pc_08 26 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 26 ., 1986
1:00 P .. M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present be ing 11 in nu mber.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes from the July 22, 1986 v were no t mailed so
) no action was taken.
>
III.Members Present·
Members Absent�
City Attorney:
William Ketcher Walter Riddick III Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes Fred Per kins David Jones Ida Bol es
None
Steve Giles
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. A -Z-4692
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Rosenbaum Brothers Partnership
Same
1505 and 1509 Rebsamen Park Road
Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3"
Office and Commerical
L 5 acres +
Office and Commerical
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Commercial, Zoned "I-2" South -Commercial, Zoned "I -2" East -Railraod Tracks, Zoned "I-2" West -Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone two lots from "I-2" to "C-3" to place some of the existing uses in co nformance with the zoning. This rezoning application is the result of a enforcement action because of a use that is not permitted in the "I-2" district locating in one of the structures on the site. A majority of the uses on the east side of Rebsamen Park Road are mo re commercial or retail oriented and "C-3" appears to be appropriate reclassification for the property. The area between Rebsamen Park Road and the railroad tr acks is primarily zoned "I-2" but over the years, there have been "C-3" rezonings similar to the issue at hand and those reclassifications have not had any adverse affects on any of the surrounding properties. The Heig hts/Hillcrest Plan identifies land west of the tr acks for commerical uses so the request not in conflict with any pl an el em ent .
Engineering reports that right-of-way and st reet improvements will be required on issuance of a building permit and the 100 year flood elevation on the east side near the railroad tr acks should be shown in order to properly set the floor el evations. (Two buildings are currently located on the two lo ts).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" as filed.
Augu st 26, 1986
Item No. A -Continued
PLA NNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objec tor s in attend ance. The ap plicant was not present. The Commis sion deter mined that the notice had not be en met as required by the bylaw s due to the inabilit y of the ow ner to obtain an abs trac t company list. A motion to defer the ap plication to August 26 was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent�
PLA NNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86)
The ap plicant was present. There were no objector s. A motion was made to recommend ap proval of the "C-3" re quest. The motion pa ssed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent&
)
Augu st 26, 1986
Item No. B -Z-4694
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Donald C. and Ruby W. Bland
D onald C. Bland
1922 West 12th Street
Rezone from "R-4" to "C-3"
Office and Cornmerical
0.11 acres
Multifamily {Vacant)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Duplex, Zoned "R-4" South -Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East -Duplex, Zoned "R-4" West -Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone asingle lot to "C-3" for a mix of office and commericaluses. The exact nature of those uses is un known at this time. The site is located at the northeast corner of West 12th and Summit in an area that has been heavily impacted by previous rezoning actions. In the immediate neig hborhood, the zoning pattern consists of "R-4," "R-5," "O-2," "O-3," "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" with the land use being very similar. Some of the existing "C-3" sites are ei ther vacant or being used for some type of noncommercial use. Based on the current zoning in the neig hborhood, it appears that some type of nonresidential re zoning is appropriate for the property in question.
2.The site is a typical residential lot with a large twostory structure on it.
3.There are no right -of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request.
4 .Engineering has expressed some concerns with bothaccess to the site and parking. No other comments ha ve been received from the revi ewing agenc ies.
5.There are no legal issues.
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. B -Continued
6.There is no documented hi story or ne ighbor hood posi tionon the site.
7 . The property under co nsideration is the only corner at the intersection of west 12th and Summit that is still zoned for residential use. The other three co rners are zoned ei ther "O-3" or "C-3" so commercial rezoning for the northeast corner ap pears to be a reasonable option. Because of the si te's location and its rel ationship to nearby residential uses, sta ff is reluctant to su pport "C-3" and su ggest that "C-1" is mo re appropriate because of it being the nei ghbor hood commerical district. The one major issue associated with this property is parking. The mix of uses will be based on the lots ability to provide the necessary parking and the owners should be aware of that si tuation. The parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance are 1 space per 400 square feet for of fice and 1 space per 300 square feet for cornmerical with some personal service uses re quiring 1 space per 200 square feet.
s·rAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends ap proval of "C-1 11 and not "C-3" as requestedo
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The ap plicant was not present. The Commission de termined that the no tice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the bylaws. A motion was made to de fer this matter un til August 26. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes v3 absent-
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86)
Staf f recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days because of the notice issue. A motion was made to defer the request to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The mo tion was approved by a vote of 11 ay es, 0 noes and O ab sent.
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. C -Z-4695
Owner:
A pplicant:
Location:
R equest:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing U se:
Valentine Hansen and Valentine Pardo
Valentine Hansen
North Van Buren and "C" Street northwest corner
Rezone from "R-3" to "C-1"
Commerc ial or Office
0.13 acres
Single Family and Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East -Duplex, Zoned "R-4" West -Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The request is to rezone a single lo t to "C-1" for anunspecified commerc ial or office use. The propert y islocated at the northwest corner of North Van Buren and"C" Street in a neighborhood tha t is pr imarily zonedfor residential use, either single fa mily or twofamily. The la nd use is almost exclusively sin glefamily residential, especially north of "B" Street. To the south of "B" Str eet the zoning is more mixed as is the la nd use. Between "B" Street and West Markham the zoning inclu des "PCD," 11 0-3,11 "C-3" and "C-4" with the commerical zoning being conc entra ted between West Markham and "A" Street. The su rrounding ne ighborhood is a sta ble residential area and allo wing a commerical zoning at this lo cation could crea te some pr oblems for the neighborhood.
