pc_07 28 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
JULY 28, 1987
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 9 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
Jerilyn Nicholson
Richard Massie
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
David Jones
Walter Riddick, III
Rose Collins
(One Open Position)
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: St. John's Place
Long -Form PRD (Z -4852)
LOCATION: East of Taylor, north of
Hawthorne at Polk (property
on west side of St. John's
Seminary site)
DEVELOPER:
Catholic Diocese of LR
c/o Dickson Flake
Barnes, Quinn, Flake, &
Anderson
2100 First Commercial Bldg.
P.O. Box 3546
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 372-6161
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Associates
ARCHITECT:
Brooks-Jackson
2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -8700
AREA: 8.5736 acres N0. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Attached Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an established single family
area. It is the western portion of the St. John's
Catholic Center site.
B. Proposal
(1) To construct a 26 lot single family residential
development with a private street system and an
average of 14,364 square feet per residence, which
is less density than surrounding neighborhoods
to the west and south of the subject property.
(2) Residence size will be 2,700' heated and cooled
and 3,400 square feet growth, which is larger than
the residences to the west and south of the
proposed development.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(3) Residences will be of compatible architecture with
the neighborhood. Design will be traditional
one -story with high - pitched roofs and dormers,
allowing individuals to finish attic space for
additional living space. The exterior will be
brick with minimum wood trim.
(4) Site coverage is 2.05 acres on an 8.57 acre tract.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Submit sketch grading plan, stormwater detention
calculations, and square footage of landscape
areas.
(2) North Taylor is a boundary street - dedicate
right -of -way and provide street improvements.
(3) Entry can't be developed as design in a public
right-of-way.
C. Issues /Technical /Legal /Design
(1) Dedicate access easement.
(2) Preliminary plat required if houses are to be on
separate lots. If not, agreement relative to
maintenance of common areas and drives should be
submitted.
(3) Redesign to break up building masses, eliminate
amount of concrete on northern portion of site.
Some units are double - served by streets.
(4) Site plan poorly dimensioned. Revised to show
building dimensions, floor plans, on-site fire
protection.
(5) Section through the site is backward.
(6) Submit more data required by PUD Ordinance on open
space, construction timetable.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(7) Specify on plat and Bill of Assurance that all
public services and utilities have rights of
public access.
(8) Parking plan.
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral, until comments addressed. Approval of a
private street system does not include limiting access
by public agencies and utilities, including building
inspectors, Firefighters, and Water Works personnel,
etc.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted,
which clarified some aspects of the plan relative to
walkways and dimensions. He responded to staff's comments:
1, 2, 5, and 7 - Agreed to do as requested.
C-3 - Explained that he had broken building masses in
response to earlier staff concerns and that the lots
weren't double - served because the rear drives were only
alleys and the houses would be front on the drives to
the west.
4 - Submitted revised plans.
6 - Explained that most open space was privately owned.
In response to Engineering's concerns, the applicant said
that number D-3 was a mute point since the developer and
four property owners would close the street. He agreed to
do numbers B-1 and B-2. Approval, subject to Staff's
Recommendation:
(1) No gate at entrance on Polk Street, with entrance to be
developed as a driveway with no curb return (see
Engineering for details).
(2) Move two dwelling units at southwest corner forward
about 10 feet while retaining 15-foot setback from
street.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(3) File petition to close Polk Street.
(4) Make contract with Water Works for maintenance of fire
hydrant.
(5) Close construction access at the end of the third
phase; no permanent vehicular access to Taylor Street
should be permitted.
(6) Amend the Parks plan.
(7) Complete fence and landscaping along Taylor Street in
the first year.
(8) Submit a phasing plan and schedule of development.
(9) Staff finds that the overall density of development is
consistent with single family density. The proposed
development is attractive and well - designed with
numerous breaks in the massing of buildings. Except
for some disturbance during construction, the
development should not adversely affect the
neighborhood. Waiver of sidewalks is acceptable due to
the private street system and short loop street, which
relate to the overall development concept as defined in
the PUD submission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant, Mr. Dickson Flake, was present. There were
50 or 60 persons present objecting to the application. The
Commission Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the application,
what was presented to the Commission for its review, and
asked that the opposition group members try to avoid
repetition in order to expedite the hearing of the matter.
Richard Wood, of the Planning staff, responded to the
Commission's request for history of the Parks Plan and its
relationship to this site. Gary Greeson, the Planning
Director, explained two parts of the staff recommendation,
elaborated on the Parks Plan history, and outlined the
advantages and disadvantages of cluster development.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Dickson Flake, the applicant, was asked to present his
application. He offered a slide presentation depicting the
neighborhood and graphics of the project. He offered
commentary on the reasons for choosing this type of single
family housing over conventional platting of 34 lots. He
identified the average floor areas in surrounding residences
and compared them to the unit sizes proposed in his plan.
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification as to why this
type was chosen. Mr. Flake responded by saying that the
approach permitted flexibility of design, marketing to
smaller families with older or no children, and shared
maintenance provisions. He further responded to a question
as to whether the church intended further such developments
to the east of the former seminary. He responded that they
proposed no additional developments, but that he could not
commit to what the church might decide in the future.
A question was posed by the Planning Director as to what
happens if the project fails after the first phase is
completed. Mr. Flake responded by saying that it would be
the same as any other type of development. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the infrastructure would be
installed at the beginning, including utilities, streets,
the Taylor Street wall and such.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the City's
encouragement of infill development and the effect of
construction activity on established neighborhoods. A
question followed these comments as to the need for access
on Taylor Street during the entire development period.
Mr. Flake stated that access must be to Taylor Street which
is the street that serves best as a collector and access.
He noted that possibly more impact would be experienced on
Polk Street. When asked about the setback from Taylor
Street of his buildings, Mr. Flake offered some dimensions
and followed by a comment that the houses on Taylor will be
about ten feet below the street elevation.
The following persons then offered comments in support of
the petition: Mr. Mays, Mr. Hinkle or his mother,
Mr. W.L. Grace, a prospective purchaser of a unit,
Ms. Carroll Griffee, Norman Holcolm, a builder and resident
of the area.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
The Chairman then asked for opposing views to be presented.
