Loading...
pc_10 28 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 28, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 11 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: William Ketcher Walter Riddick III Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes Fred Perkins David Jones Ida Boles Members Absent: None City Attorney: Steve Giles October 28, 1986 Item No. A - Z -4694 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Donald C. and Ruby W. Bland Donald C. Bland 1922 West 12th Street Rezone from "R -4" to "C -3" Office and Commerical 0.11 acres Existing Use: 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 a single lot to "C -3" for a mix of office and commerical uses. The exact nature of those uses is unknown 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 neighborhood, the zoning pattern consists of "R -4," "R -5," 110 -2," "0 -3," "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2" with the land use being very similar. Some of the existing "C -3" sites are either vacant or being used for some type of noncommercial use. Based on the current zoning in the neighborhood, it appears that some type of nonresidential rezoning is appropriate for the property in question. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a large two story structure on it. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Engineering has expressed some concerns with both access to the site and parking. No other comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. October 28, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. The property under consideration is the only corner at the intersection of West 12th and Summit that is still zoned for residential use. The other three corners are zoned either "0 -3" or "C -3" so commercial rezoning for the northeast corner appears to be a reasonable option. Because of the site's location and its relationship to nearby residential uses, staff is reluctant to support "C -3" and suggest that "C -1" is more appropriate because of it being the neighborhood 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 situation. The parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance are 1 space per 400 square feet for office and 1 space per 300 square feet for commercial with some personal service uses requiring 1 space per 200 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of "C -1" and not "C -3" as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7- 22 -86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was not present. The Commission determined that the notice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the bylaws. A motion was made to defer this matter until August 26. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 26 -86) Staff 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 motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86) Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A motion was made to defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) Staff informed the Commission that the owner had requested that the item be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. B - Z -4708 Owner: John D. Crockett Applicant: Same Location: Chicot Road at the MOPAC Railroad Tracks Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Purpose: Auto Sales Lot Size: 1.0 Acres Existing Use: Auto Sales Lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" South - Commercial and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" East - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R -2" West - 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 question 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. October 28, 1986 Item No. B - 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 talks to purchase the property at various times. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will present a recommendation at the public hearing after reviewing the Master Street Plan issue with Engineering. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 26 -86) 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 discussion about the master street plan issue and the acquisition question. After some additional comments, a motion was to defer the item for 60 days and to stop any further enforcement action during that time period. Mr. Crockett agreed to the deferral. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. (This action was taken to give the City adequate time to pursue the acquisition of the property.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. (Staff informed the Commission that the rezoning would not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until the City's purchase of the property has been finalized). October 28, 1986 Item No. C - Z -4716 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Charles G. Offutt Same 10115 Chicot Road Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Sign Shop 0.45 Acres Single Family 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 CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal is to rezone the property from "R -2" to "C -3" to permit some type of sign shop. The exact nature of the sign shop is unclear and it is very possible that "C -3" is not the appropriate district for the use. In addition to the commercial operation, the applicant also plans to reside on the lot. The site is situated in an area along Chicot Road that is somewhat unique. On the west side of Chicot, the land use is very mixed and the zoning pattern reflects that. Between Mabelvale Pike and Burnell on the west side of Chicot, the existing zoning includes "R -2," "R -7," "O -1" and "C -3." The opposite of this is found on the east side of Chicot where the zoning is "R -2" with the exception of the northeast corner of Chicot and Mabelv ale Pike which is zoned "C -3." Besides several vacant lots, the land use is single family residences on the east side of Chicot in the immediate vicinity. 