2. The site is a 45" x 123" lo t with three structures on it. Two of the buildings are used for residential purposes and the third one, located on the corner, is a real esta te office.
3.There are no rig ht-of-way requ irements or Master StreetPlan issues associa ted with this request.
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. C -Continued
4.Engineering reports that parking is in adequate for arezoning from "R-3" to "C-1." Also, if parking isprovided, the ac cess point should be shown and approvedby the Tr affic Engineer.
5.There are no leg al issues.
6.There is no documented neighb orhood position on thesite. The property has been used for both office and commerical uses over the years so it has some nonconforming status.
7. The request is in conflict with the adopted Heig hts/Hillcrest Plan and st aff does not support the "C-1" rezoning. Over the years, attempts have been made to allow nonresidenti al zoning to en croach north of "A" Street. In each of those instances, staff has been opposed to the rezonings. "A" Street has always been viewed by the staff as an appropri ate line between non residential and residenti al uses that should be maint ained at all costs. Several years ago, an "0-1" request was filed for the lot at the southeast corner of "C" and North Van Buren to allow for a conversion of a re siden tial structure into an office. That rezoning was den ied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. This particular request, if approved, could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish undesirable precedent for the area. Also, with the three bui ldings on the lot, the site is not a viable commerci al tract of land. And fin ally, the property is not completely restricted to a residential use only, because the st ructure on the corner has nonconforming status it can continue to be occupied by an office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objectors in atten dance. The applicant was not present. The Commission determined that the notice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the byl aws. A motion was made to defer this matter until August 26. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent.
)
Aug ust 26, 1986
Item No. C -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86)
The staf f infor med the Com mis sion memb er s that the ne ces sary notification materials had not been sub mit ted and recom mended that the item be defer red. A motion was made to defer the requ es t to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion pas sed by a vote of 11 ay es, 0 noes and O ab se nt.
J
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 1 -Z-3450-A
Owner: Bowen Road Property Limited Partnership
Applicant: Garver and Garver by Stephen L. Haynes
Location: Mabelvale West Road (west of Mabelvale Junior High)
Request: Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 10 .. 0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LA�D USE AND ZONING:
North -Vacant, Zoned "O-2" South -Vacant, Zoned "I-2" East -School, Zoned "R-2" West -Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERArIONS
1.The request is to rezone a 10 acre tract from "I-2" to"C-3" for unspecified commercial use. The property ison Mabelvale West Road across from the proposedSouthwest Hospital site. The land under considerationis part of a larger tract that will be subdivided intosmaller lots for industrial and commercial development,should this request be approved. The preliminary platshows the street bisecting the proposed commercial landand connecting Mabelvale West with Otter Creek EastBoulevard. There will also be several cul-de-sacs coming off this planned road. The land use in the immediate area includes residential, commercial and industrial. In addition, a large percentage is still undeveloped and there are two public facilities, a Fire Station and Mabelvale Junior High. The zoning pattern is similar with "R-2," "C-2," "I-2" and a vacant "O-2" tract on the north side of Mabelvale West Road which is the proposed location for the hospital development.
2.The site is vacant and flat.
3.Ninety (90) feet of right-of-way is required forMabelvale West Road, so a dedication of 45 feet fromthe centerline is necessary for this property.
)
}
August 26, 1986
Item No. 1 -Continued
4o Engineering reports:
1.Boundary street improvements ar e re quired,therefore, one half of the four la ne streetwill be required to be constructed.
2.Stormwater detention is re quired.
5.There are no legal issues.
6� There is no documented history or neighbor hood position on the site G
7.The proposed rezoning is not shown on the Otter CreekPlan" but staff feels that a commercialreclassification is reasonable because of theproperty's location and the existing zoning pattern.With the 11 0-2 11 directly acr oss Mabel vale West, acommercial zoning could provide a desirable tr ansitionbetween the in dustrial development to the south and ahospital site to the north. After ca refully reviewingthe proposal in the area, staff su ggests that a "C-2"rezoning would be more ap propriateG This would ensureadditional review throug h the site plan process andprovide some protection for the school. Also, theother nonindustrial zonings in the area are site planreview districts. And, finally, the staff's su pport of a commercial reclassification at this lo cation is not endorsement of establ ishing a commercial strip .furt her to the east along Mabelvale west Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION�
Staff recomme nd s ap proval of "C-2" and not "C-3" as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applica nt was present. There were no objector s. A motion was ma de to recommend approval of the nc-3" request as filed. The mo tion passed by a vo te of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
I
August 26, 1986
Item No. 2 -Z-4700
Owner: Frank and Joann Whitmore
Frank Whitmore Applicant:
Location: 2503 South Gaines
Request: Rezone from "R-4" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
0.14 acres Size:
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East -Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-4" and "C-4" West -Multif�mily, Zoned "PRD"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The proposal is to rezone a single lot to "C-3" forsome type of small scale commercial operation. Theowner of this property also owns the "C-3" lot directlyto the north, so a unified development is possible.The site is located in a neighborhood that has a zoningpattern that includes "R-4," "R-5," "PRD," "O-3," "C-3"and "C-4." The lot in question abuts "C-3" and "C-4"on two sides with "R-4" to the south and a "PRD",a senior citizen housing project, across Gaines. Theblock in which this property is located has twocommercial uses on the northern lots with residentialuses on the remainder. There is also a vacant lot atthe northeast corner of West 26th and Gaines.
