pc_05 17 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
MAY 17, 1988
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: David Jones
Walter Riddick III
Fred Perkins
Jerilyn Nicholson
John Schlereth
Stephen Leek
Bill Rector
Martha Miller
Richard Massie
Rose Collins
Members Absent: T. Grace Jones
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
SUMMARY OF ZONING ACTIVITIES
MAY 17, 1988
1. Z-3831-A 9702 I-30 C3 to C4
2. Z-4841-A Kanis Rd. at Pride Valley Rd. R2 to O2
3. Z-5016 W. 65th and Battle Rd. R2 to C4
4. Z-5017 6307 Kavanaugh R2 to R4
5. Z-5018 8209 Geyer Springs Rd. R2 to C4
Deferred Items
A. Z-4470-A Rock Creek Parkway MF18 & O3 to C3 & O3
B. Z-4998 Bowman Road R2 to MF18
C. Arch Street District Land Use Plan
May 17, 1988
Item No. A - Z-4470-A
Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: Rock Creek Parkway
Request: Rezone from "MF-18" and "O-3"
to "O-3" and "C-3"
Purpose: Mixed Use
Size: 19.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Unclassified, Zoned "MF-18"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "MF-18" and PRD
West - Vacant, Zoned "O-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site under consideration is at the west end of the Rock
Creek Parkway and involves approximately 19 acres. The
request is to rezone the property from "MF-18" and "O-3" to
"O-3" and "C-3." The proposal will add some commercial
zoning, increase the amount of office land, and decrease the
multifamily area. How the property will be developed or
subdivided is unknown because only a rezoning concept is
shown on the survey. In addition to the use areas, two
proposed streets are also identified on the survey with one
road being a north/south arterial as shown on the new
Extraterritorial Land Use Plan /Upper Rock Creek District
Plan.
The entire site, a total of 40 acres, was originally rezoned
to "MF-18" and "O-3" in 1985. (At the time of filing the
first rezoning action, the land was outside the City and was
annexed during the rezoning process.) The previous rezoning
was delayed on several occasions to allow for additional
study of the area because the Suburban Development Plan
showed a single family residential development pattern. It
was finally determined that a zoning configuration as
proposed was a reasonable option for the 40-acre tract.
The Upper Rock Creek District Plan recommends a mix of
multifamily, office, and commercial uses for the site, so
the proposal basically follows the plan's concept. There
are two discrepancies between the plan and the proposed
rezonings. On the plan, commercial property is shown
May 17, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
on both sides of the proposed arterial. With this request,
the commercial area is all east of the north/south arterial,
and staff feels that is a reasonable variation from the
plan. The other difference involves the proposed office
area between the commercial and multifamily tracts. There
is a major drainage/utility easement through the property,
and the plan shows the easement functioning as the break
between the residential and nonresidential uses. In this
area, the plan should be maintained and that would result in
only a minor increase in the office land.
As has been previously mentioned, there is a proposed
north/south arterial shown on the plan that impacts the
property. (This arterial is not identified on the current
Master Street Plan, but it is included in the revised street
plan that is currently being reviewed.) On the survey, the
western boundary of the "C-3" tract is also alignment for
the north /south road which staff is assuming is the new
arterial. At this time, the City has not determined the
exact location for the arterial and feels that cannot be
done until a thorough traffic impact study is undertaken for
the area. City staff feels that a comprehensive study is
needed because of potential problems, and until one is
completed, action on the rezoning request should be delayed.
