pc_07 22 1986LITTL E ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 22, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Qu orum
A qu orum was present being eight in number.
II.App roval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The min utes of the previous meeting were approved asmailed.
I.I I. Present:
Absent:
City Attorney:
William Ketcher Fred Per kins Betty Sipes Walter Riddick Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett John Schlereth
Ida Boles David Jones Richard Massie
Steven Giles Pat Benton
July 22, 1986
Item No. A -Z-4658
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ro bert Perez
Same
7418 Mabelvale Pike
Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Commercial/Dog Grooming
0.24 acres
Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Single Family, zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2"-Multifamily, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The proposal before the Plann ing Commission is torezone a single lot to "C-3" for a small-scalecommercial use, dog grooming. The property is lo catedin a ne ig hborhood that is primarily residential withsome va cant la nd on the so uth side of Ma belvale Pike.There do es appear to be one nonconforming commercialuse on the ea st side of Lewis Road. The zoning is"R-2," "PRD" and "MF-18" with no nonresi dentialclassification in the vicinity. Along Mabelvale Pike,there is a mix of single family residences an dmultifamily uses with an apartment project cu rrentlyunder construction on the "MF-18" tract to the south.Also, there are some apartment units along Lewis Road.
2 .The site is a typical residential lot with a singlestructure on it.
3.Mabelvale Pike is identified as a co llector on theMaster Street Plan, but at this time, it is unkno wnwhether additional right-of-way is required.Engineering will provide the necessary information to make that determination.
4.There have been no adverse comments re ceived from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
July 22, 1986
Item No. A -Continued
5.There are no legal issu es.
6.There is no documented history or ne ighborhood positionon the site.
7. Staff does not su pport the rezon ing, because if granted, it would cr eate a sp ot zon ing and could have avery adv erse imp act on the neighborhood. The area ispredominately single family with a few sm allmultifamily develo pments. It app ears that the existingland use pattern has not disrupted the livab ility ofthe neighborhood, and the area should continue as a mi xof residenti al uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff re commends de ni al of the "C-3" re quest.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-27-86)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred because the necessary notification of pr operty own ers had not been accomplished. A motion was made to de fer the request to the June 24, 1986, meeting. The mo tion was approved by a vo te of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNI NG CO MMISSION ACTION: (6-24-86)
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred because notification of pr operty own ers had not been completed. A motion was made to defer the issu e to the July 22, 1986, meeting. The mo tion was approved by a vo te of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open positi on.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no obj ectors in attend ance . The applicant was not pr esent. A requ est for wi thdrawal wit hout pr ejudice was received. A moti on to withdraw the applic ation without prejudice was made and passed by a vo te of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Olin J. Asbury 2228 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 663 -7005
J and J Piano and Organ Company "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4669)
Northeast Corner of University and "H" Streets
ENGINEER:
McClelland Consulting Engrs. Mr. Steve Atherton 900 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371-0272
AREA: 1. 732 acres NO. OF LOT S: ·l FEET NEW ST.:0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: J and J Piano and Organ Company/Nichols Furniture Company
A.
B.
.. Development Objectives
(1)To acquire the proposed site and build a str uctureto accommodate a combination business/display ofpianos and furniture and warehouse space.
(2)To preserve the structural in tegrity of theathletic field.
Development Proposal
(1)The construction of one building containing 20,000square feet.
Z-4669 -Continued
(2)Use of sp ace will be as follows:
a.Piano display .......••.......... 4,000 S.F. b.Nichols Furniture ., .•..•........ 8,000 S.F.
(4,000 square feet on eac h of two le vels)
c.Two-story •••..•..•.•••.•..••..•• 3,000 S.F.d.Electroni c organ display/warehouse/expansion space •.•.•.. Northern5,000 S.F.
(3)Twelve parking spaces are required.
C.Analysis
Staff is not supportive of this plan. The proposedretail uses could lea d to strip comm ercial developmentalong University, which is currently composed of mainlyoffice and multifamily uses. Staff has also hadpreliminary discussions rega rding a commercial use onan ab utting site. Thus, whatever is de veloped on thissite will be crucial to future uses al ong UniversityAvenue.
Access should be li mited to the northernmost drive andon�y if parking is redesigned to abut the street.There should be 34 feet of street from the median tocurb. The ha ndicapped ramps and access to the loa dingdock must be app roved by Tra ffic. The main driveshould be 24 feet at least. It is rec ommended that thesidewalk be loca ted at the property li ne away fromUniversity to not at the cu rb.
D.Staff Recommendation
Denial as fi led.
Z-4669 -Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue to be discussed was identified as land use. A revised plan was subm"itted by the applicant.
Sewer Comments -Sewer available; however, may be so mewhat expensive.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
As re quested by the Planning Commission, the ap plicant requested a 2-week de ferral. A motion to this ef fect was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, O noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-24-86)
The Planning Commission announced the public hearing on item B.The Chairman asked for a determination of the pa rtiespresently involved in this case as to objectors and supporters. There were app roximately eight pe rsons pr esentrepresenting the ne ighborhood opposed to the pr oposal.After a bri ef discussion between several of the presentparties, it was ·determined that tw o memb ers of the PlanningCommission would be abstaining fr om pa rticipating in thismatter le aving on ly five vo ting members inasmuc h as thePlanning Commission attendance was seven for the day. TheCommission discussed whether or not a hearing of the issueis appropri ate when a quorum ca nnot be obtained and finalaction could not re sult. Mr. Olan Asbury ad dressed thesubject. He furt her identified that he had pa .rticipated in neig hborhood meetings invo lving most of the pr operty ownersinterested in this matter. A furt her general discussionfollowed involving both sides of the issue. The Commissiondetermined after that discussion that it would hear the case
Z-4669 -Continued
and listen to objec tors as well as commentary fr om Mr. Asbury. This in lig ht of the fa ct that onl y five votes would be possible. Mr. Walter Riddick then presented comments representing Mr. Pe yton Rice, an adjacent o��er, and stated that he de sired to continue this matter today and not be heard at this time al th ough the ge neral opinion of others was to hear the ca se. Mr. Ri ddick offered specific objection to the planned unit development action based on the plans for the nei ghborhood, those being the Heights/Hillcrest Plan adopted by the City Boa rd of Directors, the additional effect of strip zoning along North University and adverse in volvement within a current se vere floodplain. He added comm ents to the effect that he op posed substantial de velopment of any kind other than scattered single fa mily de velopment inasmuch as nonresidential development would im pact the flood prone area .