2.The site is a typical residential lot that is vacant.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this requeste
4e Parking requirements and access to the site shall beapproved by the Traffic Engineer.
5.There are no legal issues,
6.There is no documented history or neighborhood positionon the site ..
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 2 -Continued
7.A commercial reclassification of the lot in questionappears to be a viable option. Along Roosevelt bet ween Gaines and Broadway. the existing commercial zoning is approximately tw o lots deep and that has not had an impact on the adjoining residential uses. Staff is supportive of a commercial rezoning for this lot, but suggests that "C-1" is more appropriat e because of the property's relationship to the residential uses in the neighborhood. The pu rpose and intent se ction for the "C-1" district states�
The "C-1" neighborhood commercial di strict is designed to accommodate limited retail developm ents within or adja cent to neighborhood areas for the pu rpose of supplying daily ho usehold needs .of the residents for food, drugs and pe rsonal services. Commercial uses within this district should not depend on ma rket areas larger tha n the neighborhood served. This di strict ma y al so be used in conjunction with the existing comm ercial developments as an extention of such esta blished commercial di stricts�
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of "C-1 11 neighborhood commercial and not "C-3" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applica nt, Frank Whitmore, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Whitmore sa id that he agreed with the staff's recommendation and amended his request to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercialo A motion was made to re commend approval of 11 C-l 11 as amended. The motion pa ssed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 3 -Z-4701
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
Rector-Phillips-Morse by Ann Terry
Rodney Parham and Market (Market Place Shopping Center)
Rezone from "C-4 11 to "C-3"
Shopping Center
7.0 Acres
Shopping Center
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZON ING:
North -Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South -Office and Commercial, zoned "C-4" East -Commercial, Zoned "C-4" West -Commercial I' Zoned "C-3" and "C-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone the Market Place Shopping center from "C-4" to "C-3." 11 C-3" is the appropriate district for the use and staff su pports the rezoning. This application is a result of se veral retail uses experiencing some di fficulties in obtaining a privilege license because of the site being zoned "C-4" whic h permits "retail uses not listed" as a conditional use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" as filed ..
PLANN ING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vo te of 11 ayes , 0 noes and O absent,
August 26, 1986
Item No. 4 -Z-4708
Owner:
A pplicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
John D. Crockett
Same
Chicot Road at the MOPAC Railroad Tracks
Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Auto Sales Lot
1. 0 Acres
Auto Sales Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Vacant, Zoned "I-2" South -Commercial and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2"
East West
and "I-2" -Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone the site to "I-2" for an auto sales lot. The lot is currently in operation and the use is nonconforming. The property is located on the east side of Chicot Road between I-30 and Baseline Road in an area that is heavily zoned for industrial uses, especially north of the MOPAC tracks. To the south, there is a mix of "R-2," "0-3" and "C-3" with a well established single family neighborhood directly south of the railroad tracks. The area on the north side is primarily zoned "I-2" with several "R-2" tracts, but there are no residential uses on those "R-2" parcels. The property in questions abuts "I-2" on the north and south with the railroad tracks on the east side. Across Chicot Road to the west, there is also "I-2" zoning .. Because of the existing zoning pattern, the proposed rezoning will not impact any of the surrounding property.
There is a potential Master Street Plan issue and that is the future extension of University Avenue to the south, adjacent to the railroad tracks. The plan shows the proposed roadway to be extended and connect with Chicot Road at some point between the creek and tracks.
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 4 -Continued
Engineering recommends that the property should not be rezoned from its "R-2" status. This particular piece of property will be purchased by the City of Little Rock for the Chicot Road interchange connection. The Engineering staff has contacted persons with knowledge of this site in the past and have tentatively entered into tal ks to purchase the property at various ti mes.
STAFF RECOM MENDATION:
Staff will present a recommendation at the public hearing after reviewing the Master Street Plan issue with Engineering.
PL ANNING COM MISSION ACTOI N:
The applicant, John D. Crockett, was present. There were no objectors. Staff recommended that the "I-2" request be denied. Mr. Crockett spoke and said that he had purchased the property to be leased out for an auto sales lot. He went on to say that he knew some street plans existed, but he didn't think that those plans would impact his property. There was a long di scussion about the master street plan issue and the acquisition question. After some ad ditional comm ents, a motion was to de fer the it em for 60 days and to stop any further enforcement action during that time period. Mr. Crockett agr eed to the de ferral. The motion was app roved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O ab sent. (This action was taken to give the City adequate time to pursue the acqusition of the property.)