2. The site is about one half acre in size and occupied by two structures. An accessory building located in the rear yard area is to be utilized for the sign shop. 3. Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the existing right -of -way is deficient. October 28, 1986 Item No. C - Continued 4. In lieu contributions for street improvements on Chicot Road will be required. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. This area was annexed into the City as part of the South Central Island. At the time of annexation, the City also rezoned properties in the island based on the South Central Island plan which was developed by the staff. The plan's goal for commercial zoning was to concentrate it at intersections of a major street and to recognize the more viable commercial uses. A majority of the existing nonresidential zoning found along this section of Chicot Road was accomplished through the South Central Island planning effort which only recognized the northeast corner of Mabelvale Pike and Chicot for commercial development. The proposed rezoning is contrary to the plan and in conflict with the existing zoning patterns. Because of those reasons, staff is opposed to the request and this would be the staff's position relative to any type of nonresidential rezoning. The rezoning could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish undesirable precedent for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 26 -86) The applicant, 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 accessory structure in the rear yard. Mr. Offutt went on to say that the detached building 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 type of nonconforming use status. The Commission instructed the staff to research this issue and contact the Zoning Enforcement Office about the nonconforming status possibility. 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 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86) The applicant, Charles Offutt, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Offutt addressed the Commission and said that he was able to obtain letters from seven neighbors and three businesses in the immediate area. The letters indicated that there had been a paint shop housed in the accessory building located at 10115 Chicot Road until February of 1986. Mr. Offutt also had a letter from Franklin Paint Company stating that they had made a number of deliveries to the property under consideration. There was a long dicussion about the letters and other issues. Mr. Offutt went on to discuss some problems he was having with the City's Enforcement staff in knowing exactly what type of information he was required to provide. There were additional comments made by several Commissioners and the Planning staff. A motion was then offered that interpreted Mr. Offutt's evidence as establishing a nonconforming status for the property at 10115 Chicot Road and that the request be deferred until the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The item is to be removed from consideration should the nonconformity issue be resolved prior to October 28, 1986). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) Staff reported that the nonconformity issue had been resolved and that the item could be withdrawn from the agenda. A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning request. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. D - Z -4731 Owner: Capitol dill Properties, Inc. Applicant: Same Location: West Markham and Battery Streets Request: Rezone from "I -3" to "MF -24" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 4.5 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I -3" South - Vacant, Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -3," "R -5" and "I -3" East - Vacant and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "I -3" West - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -3" "R -5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 4.5 acre tract from "I -3" to "114F -24" for a multifamily project. The property is located in a small residential pocket between Cantrell Road and West 3rd Street and to the northwest of the State Capitol Complex. The land use includes single family, multifamily, office, commercial and some industrial to the north of the site in question. The zoning pattern is just as diverse with "R -3." "R -4," "R -5," 110 -3," "I -2," and "I -3." There are several multifamily projects in the immediate vicinity including the "R -5" directly to the west, adjacent to West Markham, and tt appears that those uses have not had an impact on the area. Provided that some issues such as access can be resolved, a multifamily use of the land is reasonable. This will create new housing units close to the central core of the City which is very desirable and needed. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. October 28, 1986 Item No. D - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. This location is part of the Heights /Hillcrest District Plan area which identifies the site for industrial use. Staff feels that the "I -3" zoning is misplaced and supports the "MF -24" reclassification. A majority of the uses permitted in the "I -3" District could have a greater impact on the neighborhood than the proposed use. Every effort should be made to rezone the existing "I -3," especially west of the railroad track to a district that is more compatible with the neighborhood such as a residential use. The one issue of concern associated with this rezoning is the access to the property because circulation and the street system is somewhat inadequate in the immediate area. It is the staff's understanding that the owners are looking into several alternatives because they have other properties in the neighborhood. Access will be critical to making this a viable project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "MF -24" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86) The applicant requested that the item be deferred for 30 days. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) The applicant was represented by Randy Fraizer, an attorney. There were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Fraizer addressed the Commission and said that there would be a total of 102 units and that there was a need for apartment units in this section of Little Rock. He went on to discuss the traffic concerns and said that the owner had agreed to making the necessary street improvements as recommended by the City's Engineering staff. The streets would include both West Markham and Summit. Mr. Fraizer then reviewed the area which he described as being very diverse and the zoning. October 28, 1986 Item No. D - Continued Eddie Branton, architect for the project, then spoke and said that West Markham would be the primary access point. Lucy Towbin, 110 South Schiller, then addressed the Commission. She said that the neighborhood was not concerned so much with the use but rather with access and traffic circulation. She said that the streets were very narrow with no sidewalks and there was a high percentage of on- street parking so the safety of the residents was a factor. Ms. Towbin also asked whether access could be provided to the north, towards Cantrell, instead of to West Markham. Mr. Fraizer then reviewed the recommended improvements for West Markham and Summit. Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, addressed the access issue and said that boundary street improvements would be required for West Markham. He also said that the streets could handle the increased traffic (higher density) with the improvements. Another resident expressed concerns with the proposed pavement width, 25 feet, and suggested that other access points were needed. Ms. Towbin said there would be problems with using Summit because of the traffic at West 3rd. Additional comments were offered by both Mr. Fraizer and Mr. Branton. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the "MF -24" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. E - Z -4735 Owner: Union National Bank Applicant: Bobby J. Kelley Location: East 10th and Kirspel Northeast Corner Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial /Parking Size: 0.34 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Airport, Zoned "I -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" and "I -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone two lots from "R -3" to "C -3" for a commercial use. Currently, the lot at the corner of East 10th and Kirspel is zoned "C -3" and occupied by a vacant building. In the past, that structure has been used for a number of commercial uses including a restaurant. It is the staff's understanding that the applicant would like to open another eating establishment and provide adequate parking. The applicant has mentioned the possibility of removing the existing building and redeveloping all three lots with the structure being placed on the two lots being considered for rezoning and providing parking on the third lot. The neighborhood is zoned primarily for residential uses with the exception of several sites along West 10th and one "I -2" lot to the north on Kirspel which is vacant. The nonresidential zoning which is found to the east of the site is "C -3" and "I -2." Some of those properties have commercial or industrial uses and others are vacant. The most recent rezoning requests, Z -4058 and Z -4409 were denied by the City because of potential impacts on the neighborhood. Both of those were for commercial reclassifications. 2. The site is two residential lots, each one being 35' x 140,' and both are vacant. October 28, 1986 Item No. E - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. As with the previous commercial rezoning requests in the neighborhood, staff is concerned with the potential for adverse impacts and does not support the "C -3" rezoning proposal. Allowing the existing commercial zoning to expand to the north is undesirable and could create some problems for the immediate neighborhood which is fairly stable. The current nonresidential zoning in the area is misplaced and should have never been accomplished because those locations have not helped the area. If the applicant wishes to upgrade and redevelop the site, there is another-option available that will allow use of the lots without rezoning them. The Board of Adjustment has the power to approve parking on land zoned for residential uses such as is the situation in this case. Staff is more comfortable with this approach because it provides for a more detailed review and restricts the use to parking only. Through this review, the residences to the north and west can be offered some protection by ensuring adequate buffering and screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86) Staff informed the Commission that the necessary notification materials had not been submitted and recommended that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) Staff recommended that the item be deferred for thirty (30) days. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z- 3108 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: A.B. Farquharson Same 9923 West Markham (West of Oak Lane) Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Commerical 0.74 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office, Zoned "O -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Office, Zoned "0 -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the tract from "R -2" to "C -3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property is located approximately one -third mile west of I -430 along a corridor that is zoned primarily for office use. The zoning in the area includes "R -2," "R -4," "R -5," O -2," O -3," "C -3" and "PCD." In addition to the "C -3" reflected on the accompanying sketch, there is some "C -3" located at the northeast corner of West Markham and I -430 that is developed with a mix of commercial uses. The land use pattern in the neighborhood is residential, quasi - public, office and some commercial. Also, some of the existing "O-2" land to the west is vacant. This section of West Markham is developing as a quality office corridor, and new rezonings in the area should continue to reinforce that concept. 2. The site is approximately 320 feet deep and occupied by a single family residential unit. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. October 28, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued 4. Engineering reports that: On -site detention is required. . Only one driveway allowed on to West Markham. No other comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In 1977, a request was filed to rezone the property to "O -3" (E -1). The zoning was approved by the Planning Commission but denied by the Board of Directors. At that time, there was a right -of -way issue involved because this portion of West Markham had not been widened, and the owner did not dedicate the additional right -of -way. 7. Staff's position is that the "C -3" rezoning could lead to a commercial strip along this section of West Markham and could have adverse impact on the existing residential uses to the south and east. For those reasons, staff does not support the commercial rezoning at 9923 West Markham. The need for additional commercial land or space can also be questioned because there are several structures at the southeast corner of West Markham and Oak Lane, zoned "C -3," that are vacant. And finally, recent attempts to rezone properties for commercial uses in the area have either been denied by the City or withdrawn from consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z -4748 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: City of Little Rock Same By: Buster F. Riley 9015 Kanis Road Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Commerical 1.0 acres + Existing Use: Fire Station SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "O -3" South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the site to "C -3" for a commercial use. The property is currently occupied by a City fire station, and the proposal is to sell the land and relocate the station to the east if the rezoning is accomplished. In addition to this action, there is also a platting issue associated with the site. Within 1,300 feet west of the intersection of Kanis and Barrow, there are only three tracts of land zoned "R -2" with the property under consideration being one of them. The nonresidential zoning in the immediate vicinity includes: "O -3," "C -3" and "C -4" with the site in question abutting "C -3" land on two sides. The request is compatible with the area and recent rezoning actions. Engineering reports that both boundary street improvements and stormwater detention will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" as filed. October 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING 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 vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z -4750 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Soumek Sithihao Same 3515 West 30th Rezone from "I -2" to "R -3" Single Family 0.32 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "I -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "I -2" STAFF ANALSIS: The issue before the Planning Commission is rezone two lots from "I -2" to "R -3" to permit a single family residence to be constructed. This action was filed after the necessary building perrait was not issued because the "I -2" District does not permit single family units. The property is located south of Roosevelt Road and west of the Pulaski County governmental facilities. The zoning is primarily nonresidential with a similar land use pattern. The large "I -3" tract to the west is vacant, and the "R -3" to the northeast has a public use on it. The pocket between West 30th and West 32nd has a number of single family residences, and there are some residential uses on the north side of West 30th. On West 31st, there is a small industrial use, and some of the lots are vacant. An additional residential use with the necessary zoning will not impact the area, and staff supports the request. A somewhat irregular zoning pattern will occur if the rezoning is granted, but that should not have any effect on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R -3" request as filed. October 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Item No. 3 - Continued Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred because the notification of property owners had not bee completed. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z -4752 Owner: Catherine Davis Applicant: John Epps Location: 1710 East 16th Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "I -2" Purpose: Industrial Size: 0.41 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the site from "R -3" to "I -2" for an unspecified industrial use. The lot is occupied by a single family residence and is part of the Garden Homes Addition which extends from East 15th on the north to East 22nd on the south. This residential area has industrial zoning on four sides with some nonresidential zoning encroaching into the neighborhood between East 15th and East 17th. Some of those lots are either vacant or still have single family units on them, so the previous zoning actions have not had a severe impact on the area. Because of the property's location and having frontage on both East 15th and East 16th, the zoning is a reasonable proposal, and staff supports the request. It is anticipated that in the long -term more of the lots will be zoned for industrial uses, and the residential character of the neighborhood will be phased out. Engineering has provided the following comments: 1. Right -of -way and boundary street improvements are required. 2. Access drives and parking layout are to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" zoning as filed. October 28, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" rezoning as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z -4755 Owner: Noel W. Gattis and Terry R. Jones Applicant: Terry R. Jones Location: 12,835 I -30 Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Purpose: Industrial Size: 19.7 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "OS" and "C -4" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone a large tract of land from "R -2" to "I -2" along the I -30 corridor. This area between I -30 and Alexander Road has a very mixed land use that includes residential, commercial and industrial. The zoning is very similar with "R -2," 12C -3," "C -4," "I -2," and an "OS" piece for a portion of the established floodway. The Otter Creek District Plan suggests a mix of commercial and industrial uses for the location, so the "I -2" rezoning is compatible with the plan's recommendation. The most significant issue associated with this request is the floodway involvement. Out of the 19.7 acres, approximately 9.3 acres are within the designated floodway. This leaves the north 9.3 acres and one acre in the southeast corner out of the floodway. The City's position is that the floodway be dedicated to the City and rezoned to "OS." Engineering recommends that the applicant should obtain the required flood elevation from the Public Works Department at the time of any building permit application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I -2" for that portion of the property outside the floodway and "OS" for the designated floodway which is to be dedicated to the City. October 28, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended that the item be deferred for thirty (30) days. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 6 - Other Matters - Ordinance Amendments Request: Planning Commission review for adoption of the 1986 ordinance amendment package. This item is presented for Planning Commission public hearing on the 60+ items developed over the past seven months. The Planning staff has mailed copies of the proposal to the distribution list containing over 40 persons and organizations. This mailing requested their comments on Draft No. 3 prior to the hearing in order to determine the appropriateness of the various proposals. In our cover letter to the several contacts, we outlined the deletions and additions since mailing of Draft No. 2. These were: Deletions: 1. Nonconforming Use - Reconstruction of ordinance provisions on continuance and /or expansion. 2. Group Homes - Definition and placement within the various districts. 3. Mobile Homes - Definition, modification and use group restructure. Additions: 1. Shopping center /mixed use parking conflicts (existing centers). 2. Drive -in restaurant noise abatement at menu board speakers. 3. Accessory floor space reduction in "O -2" District from 20 percent to 10 percent. 4. Ordinance text correction dealing with conditional uses. 5. Density restructure of the "R -5" District to reduce density on small lots. 6. Site plan review variances by Planning Commission. 7. Ordinance text correction dealing with conflicting definitions. October 28, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued 8. Providing pyramiding between "C -3" and "C -4" Districts and the overlapping of "I -1" and "I -2" Industrial Districts with certain retail uses. 9. Ordinance text correction dealing with a parking diagram error. 10. Providing for a habitual offender enforcement penalty. 11. Ordinance text correction dealing with correction of number of residential listings in the definitions section. 