The Planning sta ff was then requested to present its comments and recommendation. Mr. Greeson addressed the issue. 'The sta ff recommendation was maintained at de nial of the request the basis for de nial being strip zoning, potential for other properties adjacent along North University and violation of the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. Mr. Greeson did offer the thought that there. were se veral potential options for this PUD in th·e manner of conditional placement of the use on the property • .,
The Chairman then tu rned the matter to the objectors and asked for comments. Mr. Ca rl Glenn, a neighbor, offered his thoughts on the subject. Ms. Madigan, a rep resentative of the Little Rock Garden Club, offered comments op posing the encr oachment upon University Avenue and this undeveloped area. The basis of her argument being that it would di sturb the existing open space. Karen Corbin offered objections to the proposal based on the loss of habitat for certain neig hborhood wild life. She fu rther indicated that this was a go od re source property fo r the adjacent school. Mr. Tom Ramsey, the owner of properties at 5800 Evergreen, ob jected to additional commercial int rusion into the area which could eventually le ad to a loss of investment value by office owners in the area.
After rec eiving these comments, the Planning Comm ission entered into a ge neral di scussion involving many of the previous sp okespersons as well as Mr. Asbury. At the end of this lengthy dis cussion, the Chairman made a request of Mr. Asbury to determine whether or not he would accept a
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B -Continued
deferral of this item to July 22 rather than the normal deferral to July 8 inasmuch as the July 8 agenda was a rather heavy filing with approximately 43 items. The applicant stat ed that he was agre eable to the July 22 date. The Chairman then asked for the motion on the application as filed. The motion was made and se conded for approval as submitted. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote, therefore, involving the Planning Commission bylaw which requires an automatic deferral. The rehearing is to be set for July 22 at 1 p.m. The vote on the motion was: 4 ayes, 1 no, 2 abstentions, 3 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
The applicant was present. Approximately eight persons were in attendance from the neighborhood. Staff reported their recommendation remained the same -denial, based on departure Jrom the use proposed on the Land Use Plan and a fear of promoting strip commercial zoning along University Avenue.
The applicant, Mr . Olin Asbury, gave an overview of the project. He explained that he would add the extra parking required by el iminating some gr een space. He ga ve out copies of the minutes of the March 27 Little Rock Sc hool Board meeting, which described their agreement with him regarding the sale of this pr operty.
Mr. Asbury told the Commission that the Sc hool District has accepted their contract for this particular land use, knowing that this use would be ad jacent to the Forest Heights Junior High School. He noted that the School District was their largest ne ighbor. The Sc hool District feels that the use is acceptable as a long-term us e.
Mr. Asbury explained that he re quested the PCD process because of the sensitive in fill site and the fact that the School District would not allow any commercial on its border because of the tr affic in the area. He felt that the owners' purpose and intent is to do business, not to speculate.
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B -Continued
He gave data indicating that an 11 0-2 11 use, whi ch was offered by sta ff as a possible alternative would cause more tra ffic than the use proposed.
He offered to restrict the application by agreeing to revert back to 11 0-2,11 if the J and J Pi ano Company and Nichols Furniture Company re locates to another area in the future. After a question by sta ff, he explained that he is restricting the deed to not allow more than four businesses due to a co ncern by the Sc hool Board; even though thi s PCD application stipulates two businesses.
Mr. Peyton Rice spoke in opposition. He was opposed due to the following: (1) the proposal was con trary to the Heights-Hillcrest Plan, (2) he wants no commercial zoning between Markham and Highway 10; (3) any bu lldozing of a greenbelt would cause addit ional flooding and crea te an "ecological tragedy" si nce the area is a li vi ng bi ology lab for students at the ne arby school.
Mrs. Bobby Buchman of #3 Gay Place pr esented a pe tition with 47 sign atures for the South Normandy area, south of Evergr�en. She felt that the support of the School Board· needed to be di sregarded si nce they were receiving fin ancial gain. She felt that it was sti ll comm ercial zoning, and after it was approved, the neighborhood then would have no recourse. Other persons in opposition were Mr. Jack Lindsey of #9 Gay Place and Mrs. Madigan of the Little Rock Garden Club.
Three Commissioners decided to abstain from di scussion and voting. They were Mr. Sc hlereth, Mr. Walter Riddick, and Mrs. Jerilyn Nicholson, the School Board re presentative to the Commission. It was de cided that there would sti ll be a vote, ev en though there was not a quorum. The ne ighborhood offered no ob jections.
Finally, a motion was made to approve the application. The motion failed. The motion was forwarded to the Cit y Board as a negative recommendation due to the inadequate amount of votes at both meetings. The vo te was: l aye, 4 noes, 3 absent and 3 abstentions.
July 22, 1986
Item No. C -Z-4092-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and Chester D. Phillips
Robert M. Cearley, Jr.