He stated that 43 plus cards of speakers had been presented
(actual final count 55). The first spokesperson was
Mr. Mike Huckaby. He requested deferral and said they
wanted the site to be a park. He addressed a broad spectrum
of mattters, including effects that the neighborhood would
experience if these homes were constructed. His points
included: (1) the use is not conventional single family of
the type in this area, but practically speaking is a
condominimum which would change the flavor of the area; (2)
this area is not all Country Club members, but contains a
mix of housing and income levels; (3) the site would lose
big trees when creating all the roof tops and drives, ( 4 ) no
assurance that the church will not sell or develop more of
its land to the east; (5) a 1990 plan showed the site for
public, quasi-public land; (6) existing traffic may be
undercounted and there is more in the fall; (7) the land
could be given to the City by the church or purchased
through private sector contributions or the City bond money;
(8) bicyclists, mothers, and babies would be affected by the
additional traffic; (9) the market for the project is
unpredictable; (10) the units will be difficult to sell;
(11) construction traffic on neighborhood streets would be a
problem; and (12) the church should use its own entrance for
construction traffic. He closed his comments by stating
that he as well as the neighborhood felt like the park issue
should be settled first. During the course of Mr. Huckaby's
presentation, he offered a petition of some 500 signatures.
Mr. Rector, the Chairman, then offered for the benefit of
all involved, that the issue of the park has been acted upon
by the Planning Commission in the past. What is being
considered here is the Planned Unit Development application.
The next speaker, Pat Miller, a North Taylor resident,
offered comments on speculation, the need for a wall during
construction, construction access through Polk Street or the
church property, and loss of green space. The next speaker,
Mr. Bob Lowery, offered his objections and those of his
parents and his wife. He suggested that the diocese offer
the land and others offer money. He discussed the
appropriateness of the plan (traffic and density), the
neighborhood loss of green space, and the need to deal with
the park issue. The next speaker, Mr. Richard Groh, a
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
resident of Hawthorne Street, offered a broad range of
objection but primarily to the use of the land for any
development other than single family lots or a park.
At this point Commissioner Jones offered a statement to the
effect that it was inappropriate for the Commission to
proceed and that the Board of Directors should dispose of
the park site questions first. Commissioner Jones then made
a motion to defer the application until the Board of
Directors decided the park issue. The motion was seconded
by William Ketcher.
A general discussion followed wherein the appropriateness of
the separation of the two issues was dominant. Several
Commissioners felt that the politics of acquisition would
have to be dealt with first. Commission members briefly
discussed their responsibility for acting on the matter as
opposed to deferring the subject. The subject of the 60 day
notice relative to the Master Park Plan arose. The primary
question being when the 60 day period began during which the
City must give notice to purchase the site or lose the
opportunity. The City Attorney's representative,
Mr. Stephen Giles, instructed the Commission that the time
began when the development request was presented at the
Commission meeting. It begins with the presentation in the
form of a plan or a plat to the Commission, which triggers
the ordinance requirement. The Board of Directors will have
to act within the 60 days if purchase is intended. One year
is provided for actual payment for the land.
The opposition was asked whether it opposed a deferral, and
several persons stated they were not. However, Mr. Flake
stated the Board of Directors had previously refused to act
on the park acquisition separately and had deferred action
pending receipt of the PUD application.
The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, stated that there was no
reason the Commission could not or should not vote on the
matter. The motion as offered was restated. The vote on
the motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes, and 1 absent.
(Being a procedural vote, the matter remained active on the
agenda.)
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
At this point, the Chair offered to hear additional
opposition comment. Mr. Bill Woodard, a resident, requested
additional time to address the park issue. Thelma Hobby
added to that comment expressing the desire that it be a
park. Lindsey Huckaby made comments to the effect that she
was responsible for the opposition turnout but wants more
time to deal with the park issue. Therisa Brown added
comments from the perspective of catholic church members and
lay persons and suggested that the church reconsider its
action due to the neighborhood opposition.
The Commission then entered again into general discussion of
deferral of the proposal. The Chairman and others entered
into a discussion with Mr. Huckaby on procedural matters.
Commissioner Massie then offered that perhaps a two week
deferral could allow time for the opposition to organize,
obtain professional expertise, get direction from the Board
of Directors, and ask the church to take a harder look at
the park issue. Mr. Massie then offered a motion in these
terms and indicated the July 14 Planning meeting as being
appropriate meeting date to take up the matter again.
Attorney David Meens, a representative of the Catholic
Church, added to the record that the church was thoroughly
involved with the views of the lay membership. He noted
that lay boards within the church organization had held many
meetings on this proposal and were committed to the project.
A vote on the deferral motion passed by 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 2 abstentions (Jones, Ketcher).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-14-87)
The chairman, Mr. Rector, identified the issue and asked for
cooperation when speaking. He instructed everyone to speak
directly into the microphone and identify themselves
inasmuch as a court reporter was present and recording the
meeting. Mr. Rector then reported to those in attendance
that this is not the usual meeting for this type of issue
but normally deals with planning matters such as parks plans
and district plans.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The first order of business on this case was a request by
Commissioner Nicholson to address the issue of abstaining.
She stated that she had contacted the City Attorney and
would be abstaining from participation. She was advised
that she did not have to identify her reasons for doing so.
Mr. Rector then advised that the abstention affected the
vote inasmuch as six positive votes are required to pass or
deny an action before the Commission. He stated for the
record that there was one open position and one absent,
leaving only eight to participate with one additional
potential abstention. At this point Commissioner Collins
stated that she had a conflict of interest and would not
participate thereby leaving only seven voting eligible.
Mr. Huckaby, a neighborhood representative, offered comments
on the abstentions and the composition of the Commission.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the deferral process
and the effect of automatic deferrals on the voting.
Mr. Huckaby offered a request to quash the proceeding as
being inappropriate due to the notice deficiency. His
statement was that the 200 foot notice even though in
accordance with the law and procedure is not adequate when
many persons further away are affected. The Chairman and
Mr. Huckaby agreed that the notice had been accomplished as
required by law and procedure. The City Attorney stated
that the notice had been accomplished as required per state
law. Mr. Huckaby then requested a deferral due to the
resignation of Dorothy Arnett and that effect upon the
Commission. A general discussion followed with several
Commissioners and Mr. Huckaby offering comments on the
effect of the Planning Commission composition. Commissioner
Jones offered a statement on Mr. Huckaby's comments and the
Commission's integrity. The City Attorney offered that the
Commission could conduct business as there were sufficient
numbers present to conduct business.