12. Providing for a broader definition of day camp as an "OS" District use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of this package as drafted and its forwarding to the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) The Planning staff made a presentation of Draft 3 of the 1986 Amendment Proposals. Identified were several areas added to the Ordinance that were not included in the mailing for this agenda. These items included specific definitions of shopping center and a new listing for a parking requirement for shopping centers. A lengthy discussion of the proposed amendements followed. During the course of this discussion several concerns were raised by various members of the Commission relative to the application of parking requirements not only to the new definition of shopping center, but to the current policy of off - street parking for mixed use commercial developments. The result of this lengthy discussion was a motion to defer the amendment package until the Commission meeting on November 25, 1986. The motion included a requirement that Planning staff contact the several large cities in our region; these being Dallas, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, and Memphis. This contact being for purposes of determining how those municipalities apply parking requirements to shopping centers. This motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes. October 28, 1986 Item No. 7 - Unified Ordinance Establishing Filing Fees Filing fees are intended to cover the costs of providing information to the public, assisting applicants, processing applications (including obtaining reports from other departments), preparing legal ads, conducting field investigations of applications, performing research, answering questions about applications, formulating recommendations, attending Commission and Board meetings, preparing minutes, and preparing reports to the Board of Directors. Increases in certain fees are needed, due to: (a) inflation; (b) increased complexity of regulations; and (c) the City's financial situation being very tight. Loss of federal revenue sharing funds, loss of the use tax, and court rulings requiring repayment of use taxes previously collected have all contributed to a need to make land use regulation more of a self- supporting operation. A study of costs of various application activities was conducted over the period July, 1985 through May, 1986. The study indicated that fee increases were needed for these applications: planned unit development, Board of Adjustment, subdivision site plan review, annexation, right -of -way abandonment, and improvement district establishment. No fee increases were found to be needed for subdivisions, rezonings, conditional use permits, and zoning site plan reviews. The study was based upon staff salaries and applicable indirect costs. A copy of the study is attached for your review. The costs indicated for site plan review matters are primarily for subdivision site plan reviews as opposed to zoning site plan reviews. A summary of the recommended increases is presented below: • Planned Unit Developments from the current fee of $125.00 each to the sliding scale now used for subdivisions (see scale attached to the fees study) • Board of Adjustment applications from $51.00 + $1.00 per lot or acre currently to a flat fee of $125.00 each. • Subdivision Site Plan Reviews from $125.00 each to $200.00 each. • Annexation applications from no fee presently to $250.00 each. Right -of -way Abandonment and Improvement District applications from no fee presently to $125.00 each. Special Use Permit applications from $25.00 presently to $125.00 each. The present fee is too low, and the processing costs are comparable to a Board of Adjustment application. The estimated annual revenues that would be generated by the fee increases are about $23,360. It should be noted that the annexation fee would include the costs of providing information to citizens, providing technical assistance to applicants, obtaining information from other City departments, attending any meetings in the area proposed for annexation, conducting an analysis of each annexation request, preparing a report and recommendation to the Pulaski County Judge, attending the court hearing, and submitting the report to the Board of Directors. The actual ordinance that would adopt the proposed fee changes is attached. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (October 28, 1986) Staff outlined the proposed fee increases to the Commission. David Jones argued that the increases represented tax increases. John Schlereth indicated that they were like user fees. As requested by David Jones, staff agreed that the Fees Ordinance could be deferred 30 days, pending distribution of the fees proposal to the same distribution list used for the zoning /subdivision ordinance amendments package. On motion duly seconded, the matter was deferred to the November 25, 1986 meeting of the Commission by a unanimous vote. Type of Application P.U.D. Total Number (1) Bd. of Adjustment 88 Site Plan Review Annexation 34 2 " FILING FEE REVIEW JULY, 1985 -MAY, 1986 Expenditures Total ( 2) $12,318 $ 9,930 $ 6,545 $ 485 Average Cost $307.95 $112.84 $192.50 $242.50 Current Fee And Recommendation $125.00 per each. This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend the sliding scale now used for subdivisions (see attachment). Estimated Additional Revenues $8,000 $51.00 plus $1.00 $6,160 multiplier. This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend a flat fee of $125.00 each. $125.00 per each. $2,550 This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend a flat fee of $200.00 No fee required at this time. A fee of $250.00 is recommended. $ 500 Street Closures and Others Subdivision Zoning Conditional Use TOTALS 41 62 102 51 420 $ 6,071 $148007 $ 26,873 $433.34 $ 26,112 . $256.00 $ 5,596 $109.73 $ 93,930 $223.64 No fee required for $ 6,150 abandonment at this time. A fee of $150.00 is recommended. $ variable 100 to 1200. $358-is fair average/no increase. -- $ variable 75 to 500. $256.00 is fair average/no increase. $125.00 per each. $109.73 is fair average/no increase is needed. 