Fairview and Pleasant Ridge Roads
Rezone from "MF-12" to "MF-18"
Multifamily
6.2 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Vacant, Zoned "PRD"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "MF-6"-Vacant, Zoned "PRD"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the tract from "MF-12" to "MF-18" for a multifamily project. The site is located in the Woodland Heights/Summit Road ar ea just north of the Pleasant Forest Subdivision. The land use in the area incl udes single family, multifamily, noncomforming commercial uses and several sizable vacant parcels. The zoning pattern is similar with "R-2," "MF-6," PRD and "O-3." The multifamily developments in the neighborhood range in densities from 12 to 18 units per acre so the proposed density is appropriate for the area. Also, the newly adopted Highway 10 Plan recommends a multifamily use for the property.
The site is currently platted into lots so the st atus of the plat will have to be resolved prior to the development being initiated.
STAFF RECOMM ENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "MF-18" as requested.
July 22, 1986
Item No. C -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-24-86)
Staff in dicated that the item ne eded to be deferred beca use notification of pr operty owners had not been com pleted. A motion was made to defer the request to July 22, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no ob ject or s present . The ap plicant was present. After a brief dis cussion, a motion to re commend ap proval was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. D -Z-4680
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ronald L. Clark
Russell H. Clark
Look St reet just east of South University
Rezone from "R-2 11 to "C-3"
Commercial
0.15 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
South East West
-Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2"and "C-3 11
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant, Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
(The applicant has requested that the rezoning be withdrawn without prejud ice).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 22, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vo te of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was not present. A request for withdrawal without prejudice was received. A motion was made for withdrawal without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, O noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Ridge River Pointe Joint Venture 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-4242
River Ridge Pointe
North and West of River Ridge Road
ENGINEER:
Ed ward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 64.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 44 FT. NEW ST.: None 4,250' Private St.
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul-de-Sac Length
A.
B.
Existing Conditions
The property involved is located north of a si ngle family area (Riversedge's Subdivision) over the Arkansas River. The topography is very rugged. Access will be provided from River Ridge Road.
Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 64.3 acres int o 44 lots. A private street sy stem of 4,250' is planned.
C.An alysis
Staff has sev eral concerns relating to this submis sion.Designs ne cessary to acc ommodate the sensitivetopography is understood by staff; however, theapplicant should formally request a waiver of thecul-de-sac due to excessive length; and a waiver forthose lots that are three ti mes as deep as their
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E -Continued
widths. Also, the applicant should identify the use of all tracts indicated by a le tter. If they are common open space, their maintenance must be provided for in the Bill of Assurance along with the private st reet system. A landlocked parcel near the railroad, with no tract num ber, should be identified. A turnaround or a cul-de-sac is needed around Lots 28 and 29. Notice should be given to abutting owners with 2.5 acres or more and the applicant should identify access to L.M. Le wis property. Sidewalks are required. The applicant should adhere to the hi llside requirements.
D.Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86)
The issues discussed were: elimin ation of the tu rnaround at mid point of the street. This was determined to be inappropriate on a private street system closed to the public; no current sewer available and method for service; extending the lots on the north to absorb the tr act along the railroad; easements to loop the water system and notice to adjacent property owners; and wastewater nee ds for an easement along an existing 8-inch main. The ap plicant was generally receptive to staff design sugg estions on the street as to drain age, curbing and st reet alignment. The waivers requested were determined to be nonissues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86)
The ap plicant was present. There were several objectors in attendance. The staff offered its recommendation of approval. It was pointed out that the applicant had agreed to the several street design recommendations and that he had decided to provide the mid-point turnaround on the private street. Sidewalks were pointed out as being needed. The applicant, Mr. Walker, then addressed the Commission and
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E -Continued
gave a general ov erview of the plat. He identified the several areas shown as Tracts and stated their usage. He agreed to make Tract A tw o homesites and to make the 50 foot strip running to Highway 10 a permanent op en sp ace or discuss deeding this strip to adjacent owners. He also offered to fund a tr affic signal at Highway 10 intersection with River Ridge Road if the warrants are in place and the State Highway Department agrees to a ne ed. All of this would be predicated on a st udy of the intersection. The objectors then offered their comments. Mr. Se th Ward discussed access to the entire area and stated that a pri or Planning Commission had agreed to require an additional access from this isolated area bef ore ad ditional development occurs. He was not sp ecific as to when the agreement was established or who may have initiated an agreement . Mr. Ward discussed current tr affic problems at the intersection with Highway 10 and na rrow stree t conditions in the subdivision. James Dunnaway discussed the ne ed for a second access and current traffic problems. Bob Harrold discussed the notice provided nei ghbors and sta ted that he felt it was deficient as to its ti ming. He had concerns about Tract A and its fu ture us age. Elizabeth Murphy commented on the tr affic problems. Henk Koornstra was then asked to respond to some of the issues. He resp onded by stating that the best he could de termine, the tr affic condition on River Ridge Road at the current time was within the design capacity for this street. After fu rther le ngthy discussion of the platting prop osal, a request was made of Mr. Walker by the Commission to defer this item until July 22, 1986, in order to all ow su fficent time for the staff to researc h their rec ords on the sec ond access agreement. Mr. Walker agreed to the deferral. A motion was made and passed to de fer the item to July 22, 1986. The moti on passed by a vote of 8 ayes, O noes, 2 ab sent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COM MISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Approximately 15 concerned neighb or hood residents were also in attendance. Staff rep orted that no evidence of any agreement, limiting fu rther development until an alternate access is provided, was found. The applicant explained that he had been trying to reach an agreement with abutting pr operty owners concerning access to the rea r of their lot, and the plat had been modified to reflect Tract A as Lots 2 and 3. Another
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E -Continued
part of the plat would be zoned open sp ace and dedicated to property owners of the subdivision.