A study is needed because of the arterial and potential
changes in traffic movement due to the proposed
reclassifications. It is possible that the study could
recommend a different location for the arterial and that
would affect the requested rezonings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends an indefinite deferral until the traffic
impact study is completed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87)
Staff reported that the applicant agreed with deferring the
item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January
12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved. The vote - 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all
parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was
made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
May 17, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 23, 1988)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was
made to defer the issue to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(April 5, 1988)
Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the request
needed to be deferred again and that all parties agreed to a
deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
May 17, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
NOTE: Prior to the May 17, 1988, meeting J.E. Hathaway, the
applicant, submitted a modified rezoning configuration for
the property in question. The amended request increased the
amount of "C -3" land to 15 acres and made some other minor
changes. The following is a breakdown of the proposed
reclassifications:
"O-3" - 13.25 acres
"MF-18" - 11.26 acres
"C-3" - 15.76 acres
Because of the revised request, additional notification of
the property owners was completed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff addressed the amended request as submitted
by Mr. Hathaway prior to the meeting and recommended that
the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be maintained which shows
commercial areas to be located on both sides of the proposed
north/south arterial and to be approximately 10 to 12 acres
in size. (Mr. Hathaway's proposal designates a 15-acre
tract on the east side of the future arterial as a
commercial tract with a nine acre office parcel on the west
side). Also, staff suggested that the land be reclassified
to "C-2" and "O-2" and not "C-3" and "O-3" as proposed by
Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Hathaway then spoke and said he was
representing the owners of the 40-acre tract. He went on to
discuss the amount of time that had been involved with the
rezoning and a traffic impact study that had been requested
by the City staff. Mr. Hathaway then reviewed the
configuration of the amended request and said it was
providing adequate buffers for the retirement community to
May 17, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
the east and a church situated to the west. He also
discussed the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and told the
Commission that the staff had indicated to him in a previous
meeting that locating a commercial area on the east side of
the arterial appeared to be a reasonable option.
Mr. Hathaway then said the church was comfortable with the
existing "O-3" and that there was no public opposition.
There was a long discussion about the site and trying to
develop it. Mr. Hathaway said there were some problems
because of the existing easements and the proposed arterial.
He reviewed certain development standards and said that he
was trying to have one major retail site, 15 acres, and this
represented good planning. He also said this was only a
five-acre difference from what was recommended on the plan.
Mr. Hathaway said the proposed rezoning was basically in
conformance with the adopted plan.
Some questions were then asked about the traffic study and
the construction of the proposed intersection. Jim Lawson
of the Planning staff responded to several of the questions
and said some of the construction could be through a
private/public arrangement.
Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said the
proposal made good planning sense because of being located
at a key intersection with the parkway. He also said
removing the commercial area from the west side as shown on
the plan was desirable because of the future street system.
Greg Simmons of the Mehlburger Firm reviewed the traffic
study. He discussed specific numbers in detail and what
improvements would be needed to make the intersection work.
Mr. Simmons said the findings of the report indicated that
off -site improvements would be appropriate and the new
arterial should be a standard five-lane section. There was
a long discussion about the proposed improvements.
L.K. Moore then spoke and said he was representing Darbe
Development and Melvyn Bell. He said the two property
owners were involved with land to the north and were
proposing some major developments in the area. Mr. Moore
expressed some concerns about future improvements and that a
general improvement district was trying to be formed. He
said that land use did not appear to be the major issue and
informed the Commission that Mr. Bell's attorney had been
unable to meet with Mr. Hathaway to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Hathaway then responded to Mr. Moore's comments about
trying to set up a meeting.
May 17, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
Staff made some comments about the north/south arterial and
several questions were asked about the alignment.
Mr. Hathaway said there was very little flexibility in the
alignment because of some design problems created by
property ownerships. Mr. Moore said there should be more
discussion between the property owners about the arterial
and other improvements. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission
that land use was the issue and he was willing to meet with
the interested parties to work out the alignment of the
arterial. Additional comments were offered by various
individuals, including several Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Hathaway then stated for the record that the current
owners, CCMN Joint Venture II, will not request commercial
rezoning for the area on the west side of the proposed
arterial. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks
to the May 31, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard
Massie).
May 17, 1988
Item No. B - Z-4998
Owner: Winrock Development Co.
