pc_09 08 1987LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
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:
Members Absent:
Bill Rector
Betty Sipes
William Ketcher
Rose Collins
Jerilyn Nicholson
T. Grace Jones
Richard Massie
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Walter Riddick III
None
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
September 8, 1987
Item No. A - Z -4858
Owner: Robert D. Richardson
Applicant: Alvin L. Terry, Jr.
Location: Battery and Wolfe at Roosevelt Rd.
Request: Rezone from "R -4" to "R -5"
Purpose: Multifamily /Elderly Housing
Size: 1.12 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -4"
and "R -5"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
East - Single Family and Two Family, Zoned "R -4"
West - School, Zoned "R -4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the land, 1.1 acres, from
"R -4" to "R -5" to allow an elderly housing development.
The applicant has indicated that the proposal is to
construct 20 units in four or five detached structures.
( "R -5" is a Multifamily District and permits up to 36
units per acre.) The area is primarily a mixed
residential neighborhood that includes single family,
duplexes, and multifamily units which are
nonconforming. There are also some nonresidental uses
such as a lodge, church, and a public school directly
to the west. Zoning in the area is almost all "R -4,"
but there are some exceptions. Directly to the north
of this property, there are two lots zoned "R -5," and
at the intersection of Roosevelt and Summit, there are
several lots zoned "C -3," and only one of those lots
has a nonresidential building. Because of the
property's location and the existing land use, the
proposed use is appropriate if developed through a
process that ensures more controls over design and
density.
2. The site is vacant and made up of seven 50 -foot lots.
The alley has a 20 -foot platted right -of -way but is
unimproved.
September 8, 1987
Item No. A - Z- Continued
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. The applicant should submit a parking and access scheme
to the Traffic Engineer for approval, and stormwater
detention may be required on -site.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The proposed use, elderly housing use, is a good use of
the site, but an "R -5" classification does not restrict
the property to that use or the number of units and
that is the concern that staff has with this request.
Because of this, staff does not support the "R -5"
rezoning and suggests that the PRD process be utilized
for the project. This would restrict the density and
ensure a site plan that would be compatible with the
neighborhood. "R -5" allows a high density, and with
seven platted lots, that type of zoning could have a
very adverse impact on the area. In addition to the
density concern, this is a use in the "R -5" District
that is sometimes viewed as being objectionable,
especially if concentrated in one area. The proposed
use is not the problem with this request, but rather
the review process and the final reclassification.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "R -5" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 28, 1987)
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred because of some deficiencies in the file. A motion
was made to defer the request to the September 8, 1987,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0
noes, 1 absent, and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(September 8, 1987)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made to
withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion passed
by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
September 8, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Z -4880
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Lighthouse Center Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4880)
The east side of south Maple
approximately 200 feet south of
18th Street (1813 South Maple)
Imran Bohra /Clarence Harville
To convert a condemned single family structure (1,020 square
feet) to a church (30 capacity) on land that is zoned
"R -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Maple Street).
2. Compatibility With Neighborhood
This property lies within the Stephens Neighborhood
Plan. The plan shows this area as single family.
This particular structure has been condemned and is
abutted by a vacant lot with single family and Stephens
School located to the north, single family to the
south, single family to the east (separated by an
alley), and single family located to the west (side
yard relationship). A neighborhood church on a small
scale, in addition to the upgrading of a condemned
structure would be compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to construct six gravel
parking spaces which will take access from an existing
paved alley (east).
September 8, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant
needs to be advised that the parking area will require
landscaping and /or fencing.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the rehabilitation of a condemned
structure would enhance this area. The staff also
feels that the proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding area. The staff does, however, feel that
the proposed parking area should be paved in accordance
with City standards.
6. City Engineer Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) pave
the parking area; and (2) meet City Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present as were three objectors. The
staff stated that the applicant had agreed to meet all
requirements and recommended approval of the application.
September 8, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
Ms. Farmer, Ms. Paulett Bassett, and Ms. Future May Watts
all spoke in opposition to the proposed church primarily due
to what they felt would be an increase in noise and traffic
in the neighborhood. The City Attorney stated that an
affidavit should be on record with the Public Works
Department regarding the condemned status of the property.