Mr. Seth Ward sp oke of an ag reement that was en tered into years previously where he thought that it was ag reed there would be no furt her development at the eas t end of River Ridge without alternate ac cess being provided. The City Attorney and Commissioners reviewed the document. It was determined that the City was not a party to the agreement. It was rep orted as being a co ntract between ce rtain property owners requiring that 94 acres of property in the area not be developed without some ot her access being co nstructed besides River Ridge Road.
Mr. James Dunnaway of 6 River Ridge was concerned ab out the impact of tr affic on River Ridge, which was measured to be 23 feet wide. He described it as a ro ad designed 30 years ago as a gr avel trail, and he fe lt that the 123 existing homes, the 40 or 50 undeveloped lots, plus the ad ditional traffic from this new su bd ivision would be ha zardous. Mr. Kemp Skokus of 32 River Ridge ec hoed similar co ncerns. He also fe lt that the lots would be smaller and the development would be go od for the area.
Mr. Jessburg owns property where the proposed road would intersect with River Ridge. He felt that a dangerous situation was being created due to the hill right before the intersection on River Ridge. He stated that winter would be extremely hazardous with ca rs co ming out of the proposed subd ivis ion and other cars sliding down the River Ridge hill.
Dr. Susan Burnett co mplained that she and her hu sband have been unab le to reach an ag reement with the developer concerning access to the re ar of their ab utting property. She ex plained that when they bought the property they were led to believe that an eas ement at the rear would be developed as a pu blic str eet, so they designed their ho me and landscaping around it. She fe lt that the alternatives offered by the developer were too costly. One involved building a retaining wall.
Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, ad dressed the tr affic concerns. He stated that the maximum am ount of 2,500 cars per day on a residential street would be rea ched on ce the proposed subdivision is built; also, that the tr affic light would barely be warranted.
July 22, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E -Continued
Finally, a motion for appro val was made and pa ssed. Included in the motion were variances for cul-de-sac lengths, sidewalks, street width, and lot -to-depth ra tio. Approval was subject to: (1) City Traffic Engineer approving the intersection from the ne w subdivision to the existing st reet, and if not ap proved, the item automatically should be sent ba ck through the process; (2) in-lieu cont ribution for $38,000 guaranteed for five years for use as a traffic signal (Highway 10 and River Ridge Road); (3) five years to final plat; and (4) in-lieu cont ribution retu rned to de veloper if the State Highway Depart ment does not approve the traffic light.
The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 1 -Z-4079-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purp ose:
Size:
Existing Use:
G.N.P. En terprises
Robert J. Ric hardson
Langston Acres/Yar berry Road
Rezone from "R-7A" to "R-3"
Single Family
20.3 acres
Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"West -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone a 20 acre Tract from "R-7A" Mobile Home Subdivision to "R-3" Single Family. The "R-3" di strict permits the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet which allows for an af f ordable housing de velopment. The pr operty is located in an area that is exclusively si ngle family wit h some land still undeveloped. The existing sin gle family uses are eit her on large lots or part of a con venti onal subdivision. The current "R-7A" zoning ap pears to have had no imp act on the neighborhood and it is anticipated that the "R-3" will not create any problems. The site was rezoned to "R-7A" in September 1983.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff rec ommends ap proval of "R-3" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The ap plicant was present. After a brief discussion, a motion to re commend approval was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, O noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 2 -Z-4373-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Jessie Smith
Same
1518 and 1520 Wright Avenue
Rezone from "R-4" to "0-1"
Office
0.26 acres
Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -South -East West
Single Family, Zoned "R-4" Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-6" Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-4" Single Family, Zoned "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1.The request is to rezone two lots from "R-4" to "0-1"for unspecified office use. The "0-1" district is"established in order to provide for orderly conversionof older st ructures, no longer us eful, se rviceable ordesirable in their present uses to office use." Also,the purpose and intent sections says that "0-1" officeuses will be located in es tablished areas of the Cityand in close proximity to apartments and otherresidential uses. This particular site being situatedon Wright Avenue is a reasonable location for "0-1" andcan act as a buffer between the commerical zoning tothe east and the est ablished single family neighborhoodto the north along Bishop Street. Along Wright Avenue,the zoning pattern is mixed with "R-4," "R-6," "O-3"and "C-3." To the north and south of Wright Avenue theneighborhoods are zoned "R-4" with single family beingthe primary land use.
2.The site is two typical residential lots with a largetwo story structure on the corner one and the other lotis vacant.
3.There appears to be no right-of-way requirements orMaster Street Plan issues associated with this request.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 2 -Continued
4.Engineering has reported two possible issues:
1.Lack of parking
2.Possible right -of-way and street improvementsmay be required
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The history on these two lots go es back to December1984 and is very involved. The first zoning attemptwas for the one lot at 1520 Wright Avenue. The requestfor rezoning was "C-1" and was denied by the PlanningCommission. That decision was appealed to the Board ofDirectors, but prior to the Board of Directors actingon the appeal, the issue was referred back to thePlanning Commission. Du ring that time period, theowner filed a rezoning application for the sec ond lot,1518 Wright Avenue, at the direc tion of the Board ofDirectors. This was sugg ested because the Boardthought that the additional lot could provide asolution to the parking problem and that the PlanningCommission could address the request as a pa ckagebecause of the adequate land area for a commerical use.The "C-1" request was again denied by the PlanningCommission in February 1985 and the Board of Directorsdenied both rezonings in April 1985. The neighborhoodwas represented at the va rious hearings and theyopposed the reclassifications. Staff su pported therequests because of the zoning and land use patte rns inthe area. Du ring the discussions, "O-1" and "O-3" werementioned as possible compromises.
