � I/ -,/ /, ,/ / •,/ ,/, v' ,/ •/ /f•/ / II ,, ,/" / / v /. v / .,/ v .,/ �- March 25, 1986 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. I/\), kx " 1, hai man =� -- 2 CI - 0 Date _ i