A general discussion followed during which the City Attorney
and others discussed the issue of participation by various
Commissioners. The Chairman then asked Mr. Flake to make
his presentation. Mr. Flake's comments were preceded by
Commissioner Schlereth requesting that the letter from the
City Manager be read into the record. Mr. Greeson read the
material which addressed the Board of Directors' instruction
as to the proposed park site.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Flake then made his presentation in summary form from
his June presentation. The Chairman then recognized
supporters of the application. These were Mr. Jack
Williams, Mr. Ray Kemp. Both supporters talked about the
need for this type of unit in the area, and the current
unsightly state of the property. (There were three cards
submitted indicating a request to address the Commission in
support of the application.)
The Chairman then recognized the opposition. Mr. Huckaby
was recognized first. He offered general comments on the
issue and offered a second package of approximately 1,000
signatures. These signatures are on petitions of objection.
He added that thousands were to follow. (There were 20+
persons in attendance in opposition. There were 27 cards
filed with requests to speak. Mr. Huckaby then read several
paragraphs of the Zoning Ordinance from the Planned Unit
Development Section concerning harmony, compatibility,
neighborhood involvement, and response. He stated that
there had not been an adequate test of traffic generation
during construction time of approximately four years or so.
He stated that cluster housing is an inappropriate housing
type in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Massie requested that the staff describe the
PUD process and state whether it is the only approach to
development projects such as this. Mr. Greeson, the
Planning Director, offered that the PUD process was the only
approach to developing this type of development.
Chairman Rector then offered comments on district
application and density.
Mr. Huckaby then made comments on the saleability of the
project and traffic test needs, the fact that the church has
not committed to no other sales in the future. He
challenged Mr. Flake's assertion that units in the project
were of average floor area in the area. He challenged the
architectural compatibility of the project. He stated that
it is a condo type project no matter what it is called. He
offered that the project would depreciate neighborhood land
values and increase traffic.
A lengthy discussion of the issues followed. This
discussion centered on traffic, marketability, commitment of
the church on other lands. At this point, it was discussed
that the numbers of petitions offered should not be used to
make land use decisions.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The next issue discussed was the burden of proof in this
matter. It was offered by the objectors that the burden of
proving the appropriateness of this project fell to the
developer and not with the objectors. Several Commissioners
offered comments on the difficulty of the development
process for PUDs and the Commission's reliance on the
Planning staff to develop the issues.
Mr. Lowery offered that there were two basic issues involved
in this case. The first of which being that between uses as
single family and uses as Planned Unit Development with
exception to standards. The second being the purposes
stated in Article 9 in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Rector then described the PUD process, the
Commission's involvement and the church's options for
development.
(A brief recess was called.)
The meeting was called to order. The hearing reconvened on
this matter. A brief discussion occurred at this point
relative to the usage of a court reporter for this public
hearing. The City Attorney stated he would pay part of the
reporter cost.
At the Chairman's request, the staff outlined the procedures
involved in the review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal from the occasion of first contact with the staff
through the public hearing process.
Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, then presented
comments on the traffic counts. He discussed Taylor Street
as being a minor collector. He stated that traffic numbers
were not an issue and answered questions from both the
Commission and the audience.
Another lengthy discussion followed involving statements
about benefit to be received by the area from this project.
Also what is considered when reviewing a case such as the
one filed. The points outlined as important were density,
access to the site, traffic generation.
The discussion then shifted to comments as to traffic access
onto Taylor Street vs. Polk Street.
Commissioner Jones discussed whether there was a way to
assure in any neighborhood of this city that traditional
development can or will remain without change and without
encroachment by other land types.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The discussion then moved to whether the Planned Unit
Development process allowed a better development versus
maximizing development potential on a given site. Comments
were made about the subjectivity of the Planned Unit
Development review and the staff added that actions on
Planned Unit Developments should be reasonable and
defensible based on the surrounding area.
Several objectors stated at this point that they wanted
nothing on the site especially sameness.
The discussion then centered on the issue of housing type
being attached versus open side yards. The objectors
thought there was something special about this area of the
City and what should be kept there is side yards and
setbacks in a conventional format.
Mr. Groh, a resident of the area, offered his thoughts about
keeping the park site, the City bond issues, these being
condos, and whether action would go to the City Board with
support for a park site.
Mr. Flake was requested to describe his building design. He
offered that he did not have to file elevations, floor
plans, and detail drawings but did to help the review. He
continued by saying many of the units in his projects are 18
feet apart, providing courtyards and spaces between. The
garages and parking are screened from view by the attachment
of the buildings. He felt this would save trees by the
clustering and allow the design to fit the terrain.
The discussion then moved to the Taylor Street improvements
and the inevitably of getting onto a public street at some
point with the traffic generated by this development, both
the residents and the construction equipment during the
estimated four years.
The construction type was discussed on the private street
and whether it would hold truck traffic. Mr. Flake stated
it would be constructed of brick and designed in
curvilinear fashion to avoid trees and obstructions.
Further comments pointed out that it would be built to City
standard and withstand a fire truck and would possibly
support construction vehicles.
Discussion followed concerning access to Taylor Street, its
length, and the trees and natural foliage to be lost.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Brief comments were then presented concerning whether the
strong emotions on this subject on both sides were of value
and effect in this proposal.
Several objectors again raised the park question. Some
objectors offering that perhaps they didn't understand all
of the plan as presented. The Chairman, Mr. Rector, again
addressed the subject of the park and the Commission's
position.
A discussion of a meeting of the two sides for resolution of
the issues outlined in the hearings resulted in the
objectors stating they were denied opportunity to resolve
the issues at the last occasion. The discussion moved on to
whether a person could be found to represent the opposition
side. During the course of discussion, organization of the
opposition in the form of an agent could not be gained.
The discussion moved to the subject of deferrals and whether
the applicant can call for a vote. It was determined that
Mr. Flake had that right to make a request for action.
However, a comment followed that the Commission could defer
the matter again if it so desired.