7.Staff feels that "O-1" is an appropriatereclassification because of the location and su pportsthe request. There are only 7 lots zoned "R-4" al ongthe north side of Wr ight Avenue in a 5 block st ripbetween High and Summit Streets with the remainderbeing zoned "C-3." In this immediate area, it ap pears that continued residential use along Wright Avenue is becoming less desirable and that "O-1" provides for a transitional area from the commerical to the singl e family neighborhoods. Also, "O-1" should be more compatible with the immediate vicinity and an "O-1" site fronting Wright Avenue should have a minimal impact on the neighborhood to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "O-1" as filed.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 2 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no object ors in attendance. The applicant was pr esent. After a brie f dis cussion of the applica tion, a motion was ma de to reco mmend approval. The motion pa ssed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 3 -Z-4437-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Riley's Health and Fitness Center, Inc.
Same by W. Christopher Barrier
Peckerwood Road
Re zone from "R-2" to "AF"
Tennis Center
3.1 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Multifamily, Zoned "MF-12"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned-Tennis Center, Zoned "AF"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS
"R-2"
The issue before the Plannning Commission is to rezone a three acre tract to "AF" to allow for the expansion of the existing Tennis Center located on the "AF" site to the east. (Several variance requests have also been filed in conjunction with this devel opment proposal). The "AF" district permits uses that are "governmental or private recreational uses limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, playground, day camps and passive recreational open space." In ad dition to the existing Tennis Center, other uses in the area include sin gle fa mily to the south and west, with a large multifamily project to the north. Across Sam Peck Road to the east there is a YMCA branch facility which is a similar use. Staff feels that the rezoning is app ropriate for the location an d sup ports the request.
Engineering reports that right -of-way and street improvements will be required on Peckerw ood Road with issuance of any building permit. This is in line with past Planning Commission requirements that any future construction would implement the str eet improvements along Peckerw ood Road.
The previous rezoning request on the site, Z-4437, was withdrawn from consideration at the request of the owner.
July 22, 1986
Item No� 3 -Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the 11 AF 11 request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: {7-22-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend the application as filed. The application pa ssed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 4 -Z-4687
Owner: Katherine Williams
Gene N. Fl annes Applicant:
Location: Lancaster Road north of West 65th Street
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3"
Purpose: Trade School
2.27 acres
Vacant
Size:
Existing Use:
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "R-5"-Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
and "I-2 "
1.The proposal is to rezone the property in question to"O-3" to permit parking and some accessory buildingsfor a trade school to be located on the adjoining "I-2"tract. It is the staff's under standing that the areaunder consideration will be primarily used for pa rkingand offices for the school. Sho uld the "O-3" rezon ingbe granted, the proposed use will also require ap provalof a conditional use permit. The site is located onLancaster Road, north of west 65th Street, andadjacent to a well establis hed single familyneighborhood. The land use al ong Lancaster isprimarily single family north of the existing "C-3" and"C-4." The zoning in this area is "R-2" with anexisting nonresidential zoning restricted to propertiesthat have frontage on West 65th Street. The land useis very similar to the zoning with some exceptions suchas the "R-5" tract on the east side of Lancaster whichis used for single family residences. The "C-3" siteat the northwest corner of Lancaster and West 65th isstill undevel oped.
2.The site is vacant and wooded.
3.Dedication of additi onal right-of-way for Lancasterwill be required because the survey only shows an existing right-of-way of 40 feet.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 4 -Continued
4.Engineering reports that:
•Rig ht-of-way and st reet im provements are requiredon Lancaster Road .
•Storm det ention is required.
No ot her adverse comments have been received from the reviewing ag encies.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.When the "I-2" parcel was rezoned, the neighbor hood to the nort h got involved and the 100 foot "R-2" st rip is the result of that ac tion. There is no do cumentedhistory on the "R-2" Tract that fr onts Lancaster Road.
7.Because of the property in question ab utti ng "I-2"zon ing, an "O-3" rec lassification ap pears to bereasonable, esp ecially sin ce the two sites will bedeveloped under one site plan and sta ff supports thegeneral pro posal. The 11 0-3 11 zoning if gr anted willprovide for an adequate buffer between the singl efamily neighbor hood to the nort h and the nonresidentialuses to the so uth. To rei nforce this buffer concept,staff suggests that at least the north 50 feet of theland be left undisturbed. This should hel p pr ot ect thequality of life in the su bdivision to the nort h.Additional review throug h the con ditional use permitprocess should also hel p addr ess any concerns expressedby the re sidents of the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of 11 0-3 11 for the site wit h the north 50 feet being zon ed "O-S" Open Space.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
The app licant was present and offered comments in su pport of his petiti on. He st ated that he accepted the st aff's recommendation for the SO-foot "OS" st rip al ong the nort h property line. There was one objector in att en dance, Mr. Walker, a re sident of the str eet on the north. Mr. Walker offered concerns about dr ainage ru noff fr om this project on to his lot and the neighbor hood. The dr ainage issue was dis cussed at length. It was determined that Mr. Walker's property was not immediately adj acent to this site and that this project would be building in a retention system to prevent an increase in ru noff. A brief discussion of the proposal was fol lowed by a re commendation of ap proval as recommended by the st aff. The mot ion passed by a vo te of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
It em No. 5 -Z-4691
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Parkway West Limited
J.R. Hat haway
Lindsey Road and Fourche Dam Pike
Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3"
Convenience Store with gas pumps
1.1 4 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Railroad Track, Zoned "I-2" South -Industrial, Zoned "I-3" East -Vacant, Zoned "I-2" West -Vacant, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS
The issue is to re zone a tract of la nd in the Port Industrial Park from "I-2" to "C-3" to al low a convenience store. The Port Industrial Park is zoned ei ther "I-2" or "I-3" with the ne arest "C-3" lo cat ed nort h of I-440 along Fourche Dam Pike. The ap plicant has st ated that there is a ne ed for this type of faci lity and that the Port Authority has no pro blems wi th the proposed re classificat ion. The rezoning to "C-3" will not impact any of the surrounding properties and st aff supp ort s the re quest.