0 0 0 $23,360 ( 1)This number represents the single items filed for hearing and does not includedeferral recount. This total is of cases filed and does not include approximately 20%additional cases that do not make it to public hearing. These include administrativeapprovals and cases withdrawn prior to hearing. ( 2)This number represents the cost of all staff involved in each activity. Dollar costsare based on salaries and applicable indirect costs.., CURRENT SUBDIVISION FEES Preliminary ana Final Plat Fees Each Subdivision: Plats of: 0 to 10 Acres = $100.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater .. Plats of: 10 to 20 Acres = $200. 00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater. Plats of: 20 to 40 Acres = $300.00 + $2. 00 per lot or· acre whichever is greater. Plats of: 40 Acres & Up = $400.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 4 -105 OF CHAPTER 43 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BEING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FEE PROVISIONS, AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR VARIOUS REQUESTS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the Office of Comprehensive Planning receives numerous requests for approval of site plans, requests for changes in zoning requirements, or requests for adjustments to existing zoning laws, and WHEREAS, there is enormous cost involved in the evaluation of these requests, publishing necessary notices, and making sufficient copies for the public and the relevant commission and staff, and WHEREAS, a comprehensive fee ordinance for land use requests is necessary to conveniently catalogue all of these fee requirements, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK: Section 1. The filing fees for submitting to the Office of Comprehensive Planning rezoning applications shall be as follows: PARCEL SIZE Over Over Over Over Over (Acres) 0 -1/2 1/2 -1 1 -5 5 -10 10 -20 22 -40 Over 40 ZONING DIST. IR1,R2,R3 R4,R5,MF6, MF12,MF18, MF24,R6,R7 $75 $75 $100 $100 $100 O1,O2,O3 $100 C1,C2,C3,C4 $100 I1,I2,I3,M $100 $100 $100 $150 $125 $150 $200 $125 $150 $200 $150 $200 $250 $125 $125 $200 $200 $250 $300 $250 $300 $350 $300 $400 $500 $300 $400 $500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 FP,AF,OS (No fee) Fees for rezoning applications involving multiple parcels and mixed rezonings shall be determined by totaling up charges for individual parcels according to the above schedule. Section 2. The filing fees for submitting subdivision applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as follows: PLAT SIZE (Acres) 0 to 10 Over 10 to 20 Over 20 to 40 Over 40 $100 $200 $300 $400 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 per acre per acre per acre per acre Section 3. The filing fees for submitting site plan applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as follows: (a) Subdivision Site Plan: $200.00 for all sites. (b) Zoning Site Plan: (i) Up to 10 acres: $125.00 (ii) Over 10 to 160 acres: $175.00 (iii) Over 160 acres: $250.00 (c) Conditional Use Permit: $125.00 for all sites. (d) Board of Adjustment: $125.00 (e) Special Use Permit: $125.00 for all sites. Section 4. The filing fees for submitting planned unit development applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as follows: SITE SIZE (Acres) 0 to 10 $100 plus $2.00 per acre Over 10 to 20 $200 plus $2.00 per acre Over 20 to 40 $300 plus $2.00 per acre Over 40 $400 plus $2.00 per acre 1 Section 5. The filing fee for submitting right -of -way 2 abandonment and improvement district applications to the Office 3 of Comprehensive Planning shall be $125.00 for each application. 4 5 Section 6. The filing fee for submitting annexation requests 6 to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be $250.00 for each 7 application. 8 9 Section 7. The following provisions shall apply to all 10 applications submitted to the Office of Comprehensive Planning: 11 12 (a) Amounts to be refunded for applications 13 withdrawn prior to Planning Commission action 14 shall be as follows: 15 16 (i) Seventy -five (75) percent of the fee 17 paid if the application is withdrawn during 18 the first week after docket closing; 19 20 (ii) Fifty (50) percent of the fee paid if 21 the application is withdrawn during the 22 second week after docket closing; 23 24 (iii) Twenty -five (25) percent of the fee 25 paid if the application is withdrawn during 26 the third week after docket closing; 27 28 (b) Date of receipt of written notice of 29 withdrawal of the application shall be the 30 date used to determine refund. 31 32 (c) There shall be no refunds of any portion of 33 the fees paid if an application is amended 34 during, or denied in, the review process. 35 36 (d) Refiling of the same, an amended or a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 completely different application on the same, or any portion of the same property, after previous action or withdrawal, shall be considered a completely new application and new fees shall be charged accordingly. Section 8. Section 4 -105 of Chapter 43 of the Code of ordinances, being the Zoning Ordinance fee provisions, is hereby repealed. Section 9. All ordinances or parts of ordinances dealing with ees for matters coming before the Office of Comprehensive lanning, which are inconsistent with this ordinance, are hereby epealed to the extent of their inconsistency. Section 10. The costs of processing, publishing, and evaluating he matters covered herein is expensive. In order to assure that all notices required under Arkansas law are properly published and these matters are properly reviewed, and that there are sufficient funds to publish these notices and conduct the reviews, it is necessary that these fees be collected at the time these matters are filed with the Office of Comprehensive Planning. Without the passage of this ordinance, and the collection of these amounts, it is unclear that these requirements can be properly met. Failure to meet these notice and review requirements can delay the development of areas within the City, and thereby adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. An emergency is, thereby, declared to exist and this fee ordinance will become effective on the date of passage. APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: Mayor October 28, 1986 Item No. 8 - Other Matters - Discussion and /or Adoption of the 1987 Calendar of Meeting Dates The staff has prepared the standard 23- meeting calendar for 1987 and an alternate proposal for a calendar providing the following: 1. Nine subdivision hearing cycles. 