The applicant stated that he thought that it had been taken
care of. A lengthy discussion ensued over the proposed use
of the property. The Commission then voted 4 ayes, 3 noes,
3 absent, and 1 open position to approve the application as
filed. The motion failed due to a lack of six votes
affirming or denying the proposal. The item was then
automatically deferred to the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting (August 25, 1987).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8- 25 -87)
The applicant was present. There were some objectors
present. The Commission did not act on this item due to the
fact that a quorum was not present. The item was
automatically deferred until the September 8, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -8 -87)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. The Commission briefly discussed the issue and
felt that the property was too small for the proposed use.
The Commission then voted 1 aye, 8 noes, 1 absent,
1 abstention (T. Grace Jones) to deny the application.
September 8, 1987
Item No. C - Edgerstoune Rezoning
The property owner has asked that the zoning of the property
revert to R -2 instead of R -5 when the planned unit
development is revoked. The City Attorney has indicated
that the Board of Directors may rezone the property to R -2
without further public notice, if the Planning Commission
has signed -off on the R -2 zoning and waived notice
requirements. The City Attorney's opinion is based on the
provisions of Article IV, Section 4b, paragraph (6) of the
Commission's bylaws which allows amendment of a rezoning to
a more restrictive classification. The Commission may, by a
majority vote of the members present at the meeting, waive
the requirements for supplemental notice to property owners
within 200 ft. of the tract, waive publication of a legal
notice, waive posting of a notice on the property, and waive
a filing fee. If the Commission recommends approval of the
R -2 zoning, with waiver of notice requirements, the
recommendation will be submitted immediately to the Board of
Directors for consideration with the revocation request.
Planning Commission Action (9-8-87)
On motion duly seconded, the Commission voted to recommend
approval of the R -2 zoning and waived the notice and fee
requirements by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z- 3238 -B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Troy B. and Kitty L. Braswell
John L. Burnett
11,801 Fairview Road
Rezone from "R -2" to "O-3"
Arkansas Easter Seals Facility -
Adult Training
3.19 acres
Commerical /Nonconforming
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "MF -6" and "MF -12"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" & "O-3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone the property from "R -2" to
"O-3" for an adult training facility for the Arkansas
Easter Seals. The site is currently the location of a
skating rink, a nonconforming use. The applicant has
provided the following descriptions of the facility and
the types of activities that will be taking place.
The Easter Seals Work Center provides handicapped
adults with evaluation for job potential and work
skills, job training, independent living skills
training, socialization skills training, and
mobility instruction. In brief, it provides
training so that handicapped adults can learn to
take care of themselves and to learn occupational
skills.
Job training is provided through contract work for
various businesses. At present, more than 80
central Arkansas businesses are involved in this
program. Typical contract work includes printing,
envelope stuffing, picture framing, packaging and
light assembly. No activities are carried on
outside of the building except for pickup and
delivery service.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
At present, it is estimated that an average of two
trucks per day will be at the facility to load and
unload supplies and finished products. Average
traffic should be lighter than a typical office
building of this size. While staff and managemen
personnel usually drive their own vehicles, many
of the handicapped adults arrive and leave either
by transportation pools or public transportation.
The use, traffic, and hours of operation of the
proposed facility should be much lighter than the
facility's present use as a skating rink. The
normal work hours of the center will be 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The property is located west of Rodney Parham Road and
at the fringe of the nonresidential development and
zoning. To the west and south, there are
well - established single family subdivisions zoned
"R -2." 'Zoning to the east and north includes "R -2,"
"MF -6," "MF -18," "O-3," "PRD," and "PCD" with a similar
land use pattern. In addition, a large percentage of
the land in the immediate area is still vacant,
including the existing "O-3" tract to the east. The
site abuts "R -2" and "O-3" zoning with two multifamily
parcels across Fairview Road.