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 5 -Z-4712
Owner: Baskell L. Gardner
J.R. Hathaway
11621 Kanis Road
Applicant:
Location:
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Office and Commercial
3.0 Acres + Size:
Existing Use: Single Family, Office and Retail
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East -Vacant and Office, Zoned "R-2"West -Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The property in question is occupied by severalnonresidential uses and the request is to rezone athree acre tract from "R-2" to "C-3" to remove thenonconforming status. In addition to the office andcommercial uses, there is a single family residencesituated toward the rear of the site. The property islocated on Kanis Road in an area that has a mixed landuse pattern which includes residential, office,commercial and industrial. Also, a high percentage of the land is still vacant. The zoning is primarily "R-2" with some multifamily and nonresidential zoning to the east. The existing "C-3" tracts are located to the north on Autumn Road and to the west on Bowman Road. The strip along Kanis which this property is a part of includes both residential and nonresidential uses, so a commercial rezoning for this tract of land is reasonable.
2.The site is fairly narrow and has a depth of 990 feet.It is currently occupied by several structures, acommercial building on Kanis and a residential unittowards the back of the property.
3.Kanis Road is identified as a minor arterial on theMaster Street Plan, so dedication of additionalright-of-way will be required. The normal right-of-way standard for the minor arterial is a total of 80 feet.
)
)
August 26,.1986
Item No. 5 -Contin ued
4.Boundary str eet improvements for on e-half the width ofa 48 foot street will be required of this propertyowner�
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no do cumented history or nei ghborhood positionon the site 0
7.The I-430 district plan ident ifies a strip along thesouth side of Kanis for co mmercial de velopment. Thisarea begins west of Bowman Road and terminates justeast of the property in question with a de pth ofapproximately 400 feet. This distance from Kanis Roadis also equal to the "C-3" tr act that has some frontageon Bowman Road. Because of the plan and the existingzoning, sta ff ca nnot support a "C-3" reclassif icationfor the entire tr act and suggests that only an areaequivalent to what the land use plan shows be re zoned.A commercial piece of property extending back al most1,000 feet could have some adverse impacts on thesurrounding area.
STAFF RE COMMENDATION
Staff recommends ap proval of "C-3" for the north 400 feet of the tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, J.R. Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Commission that Mr. Hathaway had submitted a letter amending the app lication to "C-3" for the north 400 feet and "MF-18" for the remainder of the tract. There were no objections to the amended request and a motion was to recommend approval of the rezon ing to "C-3" and "MF-18" as amended. The motion was passed by a vo te of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
)
)
Aug ust 26, 1986
Item No. 6 -Z-4715
Owner: Noel and Diane Gattis
Noel Gattis Applicant:
Location: 10800 Ba seline Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2"
Purpose: Excavating Business
6.1 Acres
Excavating Business
Size:
Existing Use:
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZDNING:
North -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East -Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West -Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
L The request is to rezone the property in question from "R-2" to "I-2" for an existing industrial operation. The site is located on Baseline Road between I-30 and I-430. The land use in the area is a mix of residential and industrial with much of the land undeveloped. On the north side of Baseline Road there are several large industrial invoJvements including a State Highway Department facility and a salvage or junk yard. The residential uses along Baseline are scattered with the exception of a single family subdivision located to the east in close proximity to the Baseline/I-30 interchange. There are also some mobile homes and multifamily units in that immediate area. The zoning is primarily "R-2" except for several locations along both I-430 and I-30. The most recent zoning change along Baseline Road was to "I-2" for a vacant tract of land just east of I-430. On the north side of Baseline, the predominant land use is industrial and the existing residences have been impacted by those uses.
2.The site is approximately 6 acres in size and currentlyoccupied by an excavating business. There are severalstructures on the property and a large storage area.
)
August 26, 1986
Item No� 6 -Continued
3.Baseline is id entified as a minor arterial on theMaster Street Plan� Engineering is recommending a 90foot right-of-way for Baseline Road, so dedication ofadditional right-of-way will be re quired because thesurvey shows only a ri ght-of-way of 50 feet.
4.Boundary street im provements for one half of a fourlane road are required of this property owner.
5.There are no le gal issues.
6.There is no documented history or neighborhood positionon the site ..