The discussion then moved to the subject of a totally
acceptable development. Comments were made relative to the
various types of development proposals that could be made in
this area, including large lot single family, conventional
lot, condominiums, or attached housing, etc. It was pointed
out by a Commissioner that the Board of Directors was the
final determiner, and in the final analysis will decide this
case on the basis of nontraditional development in a
traditional neighborhood setting.
The discussion moved to rules for deferral and how best to
deal with the bylaw application. The City Attorney,
Mr. Stodola, offered guidance on the rules and instructed
the Commission as to how they may proceed.
The discussion then extended into areas of amending the
bylaws to accommodate the voting procedure. The applicant
was asked about his position on deferral. He repsonded by
saying that he did not want to polarize the opposition.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Comments were offered by an opponent as to the location of a
shrine in the ravine either on or adjacent to this property.
It was apparent that no one knew the specific location.
The Chair then asked that the issue be brought to a vote. A
brief discussion of whether the resolution on the park
should be dealt with prior to the vote on the PUD. The City
Attorney's comment was that it should be a secondary vote.
A motion was then made to suspend the rules of procedure to
allow the resolution to be entered into the record. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position, 2 abstaining (Collins and Nicholson).
Mr. Rector then read the resolution into the record
(attached Exhibit A).
A motion was then made for adoption of the resolution. A
brief discussion followed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstentions
(Collins and Nichsolson).
Commissioner Jones then made a motion to defer the
application for a period of two weeks to July 28, which
would permit a meeting with a good faith attempt on the part
of those involved to come to an agreement on this project.
Additional comment by other Commissioners introduced an
amendment to the motion which states an understanding that
the debate on this subject will be limited to 30 minutes on
the July 28 agenda. A vote was then taken. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 open position, 1
absent, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nicholson).
A discussion followed wherein Mr. Lowery and Mr. Huckaby
were encouraged to take the lead and meet with Mr. Flake and
Jerilyn Nicholson, a Commissioner, to moderate the session.
A report on the results of this meeting to be presented to
the Commission on July 28.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-28-87)
The Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the issue of the several
meetings held since the last Planning Commission review of
this matter on July 14. He requested a report from
Commissioner Nicholson who attended those meetings
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
as a representative of the Commission and acted as a
facilitator. Commissioner Nicholson reported that the
participants held several meetings over the past week on a
Thursday and a Sunday. There were four area representatives
present, two persons for the applicant, and Mr. Tom Dalton,
the City Manager. She offered comments on the conversation
between Mr. Flake and others and the several discussions
relative to Plan A which is the application at hand before
the Commission, the possibility of a Plan B, separated
units, and Plan C which would be single family conventional
lots. She expressed the thought that an attempt was made to
get input from all the neighborhood representatives as to
the several plans. As to the Sunday afternoon meeting, she
reported that the concerns offered by the neighborhood were:
(1) a lack of diversity of unit type, (2) the phasing of the
development, (3) the number of units, there being too many,
and (4) the precedent set for future developments of this
nature on the Diocese properties. She reported that the
meetings held were pleasant meetings and that to a certain
extent the neighborhood feelings about the church's future
development were set aside by a church letter to neighbors
indicating there were no plans to develop the other
properties; however, this did not appear to be a consensus
of the neighborhood. She reported that a discussion of the
church did not satisfy all of the concerns of the residents.
Commissioner Massie then asked a question relative to the
neighborhood preference as to the three plans that were
indicated. Commissioner Nicholson stated there were diverse
opinions among the participants especially with the
participants feeling the burden for supporting the
neighborhood in this matter. She felt that the four persons
present were unconfortable with attempting to represent
which of the several options would be appropriate.
Commissioner Jones then offered a commendation to
Commissioner Nicholson for her participation and chairing of
these meetings.
The Chairman then asked that Mr. Flake's issue be
represented. Mr. Sam Anderson was present representing
Mr. Flake and the church. Mr. Anderson offered comments as
follows: He stated that the application was a reasonable
use for the land. It is single family occupancy and is less
than single family density when computing the overall site.
He added that the project contains larger units than the
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
area in general and they are more expensive. He reported
that 23 percent of the land coverage will be buildings and
that 77 percent of the site will be trees and landscaped
area. He felt that's what the neighbors wanted. He stated
that the project is being attacked on the design because the
units touch at the rear and other points. He felt that
touching is a design feature to allow private spaces such as
courtyards and garages and leave the trees, provide more
landscaping, and allow the project to fit the terrain. He
further commented that persons have been in attendance at
the Commission meetings and have stated their feelings about
the possibility of buying some of these units. He felt that
the neighborhood wanted nothing on this site. Inasmuch as a
year had been spent in planning, he felt that the church had
quite an investment in this project at this time. He
further reported that he appreciated the Planning staff's
support and recommendation. He said that the applicants
have tried to appease the opponents except to the point of
giving total control. He reported that if conditional
approval by detachment of the units in the development are a
requirement of the Commission he will accept that condition.
The owner has gone on record as stating they want the
development access off Polk Street and not Taylor Street.
He said that he needed staff help to work out a redesign
dealing with separation of structures and procedures for
accommodating that.
Mr. Brooks Jackson, the architect for the project, then
added comments at the request of the Commission. He stated
that changes to separate the structures would take several
months to accomplish. He said that the changes would vary
considerably in order to provide the suggested side yards.
Mr. Greeson then added comments concerning the procedure for
taking the matter to the Board,of Directors when the
Commission approves in a modified form.
Mr. Anderson, when asked about whether a plat with lots was
included he stated that there has always been a plat with
individual lotting for each unit. The project will also
have a property owners association to assure maintenance of
the common spaces and open yard spaces.
The Chairman then asked for opponents to present their
comments. The first spokesperson was Mr. John Calhoun, an
attorney and resident of North Grandview. Mr. Calhoun
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
stated he was one of the four persons present at the
meetings with Commissioner Nicholson. He stated he did not
know what was exactly before the Commission at this time.
Mr. Rector stated for the record that Plan A was before the
Commission as filed and no other items were to be considered
at this time. Mr. Calhoun continued by commenting on the
Planning Commission's former hearings and the area residents
objections. He addressed Mr. Anderson's comment on the
unreasonableness of the neighborhood position and stated he
disagreed with Mr. Anderson's comment. He felt the
residents would prefer to leave the site undisturbed but
were not obstructionists.