West Little Rock Partnership
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Bowman Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "MF-18"
Purpose: Multifamily
Size: 16.8 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"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 16.8 acres from "R-2" to
"MF-18" for a multifamily development. The property is
located on the west side of Bowman Road and in an area
that is still underdeveloped for the most part. In the
immediate vicinity, land use on the developed parcels
is primarily single family zoned "R-2." To the north,
there is a nonconforming use on the east side of Bowman
Road and at the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads,
there are several nonresidential uses. In addition to
the "R-2," other zoning found in the area includes
"MF-12," "MF-18," and "OS." All the property that
abuts the site in question is undeveloped and zoned
"R-2." The existing "MF" tracts are vacant including
the large "MF-12" area across Bowman Road to the east.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The land
increases in elevation from east to west especially
directly adjacent to Bowman Road.
3. Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial so
dedication of additional right-of-way will be required.
4. Engineering Comments
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Bowman
Road.
May 17, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
The future alignment of Bowman Road will basically
remain in the same location.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The land under consideration is part of the I-430
District Plan which recommends single family use for
the property. The multifamily areas are shown adjacent
to this site on the north and on the east side of
Bowman Road, but the plan does not recognize the
existing "MF" area directly to the east. When the
"MF-12" was reclassified as part of the larger rezoning
action, the I-430 Plan was never amended to reflect the
change in land use. (The Planning Commission has
endorsed an "MF" rezoning for some land to the north,
but no action has been taken by the Board of
Directors.) After reviewing the proposal, staff feels
that the "MF" use is a legitimate option for the
property, but at a density of 12 units per acre and not
the "MF-18" as requested. This would provide for a
good transition from the proposed commercial at Kanis
and the single family to the south. Also, "MF-12"
would maintain the density established by the rezoning
action to the east. It is envisioned that the same
type of development pattern will take place on the west
side of Bowman Road as is occurring on the east side.
A single family plat has been approved for the land
south of the "OS" strip. Because of the area's
emerging development pattern, a mix of multifamily and
single family, a reclassification to "MF-12" would not
change the direction of this trend. One issue that
needs to be addressed by the owners is access to the
entire site. It appears that a collector through the
property would benefit a multifamily development and
should be given some serious consideration during a
later review process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" and not "MF-18" as
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988)
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988,
meeting as requested by the applicant. The motion was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes , and 2 absent.
May 17, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Tyne said that there were some unresolved
issues between the two property owners and requested a
deferral. There was a brief discussion and then a motion
was made to defer the issue to the June 28, 1988, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
May 17, 1988
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. C - Arch Street District Land Use Plan
NAME: Arch Street District Land Use
Plan - City of Little Rock
LOCATION: East of Arch Street Pike,
South of I-30, West of U.S.
65/167, North of the Saline
County Line
STAFF REPORT:
The Arch Street District Land Use Plan is one in a series of
plans designed to cover all sections of the City of
Little Rock. The Arch Street District encompasses roughly
nine square miles in the extreme southeastern portion of the
City of Little Rock. It is bounded, approximately, by I-30
and the Little Rock city limits line on the north, Arch
Street Pike on the west, U.S. 65/167 on the east, and the
Saline County line on the south.
The majority of the district is currently occupied by mining
and mining related uses. These land use types are expected
to remain and to dominate the northern two-thirds of the
district. Single family uses dominate the southern
one -third of the district. This section is shown as
predominately single family with existing mobile home parks
being shown as MH/LDR. The plan would support the
conversion of overcrowded mobile home parks to other low
density multifamily uses. The plan seeks to provide
adequate areas for both neighborhood commercial uses and
public recreational uses. Commercial uses are indicated in
selected areas on Arch Street Pike and Sweet Home Cutoff.
Park areas are shown along the southern portion of Arch
Street Pike.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the plan.
May 17, 1988
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 22, 1988)
Ann Razer of the Planning presented the plan. General
discussion followed on the plan. Mr. David Smith expressed
some concern about the City having a land use plan outside
the City and expressed his opposition to the plan.