Engineering recommends that ac cess be re stricted to one driveway per road and that st�eet improvement s should be required to normal City standards instead of the Port Authority st andards. Right-of-way do es not ap pear to be an issue because of the existing ri ght-of-way for both Lindsey Road and Fourche Dam Pike is 120 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
St aff recomm ends app roval of the "C-3" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The ap plicant was present. After a brief di scussion, a mot ion was made to recommend app roval. The motion passed by a vot e of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 6 -Z-4692
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Rosenbaum Brothers Partnership
Same
1505 and 1509 Reb samen Park Ro ad
Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3"
Office and Commerical
1.5 acres +
Office and Commerical
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Commercial, Zoned "I-2"-Commercial, Zoned "I-2"-Railraod Tracks, Zoned "I-2"-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 no t permitted in the "I-2" district lo cating in one of the st ructures on the site. A major ity of the uses on the east side of Rebsarnen Park Ro ad are more commercial or retail oriented and "C-3" appears to be appropriate reclassification for the property. The area between Rebsarnen Park Ro ad 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 ha nd and those reclassifications ha ve not had any adverse affects on any of the surrounding properties. The Heights/Hillcrest Plan identifies land west of the tracks for co mmerical uses so the request is not in conflict with any plan el ement.
Engineering reports that right-of-way and street improvements will be required on issuance of a building permit and the 100 year flood el evation on the ea st side near the ra ilroad tracks should be shown in order to properly set the floor el evations. (Two buildings are currently lo cated on the two lots).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" as filed.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 6 -Continued
PLANNING 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 not ice had not bee n met as required by the byl aws due to the inability of the ow ner to obtain an ab st ract company list. A motion to defer the ap plication to Augu st 26 was made and pas sed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 7 -Z-4694
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Donald C. and Ruby W. Bland
Donald C. Bland
1922 West 12th Street
Re zone from "R-4" to "C-3"
Of fice and Commerical
0.11 acres
Multifamily (Vacant)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Duplex, Zoned "R-4"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"-Duplex, Zoned "R-4"-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 unknown atthis time. The site is located at the northeast cornerof West 12th and Summit in an area that has beenheavily impacted by previous rezoning acti ons. In theimmediate neighborhood, the zoning pattern consists of"R-4," "R-5," "O-2," "O-3," "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" withthe land use being very similar. Some of the existing"C-3" sites are either vacant or being used for sometype of noncommercial use. Based on the current zoningin the neighborho od, it appears that some type ofnonresidential rezoning is appropriate for the propertyin question.
2.The site is a typical residential lot with a large twostory st ructure on it.
3.There are no ri ght -of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues as sociated with this request.
4.Engineer ing has expressed some concerns with bothaccess to the site and parking. No ot her comments havebeen rec eived from the reviewing agencies.
5.There are no legal issues.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 7 -Continued
6.There is no do cumented history or nei ghborhood positionon the site.
7.The property under co nsideration is the only co rner atthe intersection of West 12th and Summit that is stillzoned for re sidential use. The ot her three co rners ar ezoned ei ther "O-3" or "C-3" so commercial rezoning forthe northeast corner appears to be a reasonable option.Because of the site's location and its rel ationship to nearby residential uses, staf f is reluctant to su pport"C-3" and sugg est that "C-1" is more ap propriatebecause of it being the neighbor hood co mmericaldistrict. The one major issue associated with thisproperty is parking. The mix of uses will be based onthe lots ability to provide the nec essary parking andthe owners should be aware of that situation. Theparking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance are 1space per 400 square feet for of f ice and 1 sp ace per300 square feet for co mmerical with so me personalservice uses requiring 1 sp ace per 200 square feet.
STAFF RECOMEMNDATION
Staf f recommends ap proval of "C-1" and not "C-3" as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
•rhere were no objectors in attendance.The ap plicant was not present. The Commission determined 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 until August 26. The motion passed by a vo te of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 8 -Z-4695
Owner :
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Valentine Hansen and Valentine Pardo
Valentine Hansen
North Van Buren and "C" Street northwest corner
Rezone from "R-3" to "C-1"
Commercial or Office
0.13 acres
Single Family and Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Single Family, Zoned-Single Fa mily, Zoned-Duplex, Zoned "R-4"-Single Family, Zoned
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
"R-3" "R-3"
"R-3"
1.The request is to rezone a single lo t to "C-1" for anunspecified commercial or office use. The pr operty is located at the northwest corner of North Van Buren and"C" Street in a ne ig hborhood tha t is pri marily zonedfor residential use, either sin gle family or twofamily. The la nd use is alm ost excl usively si nglefamily residential, especially no rth of "B" Street. Tothe south of "B" Street the zoning is more mixed as is the land use. Be tween "B" Street and West Markham thezoning inclu des "PCD," "O-3," "C-3" and "C-4" with thecommerical zo ning being concentra ted between WestMarkham and "A" Street. The surro unding nei ghborhoodis a stable residential area and allowing a commericalzoning at thi s lo cation co uld crea te some pr oblems forthe neig hborhood.
2.The site is a 45" x 123" lo t with thr ee str uctures on it. Two of the building s are used for residentialpurposes and the third one, located on the corner, is areal estate office.
3.There are no rig ht-of-wa y requirements or Master StreetPlan issues assoc iated with this request.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 8 -Continued
4.Engineering reports that parking is inadequate for arezoning from "R-3" to "C-1." Also, if parking isprovided, the access point should be shown and app rovedby the Traffic Engineer.