2. The site is occupied by a large building toward the
back of the property with a parking area between it and
Fairview Road. There is also a 50 -foot water easement
in the rear of the lot.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this case.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In 1978, a commercial reclassification was applied for
and denied by the Planning Commission. The
neighborhood was strongly opposed to the rezoning at
that time. A second attempt to rezone the tract to
"C -3" was made in 1985. Again, there was neighborhood
opposition, and the Planning Commission denied the
request. No action was taken by the Board of Directors
in either case.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
7. The primary issue involved with this request is the
proposed rezoning's compatibility with the Highway 10
Plan. The adopted land use plan does not identify the
tract for an office use /rezoning and staff cannot
support the request because of the plan element. Staff
feels that the proposed use would not be a problem for
the neighborhood, but over the years, every effort has
been made to maintain the various plans for the Highway
10 corridor, and this location should not be an
exception. When the plan was first approved, it showed
office use for the property in question, but the final
version was amended by the Board of Directors, and the
office area was moved back to the east to reflect the
existing zoning. To modify the plan for purposes of
shifting the office area, a plan amendment would be
required and that appears to be a reasonable option for
the vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not opposed to the proposed use, but cannot offer a
positive recommendation for the "O-3" rezoning because of
the adopted plan. If the City Board of Directors elects to
amend the plan to show the property under consideration for
office use, then staff will support the necessary
reclassification.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, John Burnett, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff first reviewed the history of the Highway
10 Plan, and there was a long discussion about various
aspects of it. Mr. Burnett then addressed the Commission.
He said that there were no objectors from the neighborhood
and that the Easter Seals will hold title to the property.
There were some comments about a PUD for the site, but
Mr. Burnett indicated that there were time constraints that
could create some problems. He then went on to describe the
site and some existing easements. Several Commissioners
expressed concerns with the "O-3" rezoning because of
potential impacts on the residential neighborhood and
suggested either including an "OS" area or an "O-2"
reclassification. Mr. Burnett indicated that he preferred
the "O-3" for the entire tract and reminded the Commission
that the neighborhood supported the use. He also said that
the easements in the rear would prohibit any development and
give the residents added protection. After some additional
comments, Mr. Burnett agreed to an "O-2" reclassification
and amended the request. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the "O-2" rezoning as amended. The vote: 10
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (T. Grace Jones).
September 8, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z- 3722 -A
Owner: Wickard and Company
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Napa Valley Road and Hunter's
Glen Boulevard
Request: Rezone from "MF -12" to
"R -2"
Purpose: Single family
Size: 8.48 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "MF -12"
South - Vacant, Zoned "MF -6"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "PRD"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This request is before the Commission as a result of a
platting action approved several months ago. At the time of
approval, a condition was attached which directed the owner
to rezone the tract from "MF -12" to permit single family
units as reflected on the new plat. There is one residence
currently under construction.
The area is a mix of housing types which includes attached,
conventional single family lots, and some large lot
developments. Rezoning the site to "R -2" should not have
any impact on the development pattern, and staff supports
the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "R -2" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "R -2" request.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent,
and 1 abstention (David Jones).
September 8, 1987
Item No. 3 - Z -4874
Owner: Little Rock Wastewater Utility
and Municipal Water Works
Applicant: Little Rock Wastewater Utility
By: John Barr
Location: Shackleford Road south of
Colonel Glenn Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -1"
Purpose: Maintenance /Distribution Center
Size: 19.95 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "I -1"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. This request is being made by the Wastewater Utility
and the Water Works to rezone 19.9 acres from "R -2" to
"I -1" for a proposed maintenance center for the two
utilities. Last year, the City rezoned some land
directly to the north to "I -1" for the
maintenance /distribution center, and this proposal is
to add to that existing "I -1" acreage. The area under
consideration will be used primarily for storage with
most of the development activity occurring on the land
to the north. Zoning is primarily "R -2" with the
exception of "I -1" to the north and northeast. The
majority of the land is still vacant, but there are
several single family residences to the south and
northwest. There is no established development
pattern, and it appears that an "I -1" area is a
reasonable option.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded.
3. Shackleford Road is classified as a minor arterial
which requires a minimum right -of -way of 80 feet.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
It appears that dedication of additional right -of -way
will be required to meet the standards.