Ms. Elizabeth Emerson expressed her concern that the City
would force her out of her home and that she was against the
City planning outside the City limits. Mrs. Catherine Ort
said she had the same concerns Mrs. Emerson had expressed.
Mrs. Annette McCaleb stated that she felt the plan was
unconstitutional because it was outside the City limits.
She asked questions about what requirements property owners
would have to fulfill for additions, opening a garage, etc.
Mrs. McCaleb asked that there be a meeting in the area.
Mr. Tommy Evans spoke in opposition to the plan stating that
nothing good had come from Planning and that the City was
only preventing him from further use of his property as he
wishes. The Commission asked those opposed to the plan if
they would talk about the land use plan and alternatives or
only debate the legality of planning outside the City
boundaries if a meeting was held. They further stated that
if there would be a useful exchange then a meeting could
prove useful to all. Mrs. McCaleb and Mr. Evans for the
Pulaski homeowners said if the staff came without an already
locked -in plan there could be a discussion. A neighborhood
meeting is scheduled for April 21 at 7 p.m. at Green's
Family Restaurant on Arch Street Pike.
The Commission approved the motion to defer to May 17, 1988,
the Arch Street Pike Plan and called on staff to meet with
the property owners to discuss the plan prior to that time.
May 17, 1988
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-17-88)
Ann Razer of the Office of Comprehensive Planning presented
the plan and reported that a neighborhood meeting to discuss
the plan had been held April 21 at 7 p.m. at Green's Family
Restaurant on Arch Street Pike. The plan was amended by
staff after the meeting to reflect changes suggested by
residents and property owners in the Arch Street Pike
District. Mrs. Annette McCaleb told the Planning Commission
that she and numerous residents were opposed to the plan
because it dealt with an area beyond the City's corporate
limits. A petition, signed by 381 persons, was represented
objecting to the City's having planning jurisdiction outside
of the corporate limits and requesting repeal of the state
enabling legislation. Mrs. McCaleb and one additional
resident requested that the Arch Street District Plan be
deferred indefinitely pending changes in the legislation.
After further discussion, a motion was made and seconded
that the plan be adopted. The motion passed.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-3831-A
Owner: Guy O. Gregg
Applicant: Same
Location: 9702 I-30
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial with Outside Display
Size: 0.692 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
South - I -30 Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2"
East - Warehousing, Zoned "C-3"
West - Commercial, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the CommiGGion is to rezone 9702 I-30
from "C-3" to "C-4" to permit a commercial use with outside
display. The property is situated along the I-30 and in an
area that is zoned "R-2," "C-3," "C-4," and "I-2." Land use
is very similar to the zoning with the two major uses being
a trucking company and an auto dealership. Along the I-30
Frontage Road, the uses are a mix of warehousing and retail
with some outside display so the comtemplated use will not
have any impact on the existing pattern.
The proposed Geyer Springs West District Plan suggests a
mixed commercial and industrial land use configuration, and
"C-4" is an appropriate reclassification for the recommended
land use. There are no outstandinq issues, and staff
supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning as filed.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as
filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4841-A
Owner: Winrock Development Company
Applicant: Joe D. White
Location: Kanis Road (at Pride Valley Road)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-2"
Purpose: Office
Size: 17.07 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family and Rock Creek Parkway,
Zoned "I-2"
South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified
East - Vacant, and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Office and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and
Unclassified
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone approximately 17 acres along
Kanis Road and the Rock Creek Parkway from "R-2" to
"O-2" for future office development. The property is
located east of where Kanis Road intersects the Rock
Creek Parkway and in an area that is just beginning to
experience the growth pressures associated with West
Little Rock. The most significant new development
found in the area is a single family subdivision,
Woodcreek, located to the east of the site in question.
Single family residential is the primary land use with
a high percentage of the land still undeveloped. All
the land area on the south side of Kanis is vacant as
are the "O-3" and "MF-18" tracts north of the Parkway.