The neighbors are supportive of a conventional single family
project. He stated that when they met they had fundamental
differences with the developer such as the future
development of the additional church property. The
neighbors want a church commitment, but have been told that
it will not be forthcoming. Phasing is a particular concern
for the people in this area, but it has been stated by the
applicant that that is not flexible. He said they were told
several points were non - negotiable and that all the
developer would discuss was Plan A. There was no discussion
of detached units, and he stated the developer said Plan C
was not an option. This would have been conventional single
family lots. He talked about the similarity of the units
and the developer being the determiner of footprint and
marketability and the association between the two. He said
the owner refused an architectural review committee as an
offering by the neighborhood. He felt the design is solely
left to the developer and that the developer made no
meaningful offer to redesign the units. At this point,
Mr. Calhoun read from the Purpose and Intent Section of the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance on compatiblity and
finished his comments by asking for a conventional project.
Commissioner Massie then asked about the comments on
non-negotiable items. Commissioner Nicholson stated that
some of the things the residents wanted as assurances on
such as future development of the church property, the
developer could not commit to and stated that there are no
guarantees that certain things will happen because the
market controls that circumstance.
The next spokesperson for the neighborhood, Mr. Williams,
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
responded to Mr. Anderson's comments. He discussed the
former meetings and his appreciation of the Planninq
Commission's actions and their time and effort. He
continued his comments by addressing the issue of this
proposal versus a park site on the property versus a project
for single family. He said a Planned Unit Development is an
exception to development standards within the ordinance. He
read from Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with
enhancement and minimal disruption of the neighborhood and
other criteria. He said neighbors had pointed out that the
project is not benefiting the area. This had been stated on
several occasions. The people are not attempting to tell
the church that it cannot develop its land. He said the
ordinance does not deal with project profit maximization or
market targeting. He said the Planning Commission should
take the neighborhood's views into consideration in any
decision. He felt the applicant has not made a case for
a Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Rector then commented on the ordinance content as
to diversity of development. Commissioner Jones asked for
staff recommendation. Planning Director Gary Greeson then
presented from the agenda the referenced paragraph dealing
with the staff position. He read the recommendation into
the record and expanded upon the written comment. He
reported that the staff would accept the minimum ten-foot
building separation if that were offered as a modification
of the current plan. He further stated that the staff is
standing by its recommendation.
Chairman Rector then added comments on the procedure for
preliminary and final Planned Unit Development review.
Mr. Greeson added additional comments on this subject.
Commissioner Massie added concerns about the number of units
if redesign is accomplished in the project. He had concerns
about the effect of grades, setback, and such on separating
of the buildings. Mr. Greeson reported that spacing of the
buildings would fall within the five percent test within the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance and felt that room can be
found to shift the buildings. He did not consider the
design changes to be a problem.
Commissioner Jones stated that in essence that what we could
actually do is vote on a concept as opposed to a specific
plan which would require the applicant to come back with a
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
plan to coincide with what was approved or disapproved. He
felt technical problems will occur if the approval is not
specific and then allowing the staff to tidy up things in
the future.
Chairman Rector then responded to comments by reading the
90 -day provision in the ordinance for dealing with
conditional approved PUD's and the staff review attached
with that process. Mr. Greeson then explained the final
procedure as he understood it dealing with minor changes.
Commissioner Jones then stated that he wanted to hear any
additional comments of objectors if they had requested
permission to do so. Mr. Greeson commented on the vote
being on the plan and not on a concept. Commissioner Jones
discussed his intent in asking last time for the meetings
between parties to resolve the detachment issue. He felt he
could not come up with any problems for attached over
detached. He said the Commission cannot turn an
architectural control over to the neighborhood committee.
He thinks this development will not do harm but that
architectural control would cause significant problems. The
development is reasonable he felt and he can support it if
detached with different brick, alteration of the exteriors,
and other amenities. He stated he was ready to make a
motion on the subject.
Commissioner Schlereth then added his thoughts on the
position of the Commission. He stated that he felt the
Planned Unit Development is not a way to get around the
ordinance but to improve the area. He felt the project had
received a great effort from the developer in its
development. He supports the attached units identified as
Plan A; however, he felt both Plans A and B are better than
a Plain Jane single family plat.
Chairman Rector then asked about Taylor Street improvements
as to whether it is a better situation to leave it alone or
to put in improvements. Commissioner Jones stated he felt
it was a staff technical issue to be developed at that
level. Mr. Anderson stated that if the Commission so desired
he would leave the street improvements out of the project.
Mr. Greeson said that widening would be better for traffic
flow in the area and drainage, but appearance is the issue.
He said improvements are better, including the sidewalk
because of children's movement through the area and others
who might use this improvement.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Commissioner Schlereth stated he felt that the intent in
this project was to restrict access to Taylor Street. He
felt the area would be best served with a waiver of the
street improvements. The architect, Mr. Brooks Jackson, in
response to a question reported that a tree survey has not
been accomplished in this area; therefore, he is not aware
of what trees would be lost by placement of a sidewalk or
other improvements.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments related to the view of
the rear of units from Taylor Street if no wall or fence is
required.
Commissioner Massie requested of Mr. Jackson a response
concerning the Phase I or five units along the south line.
He was curious as to how you would separate these units with
a minimum of ten feet and not lose density or exterior
setbacks along the property lines. Mr. Jackson reported
that to spread the units will remove more trees than the
cluster concept. Further he felt that if the units were in
a one -unit per level high -rise you could keep most all of
the trees on the property. He continued this thought by
stating that if attached you will not lose as many trees.
He felt that units along the south property line could be
redesigned to accommodate the dimension by narrowing of the
units or making them taller or both.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments on the possible design
changes. Commissioner Massie reported that he remained
unconvinced that attached is not better. He felt that
conventional development will not assure saving of the trees
on this property. He stated that there is a dangerous
position relative to a vote on a concept with a return in
several months with the Planning Commission not receiving
the changes for their review. Mr. Greeson followed that
comment by stating he prefers a vote without separation of
the units.