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. Since filing the application, the utilities have
submitted a letter amending the request to exclude the
western 9.9 acres and to add a 50 -foot "OS" strip along
the south line of the ten acres that fronts on
Shackleford Road. Originally, staff had some problems
with the proposal especially the western 1,300 feet,
but with the amended request staff now can support the
"I -1" rezoning with the "OS" area. The rezoning
proposal deviates somewhat from the adopted plans,
I -430 and 65th Street West, but staff feels that the
change will not have an impact on future development in
the area. Both plans recommend multifamily uses for
the land south of the existing "I -1" line and that
still can be a realistic pattern because of the
proposed "OS" buffer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "I -1" and "OS" as amended by
the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There was one person, Pat
Herndon, in attendance who expressed an interest in the
case. Mr. Heardon indicated that he was representing
property owners east of I -430 and south of Colonel Glenn
Road who were having some concerns with the "I -1" rezoning
and possible impacts. He said the area had some residential
potential and asked the Commission to make it a quality
area. Mr. Hearndon then reviewed the I -430 Plan and told
the Commission that he was not opposed to the rezoning but
wanted to make them aware of their concerns. A motion was
made to recommend approval of the "I -1" and "OS" rezoning as
amended. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 1
abstention (T. Grace Jones).
September 8, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z -4879
Owner: Joe Edd Hawkins
Applicant: Same
Location: I -30 and Production Drive
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 1.46 acres
Existing Use: Vacant and Commercial
(Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "I -2"
West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to rezone two lots in the Triangle
Properties Addition from "R -2" to "C -3." The rezoning
change is being made to permit expansion of an existing
building on the corner of the I -30 Frontage Road and
Production Drive. An effort was made to secure a building
permit for the proposed construction, but it was denied
because of the "R -2" classification and the owner was
instructed to apply for a rezoning. (The lot at the corner
of Production Drive and Distribution Drive is vacant.) This
situation has occurred because the area was annexed to the
City which created a number of nonconforming uses. Some
properties have been rezoned, but there are still several
"R -2" tracts with nonresidential uses.
Over the years, the City has recognized this area for a mix
of uses by endorsing commercial and industrial rezonings,
and "C -3" is compatible with that type of development
pattern. There are no outstanding issues associated with
this request, and staff supports the rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C -3" rezoning
as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0
noes, and 0 absent.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z -4885
Owner: L & S Concrete
Applicant: Charles T. Weaver
By: Doug Weaver
Location: County Line Road South of I -30
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -3"
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 12.57 acres
Existing Use: Industrial
(Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Unclassified (Saline County)
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone approximately 12.5 acres on
County Line Road from "R -2" to "I -3" for an existing
concrete plant. (The application was filed after the
owner received a notice from the City because of an
enforcement action.) The property is located north of
I -30 and in an area that is not heavily developed.
Across County Line Road and to the east and south, the
land is primarily vacant. Some of the land to the
south is a private park which is the City of Alexander.
To the north, there are several single family
residences on large lots adjacent to County Line Road.
The zoning is all "R -2" with the exception of an "R -7A"
tract to the southeast. In both the city of Alexander
and Saline County, there is no zoning.
2. The site is flat and occupied by equipment and
machinery necessary for the concrete operation. Along
the south boundary is Crooked Creek and all the
property is in the floodplain with about the southern
one -third in the floodway where most of the
improvements are located.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
3. There are two possible Master Street Plan issues
associated with the request. County Line Road /the West
Belt is classified as a principal arterial so it
appears that dedication of additional right -of -way will
be required. Also, the Master Street Plan identifies a
proposed minor arterial connecting County Line Road /the
West Belt with County Line Road along the south line
between Pulaski and Saline County. The alignment shown
on the Master Street Plan appears to bisect a portion
of this property. This alignment is very general in
nature so it is somewhat difficult to judge its exact
impact on a site under consideration. Staff will work
with Engineering to clarify these matters prior to the
public hearing.
4. Engineering comments include:
• Floodway violation.
• Master Street Plan issue for minor arterial
through property.
• Detention ordinance requirements.
• Excavation Ordinance requirements.
• County Line Road (Alexander Road) right -of -way
dedication and street improvements: 1/2 of a 90'
• right -of -way and 1/2 of a 48' street.
• Sidewalks, etc.
5. There is some uncertainty about the property's status
whether it is nonconforming or not. Also, it appears
that no permits have been obtained for any of the work
including the current expansion.
6. The property was annexed to the City in 1979, and the
use has been in operation since 1981 based on
information provided by the applicant.
7. The property in question is located in the Otter Creek
District Plan area which recommends a mixed
industrial /commercial pattern for the location. The
plan does not suggest any specific zoning
classification but states that "PCDs" are encouraged.