5.There are no le gal issues.
6.There is no documen ted neig hborhood position on thesite. •rhe property has been used for both off ice andcommer ical uses over the years so it has some noncon forming status.
7.The request is in con flict wit h the ad optedHeights/Hillcrest Plan and st aff does not su pport the"C-1" rezoning. Over the years, attempts have beenmade to allow nonresidential zoning to en croach northof "A" Street. In each of those instances, st aff hasbeen opposed to the rezonings. "A" Street has al waysbeen viewed by the st aff as an ap propriate line betweennonresidential and residential uses that should bemaintained at all costs. Several years ag o, an "O -1"request was fil ed for the lot at the sout heast cornerof "C" and North Van Buren to allow fo r a co nversion ofa residential str ucture into an office. That rezoningwas denied by both the Planning Commission and theBoard of Directors This particular req uest, ifapproved, could have a very adverse imp act on theneighborhood and est ablish undesirable precedent forthe area. Al so, wi th the three buildings on the lot,the site is not a vi able commercial tr act of land. Andfinally, the property is not co mpletely res tricted to aresidential use only, because the structu re on thecorner has noncon forming status it can co ntinue to beoccupied by an office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff re comm ends denial of the "C-1" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
•r here were no objectors in atten dance.The ap plicant was not present. The Commission de termined that the notice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the bylaws. A motion was made to de fer this matter until August 26. The moti on passed by a vo te of 8 ayes, O noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
ZONING
Item No. 9 -Pleasant Valley Point -Planned Re sidential District Condominiums
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
STAFF REPOR'I':
Pleasant Valley Point Cond ominiums By: Ronald Wilkinson
Pleasant Ridge Road south off State Highway 10 (Cantrell Road)
To be permitted to rent the existing units in the project until such time as marketing, financing and scheduling will permit a sales format and conversion to condominiums.
This matter is before the Planning Commission as the res ult of a request for final ce rtificate of occupancy. The Planning and Enfor cement staff rejected issuance of a permit after noting upon site inspection that a la rge sign had been erected market ing the pr oject as ap artments. Our review of the ca se fil es and the minute records reflect that al l written material in the ap plica tion indicates the use to be condominiums. This reference is ca rried forward and incl uded the adopted ordinance. The pr oject was ap proved by the City Board by Ordinance No. 14,438 on May 3, 1983, on a plan area of ap proximately 39.5 acres. The project was limited to 120 units in the fir st phase due to the sewer density limitation of three un its per acr e. The issue at hand involves that first phase. The de veloper has suggested that sever al problems including litigati on are holding up the marketing of this de ve lopment as condominiums. The facts ar e that the units have been "for rent" un its since the first buildings were comp leted. The ow ner was adv ised early that the PRD was limited to condominium occ upancy. In our commu nication with the owner/developer, we adv ised him to send notice to the ne ighbors of this prop osal inas much as the Piedmont residents immediately to the west were only supp ortive of the pr oject if they could be assured they could be owner occupied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff will resp ond to questions as necessary but will not offer a specific recommendation at this time.
July 22, 1986
ZONING
Item No. 9 -Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
There were no objectors in atte ndance. The ap plicant, Mr. Ronald Wilkinson, was present. The sta ff offered a brief ov erview of the circumstances. The ap plicant offered comm ents in su pp ort of his request to continue re nting the existing complex for a period of years. A lengthy discussion foll owed. It was determined that there was reason to believ e that the owner had intent to rent this development for ap proximately five years and that pe rmitting such an occupancy was ap propriate. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. The motion carried a requirement that the developer sell these units within the five-year ti me fr ame or return to the Planning Commission for fu rther re view of this pr op osal.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 10 -Election of a Vice-Chairman
The Chairman asked for nominations to the position of Vice-Chairman for 1986 to fill the position of Mr. Jim Summerlin. Mr. Bill Rector's name was placed in nomination. No further nomination s being re ceived, the Chairman closed the proceedings by an nouncing the election of Mr. Rector by unanim ous vote.
The Chairman then placed be fore the Commission the name of Mr. Walter Riddick III as an ap pointee to the Sub division Committee to re place Mr. Su mmerlin. The Commission as signment was af firmed QY unanimous vote.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 11 -Streamlining the Land Use Regulation Pr ocess
Staff prepared a report on streamlining the la nd use regulation pr ocess in Little Rock. The rep ort was al so distributed to persons and ot her agencies in the comm unity for review. A memorandum supporting the recommendations in the report was received from Bob Lane, Pu blic Works Director.
The Planning Commission is requested to adopt the attached resolution expressing general endor sement of the recommendations in the rep ort as recommended by the City Manager as amended by the Plans Committee and urging the Board of Director s, Ci ty Manager and relevant City departments, boards and ag encies to take ap propriate step s to implement the recommendations in the report as amended. An action plan for implementation of the recommendations will accompany the report and the Planning Commission's recommendations upon su bmit tal to the Board of Directors.
PLANS COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-16-86)
Staff ou tlined the pr ocess for adoption of the rep or t and revie wed comments recei ved. The Committee di scussed the various comments of ot hers and considered comments and questions of Committee mem ber s. After dis cussion, it was the consensus of Committee member s (four were present) to recommend ap proval of recommendations in the rep ort subject to the following revisions and additions:
1.Delete the recommendation on Pages 18 and 19 callingfor going ahead wit h the rezoning of properties afterthey are annexed be cause this could le ad to ov er zoningin some areas and would reduce ci tizen involvement inthe rezoning pr ocess (due to le ss notice be ingrequired).