In addition to the single family uses, there are
two nonconforming uses located in the general vicinity
that are involved in construction and have office
structures, but each also has some minor storage of
equipment. Another major use is a school which is
located to the south on Kanis Road. Zoning in the area
includes "R-2," "MF-18,' and "O-3" with some property
unclassified because of being outside the City limits.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
2. The land is vacant and wooded. The western edge of
what is identified as Tract 1 has some floodway
involvement.
3. Kanis Road is currently classified as a minor arterial
on the Master Street Plan, but its future status is
somewhat in question because of a proposed north/south
arterial, the possible extension of West 36th Street.
Should a new road be constructed, then it appears that
this segment of Kanis will be downgraded to a
collector. With either classification, some additional
right-of-way dedication will be necessary to conform to
the appropriate standard. Pride Valley is a collector,
and some dedication will be required.
4. Engineering Comments Are:
Floodway dedication for Rock Creek.
Street improvements and right-of-way dedication
are required for Kanis Road and Pride Valley Road.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. In June 1987, two rezoning applications, Z-4840 and
Z-4841, were filed for a majority of the land under
consideration. The previous request involved 12.1
acres and the present one has added for five acres for
a total of 17. One request was for an "O-3"
reclassification, and the other one requested a change
to "O-3" and "C-3." Z-4840 was withdrawn without
prejudice, and Z-4841, the "O-3" proposal was denied by
the Planning Commission. The matter was never appealed
to the Board of Directors. There was one objector
present at the Planning Commission public hearing, and
staff recommended denial of both requests because of
being in conflict with the adopted plan and other
concerns.
7. As with the previous request, the proposed "O-2"
classification conflicts with the adopted Upper Rock
Creek Land Use Plan and staff does not support the
rezoning. The plan recommends multifamily development
for both sides of Kanis Road and staff feels this is a
reasonable use of the land. This also includes the
May 17, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
land area that has frontage on the Rock Creek Parkway.
Maintaining a residential environment in the general
vicinity is desirable and should have a positive impact
on the area, including the developing single family
subdivision. Rezoning to "O-2" could have a negative
affect on the area and lead to a strip pattern along
Kanis Road from the Parkway back to the east. Another
factor that staff considered was the future status of
Kanis Road and the questions associated with it. If
Kanis is classified as a collector, then a residential
pattern, possibly some type of multifamily development,
or single family arrangement becomes a real
possibility. Finally, the request is premature because
there is an adequate amount of land available for
office development in the planning district, and there
is no real need for adding to the existing inventory.
Also, the uncertainities associated with the street
system make the rezoning untimely.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "O-2" rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There was one
interested resident in attendance. Mr. Tyne addressed the
Commission and said there were two property owners involved
in the proposed rezoning, Winrock who owns 14.5 acres and
CCMN Joint Venture with 2.5-acres. He went on to discuss
the surrounding area and in particular the Wood Creek
Subdivision being developed by Winrock. Mr. Tyne then
presented some photos of the area, including a nonconforming
use, which Mr. Tyne described as an eyesore. There were
some questions about the nonconforming property, and Kenny
Scott of the City Enforcement staff said the site and use, a
houseleveling company, was being investigated. Mr. Tyne
indicated that the plan was to develop a quality office park
and described the land. He then reviewed the previous
rezoning request and said the current application added five
acres. Mr. Tyne also said office was the most compatible
land use and would provide an adequate buffer for the Wood
Creek Subdivision and then submitted letters to the
Commission in support of the "O-2" rezoning. He went on to
say that some of the multifamily area shown on the plan was
being developed as single family and multifamily would be a
problem adjacent to the single family subdivision. Staff
then addressed the Commission and said the request was
premature and it conflicted with the adopted plan. Mr. Tyne
May 17, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
spoke and said Phase I of Wood Creek was finished and
discussed a proposed replat for the office area which could
be developed as an attractive office park. He also said
office was a better buffer than multifamily and there was no
timetable for platting the proposed office area. Staff
reviewed the Upper Rock Creek Plan and said the plan was
trying to avoid a strip development pattern. Additional
comments were offered, and Richard Massie voiced his support
for the proposed "O-2." Larry Page, a resident of the area,
addressed the Commission and said he was unsure of his
position. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
"O-2" request as filed subject to the necessary floodway and
right -of -way dedications. The motion passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
May 17, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z -5016
Owner: Noah Bates
Applicant: John A. Rees
Location: West 65th and Battle Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Commercial and Office Warehouse
Size: 4.22 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "MF-6"
South - Commercial and Warehousing, Zoned "I-2"
East - Auto Sales, Zoned "C-3"
West - Industrial, Zoned "I-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The site in question is located at the northeast corner of
West 65th and Battle Road, and the request is to rezone the
property from "R-2" to "C-4." At this time, the applicant
has indicated that an office warehouse development with some
commercial uses is proposed for the land. No specific plans
have been submitted, so no additional information is
available.