With this type of broad land use designation, staff
feels that the request is compatible with the plan and
supports an "I -3" reclassification for the property
which is outside the established floodway only. City
policy requires that the floodway be rezoned to "OS"
and dedicated to the City, but the normal procedure of
dedicating floodway lands could create a possible
hardship in this situation because most of the
improvements are located within the floodway. Crooked
September 8, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
Creek is not identified on the Master Parks Plan as
open space so it could be possible to utilize something
other than dedication to protect the floodway. Because
of this and several other concerns, staff feels that it
would be beneficial to delay on this request to give
the City and owner more time to resolve the various
issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the
October 20, 1987, meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 8, 1987)
Staff recommended that the item be deferred because of
several unresolved issues. A motion was made to defer the
request to the October 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was
approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z -4886
Owner: Kathleen E. Aburrow
Applicant: L.O.C., Inc. /Clint Boshears
Location: West 36th and West Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "O-3"
Purpose: Office and Alcohol Rehabilitation
Facility
Size: 40.2 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, and School, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a large tract, 40 acres,
from "R -2" to "O-3" for an alcohol rehabilitation
facility and some offices. At this time, it is unclear
as to whether the proposed office is associated with
the rehabilitation use or if the land will be available
for general office development. The size also makes it
difficult to determine if there will be separate
developments, or if one user will utilize the entire
tract. Land use in the area is primarily single family
with several large undeveloped parcels. Also, a number
of platted single family lots are still vacant. To the
north, there is a school and a multifamily development
at the northeast corner of West 36th and Romine.
Further to the west on West 36th, there are two
developments that provide living quarters for certain
types of handicapped people. One, Our Way, Inc., was
developed prior to being annexed, and the other is a
group facility being operated by United Cerebral Palsy,
and it is zoned "PRD." Both facilities are primarily
residential in nature with Our Way, Inc., being an
independent living environment situation.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
3. West 36th is classified as a minor arterial on the
Master Street Plan so dedication of additional
right -of -way will be required. The normal right -of -way
standard for a minor arterial is 80 feet.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received several calls from nearby residents
concerning this request. The site was annexed to the
City in 1985.
7. The property under consideration is covered by the
I -430 District Plan which does not identify the
location for any nonresidential use; the plan
recommends a single family pattern for the immediate
area. It also recognizes some of the existing
nonsingle family uses such as Our Way and Romine
School. Major office areas within this Planning
District are located in closer proximity to I -430 and
at more visible sites such as the end of I -630 and
Shackleford Road. Because of the proposal being in
conflict with the adopted plan and the existing
inventory of office land, staff cannot support the
"O-3" reclassification. Forty acres of nonresidential
zoning could have an impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods and the need for additional office land
has not been adequately demonstrated. If granted, the
rezoning could create an inappropriate "O-3" spot
zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" zoning request as
filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Gerald Cathey. There were
approximately 30 to 40 objectors in attendance. Staff
reported that the application had been amended to include a
50 -foot "OS" strip on the west side. Also, the Commission
was informed that a written request for a deferral had been
submitted, but it was made after the 5 day requirement as
set out in the Planning Commission Bylaws. Mr. Cathey, a
member of both the Serenity House and L.O.C. Board of
Directors, addressed the Commission and said that the
Serenity House Board had voted to request a deferral
September 8, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
because of an upcoming neighborhood meeting. He went on to
say that he was not the applicant and was somewhat
unprepared to discuss the issue. An officer of the Hunter
Methodist Church addressed the Commission and said that
there was nothing on the church's calendar for a meeting or
even a request on file. Sandy Becker of the Westbrook
Subdivision opposed the deferral and said that no meetings
were ever proposed. Mr. Cathey indicated that one meeting
was set up but no residents attended. Mr. Becker responded
by saying that only two persons were invited.
The Commission then discussed the Bylaws and how they
related to the deferral request. A motion was made to defer
the request. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes, and 1
abstention. The motion failed because of the negative vote.