7.The property in question is part of the Otter CreekDistrict Plan which id entifies the general area formixed residential uses on the north side of BaselineRoad. Because of the existing land use and the mo strecent zoning change to "I-2," sta ff initiated a reviewof the plan for that section of Baseline. Based onthat effort, a plan amendment was developed thatrecommended the area north of Baseline between I-430and the cr eek to the east to be shown for industrialuses. The amendment is sup ported by the sta ff andreceived a favorable endorsement from the PlanningCommission at their August 12, 1986, meeting� Theproposed rezoning is in confor mance with the planamendment and the "I-2" reclassification should nothave an imp act on the areae
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends ap proval of the "I-2" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION�
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend ap proval of "I-2" as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 7 -Z-4716
Owner: Charles G. Offutt
Applicant: Same
Location: 10115 Chicot Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Sign Shop
0.45 Acres
Single Family
Size:
Existing Use:
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-7"
PLANNING CONSIDER?-\TIONS
1.The proposal is to rezone the property from "R-2" to"C-3" to permit some type of sign shop. The exactnature of the sign shop is uncl ear and it is verypossible that "C-3" is not the appropri ate district forthe use. In addition to the comm ercial operation, theapplicant also plans to reside on the lot. The site issituated in an area along Chicot Road that is somewhatunique. On the west side of Chicot, the land use isvery mixed and the zoning pattern reflects that.Between Mabelvale Pike and Burnell on the west side ofChicot, the existing zoning includes "R-2," "R-7,"11 0-1 11 and "C-3." The opposite of this is found on theeast side of Chicot where the zoning is "R-2" with theexception of the northeast corner of Chicot andMabelvale Pike which is zoned "C-3." Besides severalvacant lots, the land use is single family residenceson the east side of Chicot in the immediate vicinity.
2.The site is about one half acre in size and occupied bytwo structures. An accessory building located in therear yard area is to be utilized for the sign shop.
3.Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on theMaster Street Plan so dedication of additionalright-of-way will be required because the existingright-of-way is deficient.
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 7 -Continued
4.In lieu contributions for street improvements on ChicotRoad will be required.
5.There are no legal issues�
6.There is no documented histor y or neig hbor hood positionon the site"
7.This area was annexed into the City as part of theSouth Central Island. At the time of annexation, theCity al so rezoned properties in the island based on theSouth Ce ntral Island plan which was developed by thestaff. The plan's goal for commercial zoning was to concentrate it at inter sections of a major street andto recognize the more viable commercial uses. Amajority of the existing nonresidential zoning foundalong this section of Chicot Road was accomplis hedthrough the South Ce ntral Island pl anning eff ort whic honly recognized the northeast corner of Mabelvale Pikeand Chicot for commercial development. The proposedrezoning is contrary to the plan and in con flict wit hthe existing zoning patterns. Because of thosereasons, sta ff is op posed to the request and this wouldbe the sta ff's position rel ative to any type ofnonresidential rezoning. The rezon ing could have avery adverse impact on the neig hborhood and establishundesirable precedent for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Sta ff recommend s denial of the "C-3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMM ISSION ACTION:
The applica nt, Charles Offutt, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Offutt spoke and described his business as a specialized sign painting company and said that there was no walk-in traffic. He said that he could no longer afford his current location, and with the property in question, he could live there and work out of an acces sory st ructure in the rear yard. Mr. Offutt went on to say that the deta ched build ing had been used for various nonresidential activities over the last few years. At that point, there was a long discussion about the property having some ty pe of noncon forming use statu s. The Commission instructed the staff to research this issue and contact the Zoning Enforcement Office about the nonconfor ming sta tus pos sibility. A motion was then made to defer the request to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O ab sent.
)
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 8 -Other Ma tters
Request: Planning Commission en dorsement of a Resolution recommending revoca tion of an existing PRD (Z-4206) located on the so utheast corner of Walnut and "A" Streets.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION·
The Planning Commission voted to approv e the resolution as submitted. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
August 26, 1986
) SUBDIVISIONS
)
)
Item No. 9 -Discussion of Proposal to Move Planning Commission Meetings
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
To hold all Plannning Commission meetings at night with a 6 p.m. start-up time
The staff has requested information from various City agencies and staff members. The comments received at this writing generally favor night meetings with the exception of Planning staff, City Attorney and a few others. The primary concern expressed by the Planning staff is that the two Planning Commission meeting paired with Board of Director Public Hearing meeting require the staff to attend late night meetings on four occ asions each month. There are many plus and minus points to be made with the bulk of those on the negative side. We have attached information reflecting the comments we received. The Office of Co mprehensive Planning staff willnot offer a specific recommendation but will be prepared to respond as needed at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-12-86)
The staff offered its report. A brief discussion of the proposal followed with most of the Planning Commission members offering their feeling as to the affect on the Commission and others of holding night meetings. The apparent concensus was that the Commission was reluctant to change their meeting time for both public hearings each month to 6 p.m. There was discussion of the possibility of beginning the Zoning Public Hearings at a later afternoon starting time which could offer some possibility of additional neighborhood participation. Additional general comments were offered by staff and others. The Commission determined that it would be appropriate to defer this matter until the next meeting on August 26th in order to receive additional material from the Planning staff and allo w additional time to discuss the issues involved.
)
)
Aug ust 26, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 -Continued
SUPPLEMENT TO STAFF REPORT (8-26-86)
Staff has reviewed suggestions that the subdivision meeting be held at 1 p.m. and the zoning meeting be held at 3 p.m. Also, staff considered moving some item s such as PUDs or c onditional use permits to the zoning meeting of the meeting.