Commissioner Jones and others then discussed the concerns of
neighbors versus the vote procedure versus the staff
preference as to the form for approval. Commissioner
Ketcher said he sensed that members were supportive of the
project. He talked about what he felt were the residents
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
objections. He urged other Commissioners to join him in a
vote against the proposal as submitted. Mr. Greeson then
clarified his statements on the vote procedure.
Chairman Rector again offered comments on the rules of
procedure as to suspending the rules of bylaws in order to
send this matter on to the Board rather than an additional
deferral.
Commissioner Sipes commented on the Taylor Street
improvements and the tree and sidewalk loss. Commissioner
Perkins added his comments. He felt that the project is a
self-contained project and that separation of the units
would do more damage than good.
Chairman Rector stated that he felt that the project is a
good development. He compared it to what can be done and
developed as single family. He stated that the Planning
Commission has not seen Plans B and C but only the plan that
is before them. He further felt that all neighborhoods need
new blood and that things have happened in the Hillcrest
neighborhood that have helped the area. He felt this
project will enhance the neighborhood. He closed this
comment by stating he felt the sidewalk should be taken off
Taylor Street unless there is a strong feeling they need to
remain.
Commissioner Massie added comments concerning access off
Taylor Street during the period of construction. His
questions were what plans had been made to relandscape the
disrupted area and restore as a natural barrier plus what
planting and materials. Commissioner Massie said he felt
that the neighborhood did not want to see this project.
The architect, Mr. Jackson, responded to questions as to
what is planned along Taylor Street. He added the
following: The plan at this time is a brick and iron wall
and fence arrangement with landscaping the full length of
the project. This landscaping will continue across the
access point after construction is completed with
restoration landscaping as best can be accomplished. He
stated he cannot indicate the location of the trees at this
time due to the absence of a tree survey. He offered that
improvements will be done with the least destruction and the
greatest concern for the environment. Commissioner Massie
then added that he wants a commitment from the developer to
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
restore lost trees by new plantings. He felt these should
be of a calipher three or four inches or larger. He felt
the elimination of the sidewalk should be tied to avoidance
of loss of trees. He further felt that the street should be
widened with curb and gutter. He continued by saying that
he felt the staff should have determination authority as to
the location of the construction access point.
Mr. Anderson then addressed the loss of a fence and
sidewalk. He felt that the wall or fence was needed to
prevent neighborhood kids from going to the Seminary site
through this project. He agreed to work with the staff to
reduce the effects of the fence location. Commissioner
Jones then added a thought that access to the Seminary by
area kids may he desired and that they may want to take
direct access to play on the Seminary grounds. Mr. Anderson
stated that he was opposed to totally eliminating the fence.
Mr. Greeson and Commissioners discussed procedure on an
advanced vote on suspending the rules. Commissioner Massie
then offered a motion to suspend the bylaws concerning the
six -vote or deferral rule and that this case be forwarded to
the Board of Directors should it not receive the required
six votes to deny or approve, with a recording of the vote
on the motion. Commissioner Jones then added a comment in
which he opposed this motion as being inappropriate. He
said that the Commission should do as usual and let the
record stand. Chairman Rector reported that he felt
everybody wants to send this matter on to the City Board.
The Manager and Board of Directors have gone on record as
stating such.
A general discussion of procedures on the vote then
followed. Discussion involving Chairman Rector and
Commissioners Massie, Schlereth, and the City Attorney,
Mr. Giles. Commissioner Massie withdrew his motion.
Chairman Rector closed this discussion by clarifying the
issue as now before the Commission which is an application
with the following conditions:
1. The Planning staff to approve the construction access
point which is to be located in such a way as to
minimize disturbance of existing trees.
2. The point of construction access to be closed and
July 28, 1987
Item No. A. - Continued
planted with mature trees as a condition of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the last phase of
construction.
3. Deletion of the sidewalks along Taylor Street.
4. Keeping the fence /wall with the developer to locate the
fence to minimize disturbance of trees, subject to
staff approval.
At this point, Commissioner Nicholson stated for the record
that she would abstain. A vote was then taken on the
motion. The motion failed due to a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes,
2 absent, 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson).
A second motion was then made to suspend the rules and
consider a conditional approval by the Commission of the
plan with detached units. This motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention.
A third motion was then made by Commissioner Jones. The
motion was that the project be approved with the condition
that the units be detached with a minimum of ten-foot
between units. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is
to have a 90 -day period in which to submit a revised plan to
Planning staff and the Planning staff is to send the matter
to the City Board if found in conformance with the Planning
Commission's conditions. For the record, it was noted that
the conditions agreed to in the first motion are attached to
this motion. A vote was then taken on the motion which
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention
(Jerilyn Nicholson).
The Commission action carries a recommendation associated
with the parks issue as indicated in the resolution attached
to this package. The resolution was approved at the meeting
on June 14, 1987.
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION RESTATING ITS SUPPORT FOR A
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ON THE ST. JOHN'S SEMINARY
SITE, CONDITIONED UPON THE CITY'S FINANCIAL
ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THE SITE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Little
Rock recommended the adoption of the Master Parks Plan of
1963 which included the area of the St. John's Seminary as a
general park site and,
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended the readoption of
the Master Parks Plan in 1971 and 1983 which then included
as a fixed park site #10 -NF, an area of 10 acres and which
is part of the St. John's Seminary and,
WHEREAS, in late 1986, the owner of site #10-NF wished
to pursue plans to develop this property and did not want to
spend considerable sums of money on a development plan if
the City intended to purchase the site for a park and,
WHEREAS, the owner therefore requested its removal from
the Master Parks Plan and,
WHEREAS, the staff of the Office of Comprehensive
Planning of the City of Little Rock recommended the site's
removal from the Plan "due to current financial limitations"
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Little
Rock thereupon recommended its removal and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little
Rock deferred final action on its removal until it had
received the Commission's recommendation on the owner's
proposed development of the site and,
WHEREAS, there has arisen considerable neighborhood
opposition to the removal of the site from the Master Parks
Plan.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission restates its
support for a neighborhood park at site #10-NF.
SECTION 2. The Commission's support is conditioned
upon the financial ability of the City of Little Rock to
acquire the site within the time frame set forth in the
Master Park Plan ordinance.