The Commission then proceeded with the public hearing on the
rezoning request. Mr. Cathey described the Serenity House
and said that the facility had outgrown the existing
location. He then reviewed the funding sources and said
that the Serenity House would only use ten acres with no
definite plans for the remaining 30 acres. He said that the
new building program would include clinic facilities because
of the need for doctors and that a total of 20 beds were
being proposed. There was a long discussion about the
Serenity House and how it operates. Sandy Becker then
spoke. He first reviewed a newspaper article and submitted
a petition with approximately 400 names in opposition to the
request. Mr. Becker indicated that the signatures included
residents of the Westbrook, West Heights, and Campus Place
Subdivisions. He said that the neighborhood was all "R -2"
and the area should remain that way. Alim Qaasim discussed
the area and said that traffic would be a problem. He also
told the Commission that there would be a reduction in home
value. Representative Ron Fuller said that the rezoning
would impact property values and that it was out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Fuller
then presented a letter from Senator Ben Allen which
expressed Mr. Allen's opposition to the rezoning.
K.O. Young, a member of the Campus Place Homeowners
Association, opposed the rezoning and read portions of a
letter from Charles Stewart. Guy Wade, Chairman of the
Campus Place Association, said that the treatment center
should be in a commercial area and asked the Commission to
deny the rezoning. Linnie Hood, Lisa Withers, and Larry
Bledsoe all spoke in opposition to the "O-3" rezoning. Mr.
Bledsoe also presented a petition from the Kensington Place
Subdivision with 175 names opposed to the rezoning. At that
point, Commissioner David Jones called for the question.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
There was some discussion about a possible withdrawal and
comments were offered by the various parties. A motion was
made to recommend approval of the "O-3" and "OS" rezoning as
amended. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes, and 0 absent. The
rezoning request was denied.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 7 - Z -4887
Owner: Riffel Estate
Applicant: Don Chambers
Location: 4300 Shackleford Road (north of
Colonel Glenn Road)
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -1"
Purpose: Office Warehouse
Size: 5.16 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "I -1"
East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C -2" and "C -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a five -acre tract from "R -2"
to "I -1" for an office warehouse development. The
applicant has indicated that it is the intent of the
owner to combine this property with the existing "I -1"
site directly to the south and sell it. Zoning in the
area is mixed and includes "R -2," "MF -12," O-2,"
"C -2," "C -3," and "I -1" with the greater percentage of
the nonresidential zoning located north of Colonel
Glenn Road between Shackleford and I -430. To the
southeast of the intersection of Shackleford and
Colonel Glenn Road, there is a large "I -1" tract that
is vacant. The property under consideration abuts
"C -2," "C -3," and "I -1" zoning on two sides, the west
and south. "R -2" zoning adjoins the site on the south
and north. The existing land use is made up of single
family, commercial, and some industrial with a high
percentage still undeveloped. There is also a large
mobile home park to the north.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. There is some
grade difference between the Shackleford side and the
rear of the property, the west side.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
3. Shackleford Road is classified as a minor arterial
which has a right -of -way standard of 80 feet.
Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required
because the survey reflects an existing right -of -way of
60 feet.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position.
7. This location is included in the I -430 District Plan
which designates the property in question for
multifamily use and shows a nonresidential pattern
adjoining two sides of the tract, including light
industrial directly to the south. To the west, the
recommended land use plan endorses the existing zoning
which is a mix of multifamily, office, and commercial.
The proposed multifamily area extends to the north with
single family across Shackleford. When the I -430 Plan
was first adopted, it showed a small industrial pocket
at the intersection of Colonel Glenn Road and
Shackleford Road, but over the last year, the
industrial area has been significantly increased due to
several rezoning actions and plan amendments. The area
now extends from the south line of the property under
consideration to approximately one -half mile south of
Colonel Glenn Road. Enlarging the industrial base in
this vicinity was endorsed after it was determined that
there was a need for a sizable light industrial area
along the I -430 corridor and the Colonel
Glenn / Shackleford area was selected because of the
existing development or lack and its accessibility.
After carefully reviewing the proposed rezoning, the
staff believes that adding five acres of "I -1" will not
impact the area or change the direction of the plan and
supports the requested reclassification. The "I -1"
District requires site plan review so that will ensure
some control of the design which should lead to a
quality industrial park environment for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I -1" request as filed.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning as
filed. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and
0 absent.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 8 - Z -4888
Owner: Prenco, Inc.