A majority of staff memb ers recommends against holding of one meeting at 1 p.m. and the other at 3 p.m., one reason being that people would have diffic ulty rem embering which meeting was at which time. Also, the holding of a meeting at 3 p.m. would not be that much di fferent from a meeting at 1 p.m., in term s of pers ons taking off work or making other arrangements to attend the meeting.
Staff also does not recommend shifting PUDs or conditional use permits to the zoning meeting. Such a shift would result in the need for two Subdivision Committee meetings or a longer time period from the date of the Subdivision Committee meeting to the Planning Commission meeting at which an application is considered. In addition, the requirement of some staff members to attend both Planning Commission meetings during a month would result in a hardship upon staff in that they would be spread even thinner than at present.
Staff does recommend a sug gestion contained in the Zoning Report that the location of available parking be indicated to persons attending a hearing. The information could be included in notices of a hea ring, and a portable sig n could be placed behind City Hall to indicate where parking spaces are availa ble. This would be a minor step toward making the Pla nning Com mission meetings more accessible to the general public.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-28-86)
Staff reviewed the matter and there was a long discussion abou t the variou s issues. Staff indicated that the proposed time change was in response of a citizens group. A motion was then made to change the zoning meeting to a 5 p.m. agenda time and a 6 p.m. public hearing. The motion failed to recieve a second, so no vote was taken by the Commission.
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 9A -Structuring of Meeting s to Save Time
Staff has assem bled various id eas for saving time during meetings. Attac hed is information ob tained from ot her cities, plus a page from the Zoning Report which in cludes two su ggestions. Other suggestions which have been made include having Planning Commission memb ers ob tain permission from the Chair before they speak, having pe rsons fi ll out card s before they speak, and su ggestions in the Streamlining Report relating to li miting dialogue with ap plicants, ending hearings by motion 1 and public relations prior to a hearing.
After discussing the various id eas, staff rec ommend s the following:
1.The Commission should discuss it role in conductinghearings. Staff believes that there is a mi ddle ground bet ween hearing ev eryone /trying to work thing s out versus conducting an efficient meeting.
2.A time limit should be established for ea ch case.Staff would recommend that 15 minutes be al lowed foreach si de to make their presentations and that fiveminutes be al lowed for each si de to present a reb uttal.This time guideline sh ould take care of most cases.Staff recommends that the time li mits be ri gidlyfollowed, because in the past time li mits have notworked well when fle xib ility existed. Allowance ofmore time sh ould be al lowed only by majority vote ofthe Commission, and this should be permitted only formajor cases su ch as the First Baptist Churchapplication where more time clearly was ne eded.
3.Applicants should be encouraged to meet with opp onentsprior to he arings.
4.Pe rsons in opposition should be enc ouraged to have aspokesperson.
5.After testimony is recei ved, the Commission shouldadopt a motion ending the hea ring. No one sh ould beallowed to speak from the audience af ter that point.
6.All questions to staff should be addressed to thePlanning Director who can then call upon other staffmembers as nee ded.
7.Before any member of the Planning Commission speaks,permission should be ob tained from the Chair, andcomments during a hearing should be li mited to askingquestions, explaining proced ures, or proposingsolutions/alternatives.
)
)
August 26, 1986
Item No. 9A -Continued
8.Members of the public who wish to speak should berequired to fill out a card and file it with thePlanning Director. The Chairperson of then can evaluate whether the standard be adequate to handle the case. Also, to discourage pers ons from standing up hearing is concluded to try to speak. cards will assist staff in pr eparing a meeting.
the Commission time limit will this will tend after the In addition, the record of the
9.The Chairperson should be authorized to declare out oforder and terminate testimony that is repetitious,irrelevant, or not written within the Commission'sjurisdiction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86)
Staff reviewed the pr oposed recommenda tions and suggested that more structuring of the meetings was needed. The various items were discussed at length and minor changes w ere made to some. After additional comments were made, it w as decided to try all the suggestions at the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
J
)
PLANNING COMMISSION
The following cities were called to find out about the
structure of their planning meetings: Tulsa and Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; Shreveport,Louisiana; and Memphis, Tennesse.
Shreveport, Louisiana 318-226-6480
The Shreveport meetings start at 2pm and last to 6pm. Sometimes
they are longer depending upon whether the agenda is dealing
with variances or rezoning cases. The Chairman starts the
meetings and reads the cases, at that time the principal
speaker(applicant) gets ten minutes to speak and those
following get three minutes apiece.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 918-587-3178
In the Tulsa Planning Commission meeting the applicant maybe
limited to 5 minutes but those after him are limited to five
minutes of speaking time. The number of applications are not limited on the agenda but there is a deadline or closing dctte
for them. The meetings are split into groups such as one week
it involves lot splits, platting and subdivisions and the next
week deals with zoning and new casesn
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
There is no time limit given to the speakers 1n the Commission
meetings. But they do a�k that the audience not repeat
themselves and just stay with the issue at hand. When items are
controversial the Commission stresses early in the meeting
that they wish to hear the comments of the people but, would
like for them not to repeat themselves.