2.The City would es tablish if possible a coor dinatingposition in the Office of Comprehensive Planning tohelp pe rsons through the pr ocess of ap plying for zoningand/or subdivision ap provals, inc luding the variousapprovals by other City de partments and utilities. Thereasons for this recommendation are to:
(a)Indicate that the City of Lit tle Rock is fa vorablyinclined towar d gr owth; and
(b)Overcome the problems associated wit hfragmentation of the regulatory process amongdifferent depar tments, agencies and boar ds.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 11 -Continued
3.Delete the recommendation on Pages 37 and 38 callingfor actions by the Planning Commission, Board ofAdjustment an d Board of Directors by a majority of aquorum because this could allow de cisions by a smallnumber of people without the benefit of the input ofother Commission and Board memb ers.
4.The Planning Commission and sta ff should un dertake anextensive public relations ef fort including sp eaking atcivic groups, sc hools, churches and real estate firms.Consi deration should be given to a newsletter and sl idepresentation in connection with the public re lationsefforts. The purposes of this recommendation are to better in form the public of what the PlanningCommission and Office of Co mpre hensive Planning aredoing and to educate the general public co ncerning theplanning process. The end results would bestreamlining of the regulatory process and reducedconflict.
5.A better means of posting no tice on the site of anapplication is recommended so that persons can easilysee the no tices. This might include use of a colorthat stands out more than the present white background.
6.Guidelines should be established for the appointmentsof Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment membersto make certain that there is a good mix of personsfrom different areas of the City and with differentpoints of view. Also, the gui delines should includeprovisions for persons with certain technicalexpertise (such as an eng ineer, architect, and realtor)and a memb er of the City Board of Directors on thePlanning Commission. The reasons fo r thisrecommendation are to provide for good de cisions by:
(a)Having representatives of different ar eas andpoints of view;
(b)Pr oviding fo r expertise rel ated to su bj ectsinvolved in making decisions. Also, by ha ving amember of the City Board on the PlanningCommission, communication and coordina tion betweenthe tw o boards would be improved.
7. Delete the recommendation on Pages 20 and 21 relating to applicants preparing the small maps fo r the Planning Commission agendas. Instead the Committee recommends that the Office of Comprehensive Planning require a standard 11" x 17" format fo r dr awings of sm all projects. This alternative would provide for a standard format that could be easily Xeroxed by sta ff
July 22, 1986
Item No. 11 -Continued
and would not place an add itional co st burden on the applicants.
8.Delete the recommendation on Page 25 calling forutility reviews pr eferably to be handl ed by referralfrom the Office of Compre hensiv e Planning. TheCommittee recomm ends that the current procedure ofallowing ap plicants to walk app lications through theutility review process remain as it is. The reason forthis recommendation is to leave intact a pr ocedure thatexpedites the ob taining of uti lity reviews when de siredby applicants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the recommendation in the streamlining report as am ended by the Plans Committee and recommends ado ption of the resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86)
The Planning Commission reviewed the report and di scussed its co ntents brie fly. A request was received fr om the City Attorney's Office requesting ad ditional time to review the text in asmuch as it ap peared there mi ght be so me pr oblems. A motion to defer the proposal un til the August 12 meeting was made. The mo tion pass ed by a vo te of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
July 22, 1986
Item No. 12 -Other Matters
REQUEST: The staff requests that the Planning Commission re view a matter referred by the Board of Adjustment at its last meeting dealing wit h encroachment up on a 100-foot "OS" strip within the United Parcel Serv ice Plan on Fourche Dam Pike.
The staff offered an ov erview of the issue primarily dealing with the removal of one row of large pecan trees fr om the "OS" strip and using portions of that strip for utility work and construction equipment. Ken Scott of the Environmental Codes Section of Public Works commented on the landscaping issues attendant to the violation and some add itional history on the City Beautiful Commission and Board of Adjustment Review. Mr. Euric Poorian was present for United Parcel Service. Mr. Poorian offered arguments in su pport of the United Parcel Service actions. Mrs. Co oper, a re sident in the area adjacent on the north, offered comm ents on the history of the tree line removal. After a le ngthy discussion of the issues, the Comm ission determined that Mr. Poorian should proceed with the development of an ac tion plan to remedy the damage that has occurred. He was instructed to deal with ground cover, tr ee rep lacement and such land scaping as may be ap propriate. Mr. Poorian was directed to develop the plan and be prepared to review this plan with the Subd ivision Committee on July 31 at its 12 noon mee ting. Subsequent rev iew by the full Planning Commission would occur on August 12.
DATQ4 c1r2,. l96fo
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
-ZONING ·SUBDIVISION
MEMBER JJ B (1 l l7)
W.Riddick, III ,/ � ,/ ✓
J.Schlereth ✓ I� / /
R.Massie j
B.Sipes / i,/ / /
J.Nicholson � / /
w.Rector / V ✓ ,/
w.Ketcher ✓,✓/
D.Arnett ✓v / /
D.J. Jones A / I
I.Boles _) /I
� I
✓ ✓
/ V
/ ✓
,/ '/
✓ ✓
:/' /
,/ /
ITEM NUMBERS
z 3 4-Fi //) '7 � q
✓✓ / ✓ / ✓ ./' ✓
,/ �/ / ✓✓ / ,/ /
/ / / /. / / ✓ ,/✓ / ✓ ✓ "/ / ,/ 1/
V i./ / / / / / ./ 1/
✓ / / ✓ ✓-/ ,/ / .// / / / / / / /
/0 II / z l
/ ,/ ✓✓ ✓
A 4 71
✓/
✓ / /
/ ✓ ,/ ✓/ v
.//. ✓
...I Irfl
/) Lt ,,
F.Perkins ✓✓1//vt//✓I✓ / /✓✓ / ✓ ✓ �
✓AYE ti NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTAIN
I I
July 22, 1986
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Date