Applicant: Dan R. Robinson II
Location: I -30 and Chicot Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Purpose: Motel /Long -Term Care Residential
Facility
Size: 4.9 acres
Existing Use: Motel (Nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2"
South - Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
East - Commercial and Industrial, Zoned "R -2," "C -4,"
and "I -2"
West - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property under consideration is currently nonconforming,
a motel, and the request is to rezone it from "R -2" to "C -3"
to allow a long -term care residential facility for the
elderly. To accommodate the proposed use, the rezoning is
being requested to ensure that in the future there will not
be any problems with any potential expansion or other
structural modifications to accommodate the use. It appears
that the only real change will be the "C -3" rezoning, and
the use will basically remain the same. The zoning in the
area is fairly mixed witiz "R -2," "C -3," "C -4," and "I -2."
The land use pattern is very similar with a major
industrial use to the east, and there is still some
undeveloped land in the vicinity. Because of the existing
zoning configuration and the land use, the proposed rezoning
will not create any impacts for the area.
Chicot Road is classified as a minor arterial which normally
requires an 80 -foot right -of -way. The survey does not
indicate the existing right -of -way, so staff cannot
determine if additional right -of -way is needed at this time.
This will resolved prior to the item being forwarded to the
Board of Directors for final action.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 8 - Continued
Along the west side of the property there is a creek, and a
portion of the site is located in the floodway. Based on a
preliminary review, it appears that no buildings are in the
floodway, but some of the parking area is. Under normal
City policy, the entire floodway would need to be dedicated,
but because of the existing improvements, staff suggests
that only the unimproved floodway area be dedicated and that
an easement be obtained for the remainder. Finally, the
creek is identified on the Master Parks Plan as a Priority 2
- Open Space. Julius Breckling has indicated that he is
satisfied with the dedication /easement arrangement for the
floodway area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" rezoning for the area
outside the floodway and "OS" for the established floodway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Dan Robinson, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Robinson agreed to the "OS" designation for
the floodway as suggested by the staff. A motion was made
to recommend approval of the "C -3" and "OS" rezoning as
amended. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes,
and 0 absent.
September 8, 1987
Item No. 9 - Z -4010 (Reconsideration Request)
Owner: Edward S. Back
Applicant: Same
Location: 1111 Autumn Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to 11I -2"
Purpose: Food Distribution
Size: 2.5 acres
Existing Use: Food Distribution
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant and Office, Zoned "R -2" and "O-3"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In May 1983, the owner, Edward S. Back, requested a rezoning
change from "R -2" to "I -2" for the northeast corner of Kanis
Road and Autumn Road. The request was filed because the
property has a nonconforming use, food distribution
warehouse, and the owner was considering possible expansion
at that time. At the Planning Commission hearing, the owner
agreed to amending the request to "O-3" for the southern 200
feet of the tract because he was mainly interested in
building a new office to support the existing business. The
Commission voted to approve the amended "O-3" application
and forwarded the item to the Board of Directors for final
action. Because the applicant failed to follow through on
several issues, the Board never took any action on the
request.
The owner, Mr. Back, has now submitted a letter requesting
the Planning Commission to rehear his rezoning request that
was filed in May 1983. Mr. Back is making this request
based on a recent Supreme Court decision concerning zoning
and land use regulations. (Mr. Back's letter was
distributed to the Commission at the June 16, 1987,
meeting.)
September 8, 1987
Item No. 9 - Continued
Staff feels that there is no real basis for the
reconsideration request, and the case should not be reheard.
There are several reasons for this position including the
Bylaws and the fact that the owner amended the requested and
received the Commission's approval. Also, the City
Attorney's Office has determined that the court's decision
is not applicable to this situation.
The reconsideration provision of the bylaws states:
Except for cause and with unanimous consent of all
members present at a meeting, no matter on which final
action has been previously taken shall be reopened for
further consideration or action. If consideration is
granted by the Commission, the case will be rescheduled
for the next regular meeting, a new application will be
made (new fee, legal ad, adjacent property owners
renotified so that they may have an opportunity to hear
any new evidence and to be heard) .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that the owner had requested that the item be
pulled from the agenda. 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.
September 8, 1987
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Date
Chairman
Secretary