The Commission sets ground rules in the beginning of the
meeting to let people know that there is a time limit and to
be sure to stay with the issue at hand. Each side is limited
to ten or fifteen minutes of speaking time and the time is
divided among the sides. This helps to cut down on repetition
and to keep the people from infringing upon their neighbors� t j_ rn F:?: u I:-: t.l t t: !·-! E:::= -�./ a.-t:":.: 1 i !:) !7l.:": 1---· -:":':\ 1 (:) il t: !7 :::? t: i fn F:.1 :1 b F::: C a t.t -:=. E·? t t-i (!;�: \l ·f e €-? ]. ·t. !; €�:r
the public has a right to speak. The Memphis Commission holds
meetings once a month and they are divided by the subdivision
cases in the morning and following a break the zoning cases
are heard in the afternoon. The Memphis Commission uses a
clock to time the sides even though they are flexible with it.
THE ZONING REPORT
Organizing your agendas
Type your agenda in an outline format .. Sever�
agendas we receive are very diff i cult to read
since-they fill four to six lines across the
width of the page, text style. It is hard to find
in formation within any one agenda ite m your
public may be seeking-since the appearance of
all agenda items is about· the same .. The outline
format puts the most important information
fro_m each agenda item at the top . .right margin..
Least important in formation has left-most in
dentation ne ar the bot tom of the agenda
item ..
Provide a one-page community-wide map spot
ting general locations of all cases scheduled
for the meeting.. Case number should be liste d
next to the spot. If your county planning com
mission will he ar te n cases next week, include ·
an outline 8-1/2xll" map spotting the ten cas
es throughout the county.
) time listings on your agenda s, list time
1 en h to cover a.n item rather than clock time.
Time re erence or an individual agenda item
should be listed fo r, say, "30 _minutes" (time
leng th) rather than "8:30 pm" (clock . time). If
you cover an agenda item very quickly, jou
can proceed to the next item without delay.
Otherwi�, you must wait to the scheduled
clock time to start the neii..-t item..
Split your agenda into two or three· groups of
i terns if your commission meetings last a long
time.. Set a clock time to begin each group of
items, then set suggeste d time length for indi
vidual items within the group.. Commission
meetings la sting all day can be split into morn
ing and afternoon sessions. Afternoon and eve
ning meetings can be split into tw o sessions
revolving a�und a mid-point recess. The public .
attending items sche dµled in the second group
of items nee d not show up at the beginning of
the meeting to wait for their items under the
. �ss umption that the commfssion might race
throu gh the first group and reach thei r item
r "yre they show up.
January 27, 1984 I�ue
Page Two
Schedule your house keeping items for the end
of your commission's meeting.. As unexpe cted
·breaks occur ne ar the end orthe first group of
·items, these miscellane9us items, not involving
the public, can be pulled forward one at a time
and dispense d with until unuse d scheduled time
runs out.
Speed· up· your· meetings by establishing a "con
sent agenda".. A consent agenda is a summary
listing at the beginning of your agenda of
those items that you believe will be approved
by the commission as routine items with no
diseussion. The commission enacts all of these .
items as a group with one vote, rather than
vote on each item separate ly.. If commissioners
or �ople in the audience wisn to di scuss any
item, that ·item is culled from the ot hers for
separate discussion and vote-and the re st
voted on as a group ..
Add a "Public Commentary" item to your agen
da. Explain, in your agenda, that thi s gives the
public a chance to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agendao Ab ou t 40 96 of the a
gendas we receive have this item ..
Re fer to street address for· location of cases
rather than legal description. Many street
addresses for agenda items are obscure even to
nearby res idents; so also refer to the neares t
major street intersection or part of town.,
Example: "843 Main Street, two blocks west of
Market Street;" or "NW 1/4 of section 3, Jones
Township, 2 miles northwest of Smallto.wn; on
north side of Milton Road .. Tf
Change the writing style of agendas from le
galese to nat ural English. Your agendas may be
for official mee tings and are · of ficial docu
mentso But use of normal English without a
patina of legalese is much less intimidating to
the public and easier to understand by lay
readerso Reduced intimidation and bet ter com
prehension may lead to mor� ope n and con-:
stru�tive public discussion of agenda items ..)
)
August 26, 1986
ITEM NO. 10 -OTHER MATTERS PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON BYLAW AMENDMENTS AND NOTICES
PROBLEM NO .. 1
Inability of applica nts to ob tain timely and accura te, reasonably priced, owner's lists from abst ract firms.
PROBLEM NO. 2
Inability of the County Tax Assessor's Office to perform list preparation for applicants.
PROBLEM NO. 3
Inability of laymen to produce a list of owners from the tax records.
PROBLEM NO. 4
Inability to perform the required supplementa l notice when problems 1 through 3 prevail .. The level of nonservice to owners.
August 26, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 1 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The current application review period allo ws an applicant appro ximately 15 to 17 days to obtain a property ownership list. The preparation and mailing of the mat erials are required to be ac complished within this same time frame. An additional imp act is a short month, such as February or a holiday month.
