Loading...
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