ADOPTED:_
Date
APPROVED:
Chairman
July 28, 1987
Item No. B - Z- 4695 -A
Owner: Valentine Hansen and
Valentine Pardo
Applicant: Valentine Hansen
Location: 400 North Van Buren
Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-1"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 0.15 acres
Existing Use: Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
East - Duplex, Zoned "R-4"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone a single lot to "C-1" for an
unspecified commercial or office use. The property is
located at the northwest corner of North Van Buren and
"C" Street in a neighborhood that is primarily zoned
for residential use, either single family or two
family. The land use is almost exclusively single
family residential, especially north of "B" Street. To
the south of "B" Street, the zoning is more of mixed as
is the land use. Between "B" Street and West Markham,
the zoning includes PCD, "O-3," "C-3" and "C-4" with a
commercial zoning being concentrated between West
Markham and "A" Street. The surrounding neighborhood
is a stable residential area and allowing commercial
zoning at this location could create some problems for
the neighborhood.
2. The site is a 45' x 123' lot with three structures on
it. Two of the buildings are used for residential
purposes, and the third one, located on the corner, is
a real estate office.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
July 28, 1987
Item No. B - Continued
4. Engineering reports that parking is inadequate for a
rezoning from "R-3" to "C-1." Also, if parking is
provided, the access point should be shown and improved
by the traffic engineer.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property has been used for both office and
commercial uses over the years so it has some
nonconforming status. In July 1986, a "C-1"
application was filed for the property. After being on
the agenda for several months, the request was finally
withdrawn without prejudice in September 1986.
7. The request is in conflict with the adopted
Heights /Hillcrest Plan and staff does not support the
"C-1" rezoning. Over the years, attempts have been
made to allow nonresidential zoning to encroach north
of "A" Street. In each of those instances, staff has
been opposed to the rezonings. "A" Street has always
been viewed by the staff as an appropriate line between
nonresidential and residential uses that should be
maintained at all costs. Several years ago, an "O-1"
request was filed for the lot at the southeast corner
of "C" and North Van Buren to allow for a conversion of
a residential structure into an office. That rezoning
was denied by the both Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors. This particular request, if
approved, could have a very adverse impact on the
neighborhood and establish an undesirable precedent for
the area. Also, with three buildings on the lot, the
site is not a viable commercial tract of land. And
finally, the property is not completely restricted to a
residential use only. Because the structure on the
corner has a nonconforming status, it can continue to
be occupied by an office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 5, 1987)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred. A
motion was made to defer the request to the June 16, 1987,
meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
July 28, 1987
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 16, 1987)
The applicant, Valentine Hansen, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Hansen reported to the Commission that he
had paid the fee and had completed the necessary
notification of the property owners. He then requested a
deferral to allow him to discuss the rezoning proposal with
representatives of the Hillcrest Property Owners
Association. A motion was made to defer the item to the
July 28, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 28, 1987)
The applicant, Valentine Hansen, was not present. The item
was disscussed briefly and staff reported that Mr. Hansen
had verbally requested another deferral. After some
additional comments a motion was made to withdraw the
rezoning request with prejudice. The motion was approved by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z- 4516 -A
Owner: Fonda T. Lyle and Augustine Taylor
Applicant: Robert M. Brown
Location: East of Mabelvale Pike
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4"
Purpose: Automobile Dealership
Size: 0.70 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C-4"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-4"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone a tract of land between Mabelvale
Pike and South University from "R-2" to "C-4" to allow an
existing auto dealership on South University to expand. The
site is occupied by a single family residence and an
accessory building which will probably be removed to
accommodate the future use. Zoning in the area includes
"R-2," "C-3," and "C-4" with the nonresidential area
well - defined and restricted to lands east of Mabelvale Pike.
Land use follows a similar pattern with the commercial uses
found along South University and a large residential area to
the west. The neighborhood is stable and has not
experienced any incompatible rezonings.
Over the years, a residential strip along the east side of
Mabelvale Pike has been maintained, and the rezoning
proposal before the Commission reinforces that land use
configuration by keeping a 200 -foot "R-2" area east of
Mabelvale Pike. The 200 -foot distance was established
through a zoning action on the property directly to the
south, approved by the City in 1985. This request keeps a
200-foot area and should not impact the existing
development.
The rezoning conforms to the adopted 65th Street West Plan,
and there are no Master Street Plan issues.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends - approval of the "C-4" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-4" request
as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 1 open position.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z -4855
Owner: Loye R. and Eleanor E. Rodgers
Applicant: Loye R. Rodgers
Location: 5323 Baseline Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 0.75 acre
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Office, Zoned "R-2"
West - Office, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal before the Commission is to rezone .75 acre on
Baseline Road from "R-3" to "C-3" for an unspecified
commercial use. The property is located approximately
one -half mile east of Geyer Springs and occupied by a single
family residence. Land use in the immediate vicinity is
very mixed and includes residential, office, and some
industrial. This particular site abuts office on two sides
with a commercial center to the north across Baseline Road.
The zoning is primarily "R-2" because of being annexed to
the City in 1985. Because of this, there are a number of
nonconforming uses and there have been very few rezoning
actions. There are several exceptions to that, a PRD site
to the northeast and an "R-4" parcel on Loetscher Lane and a
"C-3" tract at the intersection of Baseline and Shelley.
This property is located in the Geyer Springs East District
Plan, which was adopted by the City in 1986. For this
portion of Baseline, the plan recommends a mixed density
residential development pattern for the south side and a
commercial strip for the north side. After reviewing the
plan and the existing land use, staff feels that maintaining
the plan's concept is somewhat unrealistic and supports a
nonresidential reclassification for some of the site. The
rear of the property abuts single family use, and it should
not be part of the rezoning. Staff suggests a depth of 200
feet from Baseline Road as being appropriate for a
commercial line.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial, so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. The
Master Street Plan standard for a principal arterial is 100
feet.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Only one driveway allowed on Baseline Road.
2. Right-of-way dedication and street improvements are
required.