COST
In the past 5 years, applicants for various zoning and/or subdivision act ivitites have experienced an increase in cost per owner name. This increase is in the neighborhood of 300 percent or more. This cost can and frequently does exceed $8 per owner name. An average number of owners in a built-up neighborhood is about 25, which will cost up to $200. These figures are based upon a single re sidential lot. A larger tr act for mu ltifamily or commercial zoning would add additional names.
ACCURACY
The abstract or title company procedure is the only acceptable re ady source of owner names. There are a couple of means of developing a tax list, but that does not assure the person paying the bill is the owner of the land.
}
August 26, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 2 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The same time const raints ex ist as wi th abstract compa nies. The 2 weeks or less performance time prohib s the County st aff being directly involved in preparation.
COST
This unknown inasmuch as the County would probably be required to add new personnel and ex pand its search capability.
ACCURACY
The County tax rec ords are not accu rate en ough to provid e a list of owners. The problem is that the record is designed to reflect who pays taxes, not who owns the land. Many tax bills are mailed to mortgage companies, banks, or property managers. A second problem is that the computer sy stem established for the tax records was not designed to be compatible with the computer that maint ains the deed records. A County employ ee, after developing a tax list by legal description, would be required to walk fou r blocks to the County Courthouse and trace ea ch description to determine the ownership.
)
August 26 , 1986
PROBLEM NO. 3 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The average applic ant is not an attorney or engineer or person whose work time and activities are comp atible with the working hours of the public offices involved. They normally do not have time within the two weeks allotted to accomplish the requirement.
COST
The cost to the lay person may be comparable to professional help in time and energy especially if deferrals are the result of poor information and poor notice.
ACCURACY
M ost lay persons would need substantially more time to develop the knowledge and contacts to develop a list with proper names. The potential for error is always present.
August 26, 1986
PROBLEM NO. 4 ANALYSIS
REVIEW TIME
The most ob vious problem when numbers 1, 2 and 3 prevail is a hold on any action by the Commission even though all ot her elements are equal to Ordinance and Policy. A timely review and ac tion of a request is not obtai ned.
COST
The cost to applicants and others involved is immeasurable and non retrieveable. The level of nonservice is at present rather low. The past month's ac tivity indicated one instance where an abstract company simply could not produce the list in the required time. There were several instances of noncompliance be cause the applicant used ba d information in the notice as mailed, or simply failed to follow instructions. A third instance involved an applicant who lost portions of the proof of notice material.
)
August 26 , 1986
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a .Make no changes and leave all of the proceduresand req uirements as is. The current procedure,although oc casionally troublesome, does notproduce a signficant number of bad notices .
b.Modify the procedures and allow certain applicantsto use walk-around notices. This procedure isused for certain Board of Adjustment cases,primarily the re sidential single lot instances an ddoes not appear to be a problem. Accuracy israrely challenged by the neighborhood.
c.Modify procedures to allow an applicant the optionof using the tax reco rds and develo ping a list.The tax office indicates that a lay person could,with some help , prepare a list that would beapproximately 80 percent accurate. This listcould then be filled in by reviewing abstractcompany reco rds. Some minimal cost would remainfor this supplemental information from theabstract co mpany.
a.Modify the procedures to permit a process wherethe City of Little Rock would take bids fromabstract compan ies each year and co nsign all ofthe notice work to one co mpany. This might makeit cost-effective for that firm by ha ving en oughof the work to assign a person full-time. Theproblem with this procedure is that one localabstractor co ntacted said he would definitely notbe interested. He pointed out that the per person cost really isn't en ough to cover the time. He further stated that a significant problem he experiences is a person asking for lists at the last minute. It was suggested that if two weeks or more advance requests were filed, his firm could respond.
)
ITEM NO, 10
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (8-26-86)
The item was discussed by the staff and the Planning Commission at length. It was decided to stay with the current notification procedure and to vote on the By-Law amendment at the September 9, 1986 meeting.
"--
PLANNING ·c OM MISSION
DATE , , cay<«>«::c;< < <c;,,
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III------
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
I.Boles
F.Perkins
A
✓
✓
,/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
/
/
A e I
y ✓ ✓
/ / /
/ ✓ ✓
✓/ /
/ / /'
/ ✓ ✓'
/ ✓ I
✓/ I
/ ✓ J/
/ ✓ ,,/
,/' / /
� 3
✓-/
/ /
v/ /
,-/ /
✓/
/ �
/ I
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
4 5 � 1 fl 9
y" .·.✓ / // /
/ / ✓ / / ✓
/ / ✓ / //
/ / / ✓✓ /
/ / ,,/ / / /
✓ / ✓ / ✓/
/ / / /�-/ /'
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / ✓
/ ✓✓ / /
✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTAIN
//)
,/i
✓
/
' /
/
/ /
/
/
/
August 26, 1986
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
tKLI'
airman
e� - Z- �--- l
Date
i
27
Secreta