2. Nine planning hearing cycles. 3. 14ine zoning hearing cycles. The standard calendar reflects business as usual with one zoning and one subdivision hearing per month, except for December which is a combined meeting month. There are no changes proposed in meeting times or days of month. The annual Planning Commission retreats would remain at one in the spring and one in the fall. The alternate calendar represents a totally new direction for the Planning Commission in that it offers the potential for a third hearing date every five or six weeks for purely planning purposes. The zoning and subdivision hearing schedule will be reduced by five meetings from a total of 23 currently to 18. The two retreats can be scheduled to utilize two of the planning hearing dates, therefore, maintaining a maximum 27 meetings per year whereas we presently conduct 25. The alternative calendar has received favorable comment from several City departments and utilities. These agencies and their staffs consistently have difficulty in reviewing and responding to all of the many development issues thrust into their hands every two weeks. As you are aware, there are an increasing number of legal issues arising on the technically involved proposals now presented. The City Attorney's staff reports the added time frame and opportunity to deal with these matters is paramount. Their feeling is litigation which now develops quite frequently could be better dealt with or avoided. The Planning staff feels that it can perform a more professional job, give greater attention to detail and be more responsive to the issues if we are not under a constant time crunch. The Little Rock Planning Commission and staff have offered the community the briefest possible review period for the 30 or more years that Planning has existing in this community. That brief review period was established at 30 days when Little Rock was a significantly smaller City. We have reached that point where the product of our actions is significant and important enough to justify a longer review period. October 28, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) The Planning staff presented the two proposals for a calendar for 1987. An overview of the alternative calendar was presented. The kinds of changes and effects to be expected were presented. A lengthy discussion followed at the end of which a motion was made to adopt the alternative calendar for 1987 as presented by the staff except for one modification, that being the elimination of the Planning hearing during the last week of December 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. October 28, 1986 Item No. 9 - Proposed By-Law Changes Dealing with Reapplications and Roll Call Two by -law changes are being distributed to the Commission today for action at a subsequent meeting. The first proposed change is one recommended by the City Attorney's Office to prevent reapplications within a year if they have been turned down by Board of Directors. The other by -law amendment is one authorized as part of the Streamlining Report. It would eliminate roll calls at the beginning of Planning Commission meetings. The proposed amendment also adds listings of the consent agenda and deferred items which are normal parts of Planning Commission agendas. The specific amendments proposed are as follows: Amend Article V, Section E, Paragraph 7c. to read (new wording underlined): "Except for cause and with the unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting, no application for rezoning of a property shall be considered if a former application embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been denied by the Commission or_ the Board.of_Directors within a period of 12 months preceding the application. If the Commission decides to rehear a case, it will require new fee, legal add, notice to owners, etc., as required for a new application." Amend Article V, Section A to read (new wording under- lined, roll call has been deleted): "A. Order of Agenda All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the topics and cases in the following sequence: 1. Finding of a Quorum 2. Approval of Previous Minutes as Mailed 3. Consent Agenda 4. Old Business or Deferred Items 5. New Business 6. Adjournment" DATE D;J-. zg, 1qe0 • -- PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ·ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER A 13 r 1) F \ z_ 3 4 6 (o 1 e W.Riddick, III ✓✓ / , / /,./ .✓ / / / / / J.Schlereth v V ✓,/ I ✓ I ,// / /j :; • R.Massie ,/ v I / ✓I ✓✓ / / j I / B.Sipes V ✓ / / /✓/ / I, / I / ,I / J.Nicholson ,/ ,/ / /I I I, I ✓ /v / 1/ w.Rector ✓✓ / ✓ I ✓ I I / / ✓ / / w.!<etcher I / ✓ j I I ✓✓ / J·/· I / ✓/ I ✓ / ✓ / I / // D.Arnett j I D.J. Jones ✓I I ✓ ( / ✓✓ ✓,/ I / • I.Boles v' I I ✓I ✓ I I ✓ v I ✓� F.Perkins I V / / I /I ✓✓ / f I I ✓AYE � NAYE A ABSENT ':e_ABSTAIN I October 28, 1986 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date