3. Stormwater detention is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "C-3" for the north 200 feet of
the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and agreed to a depth of 200 feet
for the "C-3" rezoning as recommended by the staff. There
were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning as amended. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1
open position.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 3 - 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.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 3 - 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.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z -4859
Owner: Eddie C. and Lorene M. Hopper
and Harold and Shirley Smith
Applicant: Harold Smith
Location: 1400 and 1404 Bowman Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 2.44 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone 2.4 acres on Bowman Road from
"R-2" to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial use. The
property is situated approximately 700 feet south of
Kanis Road and in an area that is experiencing some
changes since being annexed into the City. Over the
last year, there have been several rezoning actions,
and the land use is more diverse than when the area was
outside the City. Land use includes single family,
office, and various types of commercial activities.
Also, a high percentage of the land is vacant, and
there are still some nonconforming uses. The zoning is
a mix of "R-2," "MF-12 , " "MF-18 , " "C-3," and PCD with a
majority of the commercial tracts developed. There is
also a "C-3" parcel that has a conditional use permit
for a mini - storage complex on it. The property in
question abuts single family uses on the north and
south with a nonconforming piece of commercial property
to the east across Bowman Road. The site is surrounded
by "R-2" zoning with the nearest "C-3" land about 300
feet to the north.
2. The site is 2.44 acres in size and occupied by two
single family residences. The property has a depth of
645 feet and includes two separate tracts of land.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
3. Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial on the
Master Street Plan. The right-of-way standard for a
minor arterial is 80 feet and the existing right-of-way
is deficient, so additional dedication will be
required.
4. Comments from Engineering include:
• Right-of-way dedication and street improvements
required on Bowman Road.
• Stormwater detention required.
• Parking and access should be coordinated with the
Traffic Engineer.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property was annexed to the City in 1985. There is
no documented neighborhood position on the site.
7. This part of Bowman Road is in the I -430 District Plan
which identifies the property under consideration for
future multifamily use. Because of the commercial
request being in conflict with the adopted plan, staff
does not support the "C -3" rezoning. Other rezoning
actions in the vicinity have conformed to the plan, and
staff feels that the land use plan should be reinforced
in this area by not endorsing this reclassification.
On the west side of Bowman Road, the plan shows the
southwest corner of Bowman and Kanis for commercial use
with a multifamily development pattern to the south,
including the site in question. For the east side, the
plan extends the commercial area to include a large
nonconforming use directly across the street from the
property. Staff is concerned that granting a
commercial rezoning at this location could lead to
strip zoning and have a potentially adverse impact on
other residential properties. The I -430 Plan needs to
be maintained as much as possible, and the approval of
this rezoning could establish an undesirable precedent
for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 28, 1987)
The applicant, Harold Smith, was present. There was one
interested resident in attendance. Mr. Smith described the
area and discussed a possible deferral to try to include
more property in the request. He reviewed the existing land
use and discussed two nonconforming uses, a skating rink and
a landscaping company. Mr. Smith also said that the
neighborhood was trying to form a sewer improvement
district. He then proceeded to discuss Bowman and Kanis
Roads and said the first two blocks from a major
intersection should be commercial. The staff reviewed the
I -430 plan and answered questions. Olan Asbury, a realtor,
spoke and said that he did not agree with the plan and asked
for more time to work with the staff. Mr. Asbury indicated
that the Kanis and Bowman intersection was a natural
commercial location and the plan's recommendation for a
multifamily use was not feasible. There were some
additional comments and several Commissioners indicated a
rezoning action without benefit of a plan or proposal would
be premature. Another Mr. Smith, a resident to the south,
discussed the issue and asked some questions. Mr. Harold
Smith then requested a 12 week deferral. A motion was made
to defer the item to the October 20, 1987, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z-4863
Owner: Otter Creek Development Company
Applicant: Claude Brasseale
Location: Otter Creek East Boulevard and
Mabelvale West Road
Request: Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial and Office
Size: 2.63 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial and Hospital, Zoned "O-3" and "C-2"
South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
East - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone a tract in the Otter Creek
Industrial Park area from "I-2" to "C-3" for a mixed
commercial and office development. Because of the new
hospital located on the north side of Mabelvale West Road,
it is anticipated that some of the uses will be medical
related and /or service oriented. In addition to the
hospital, the land use includes commercial and industrial.
Also, several of the parcels are still undeveloped. Zoning
in the area is a mix of "R-2,"O-2," "C-2," "C-3," and
"I-2" with the industrial classification being the primary
district.
The Otter Creek District Plan recommends industrial uses for
the area, but staff feels that a mixed development pattern
is appropriate and supports the "C-3" request. This is
especially true for the Mabelvale West frontage because of
the nonindustrial uses located on the north side. The most
recent rezoning action was to "C-3" for some land fronting
Mabelvale West Road, so staff's position is consistent with
other rezoning requests in the immediate vicinity.
There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan
issues associated with this request.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Stormwater detention required.
2. Excavation Ordinance requirements shall be met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning
as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0
noes, 1 absent, and 1 open position.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z -4864
Owner: H. Maurice Mitchell, Trustee
Applicant: R. Wingfield Martin
Location: Lindsey Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2"
Purpose: Motor Freight Terminal
Size: 25.5 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property under consideration is located at the western
end of Lindsey Road, and the request is to rezone the tract
from "R-2" to "I-2" for a motor freight terminal. In the
immediate vicinity, the zoning is "R-2" and most of the land
is vacant. To the east, the zoning changes to industrial,
and the area is part of the Port Industrial Park with a
number of large industrial uses in place. The "I-2" parcel
to the east is a warehousing facility, and the land was
rezoned approximately two years ago. The proposed rezoning
and uses are compatible with the area, and staff supports
the request. It appears that over the next several years,
there will be more interest in industrial development in
this immediate area, and there will probably be additional
rezoning actions requested.
The only potential issue that staff has identified is
access. Staff suggests that the applicant contact the City
Traffic Engineer and resolve this question if one does
exist. (The strip along the east side of the property is a
utility easement and not a street right-of-way, so that is
why mention is being made of the access issue.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Street improvements required on Lindsey Road.
July 28, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
2. Right-of-way dedication for a proposed collector
off Lindsey Road.
3. Street improvements should be coordinated with
City Engineering.
4. Stormwater detention required.
5. Excavation Ordinance requirements to be completed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" request as filed.
PLANNING .Ci1MISSION ACTION:
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 vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 1 open position.
July 28, 1987
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting wa adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Date
Chairman
Secretary