Zoning in the immediate area is very mixed and includes
"R-2," "R-4," "MF-6," "C-3," and "I-2." The site abuts
"C-3" to the east with "I-2" across West 65th and Battle
Road. The adjacent "C-3" site has an auto sales lot on it
which is a "C-4" use. The land use pattern follows the
existing zoning with several vacant tracts, the "MF-6" land
to the north and an "R-2" tract west of Battle Road. On the
south side of West 65th, there is a large "R-2" tract, but
it has a major use, an utility operation. A majority of the
properties that front West 65th have nonresidential uses
with the appropriate zoning so the proposed change conforms
to the area's existing development.
Staff's position is that the proposed rezoning is a
reasonable classification for some of the property. Because
of the residential zoning use to the north, staff recommends
that the north 100 feet of the site be left "R-2." This
May 17, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
would be consistent with the land to the east, because when
it was rezoned to "C-3," the north 100 feet remained "R-2."
Also on the west side of Battle Road, there is a single
family residence zoned "R-2" and a 100 -foot strip would
offer it some protection.
The "C-4" reclassification conforms to the adopted West 65th
District Plan which recommends a mix of commercial and
industrial uses.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Battle Road to
meet the standards for a collector, one-half of 60 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning except for
the north 100 feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, John Rees, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff reported that the file was incomplete
because all the necessary notification materials had not
been submitted. Mr. Rees said that the required notices
were not sent by certified mail, but the owner had obtained
a notarized letter from each property owner stating that
they were contacted before May 5, 1988. There was a
discussion about the bylaws, and Stephen Giles of the City
Attorney's Office said that the property owners had been
notified in this situation. A motion was made to waive the
bylaw requirement for notification of property owners by
certified mail. The vote was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, and 2 absent. Mr. Rees then discussed the request
and said that the owner had problems with the north 100 feet
being left "R-2" as recommended by the staff. He suggested
that the property could be buffered with the fence and
landscaping. There was a long discussion about a buffer and
protecting the residential areas to the north. After some
additional comments, Mr. Rees asked that the item be
deferred to the next meeting because of the buffer and to
allow him to discuss it with the owner. A motion was then
made to recommend approval of "C-4" with a 50-foot "OS"
strip along the north property line and an additional 50
feet of "OS" adjacent to the east and west boundaries with a
depth of 50 feet and if the owner does not agree with the
"OS" area, then the Planning Commission recommends denial.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5017
Owner: Chester A. and Alys W. Phillips
Applicant: Chester A. Phillips
Location: 6307 Kavanaugh
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "R-4"
Purpose: Duplex
Size: 0.14 acres
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Duplex, Zoned "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 6307 Kavanaugh from "R-2" to
"R-4" for the purpose of constructing a new duplex.
The lot is situated in a neighborhood that is primarily
zoned "R-2" Single Family, but there are other zoning
classifications found in the area. Adjacent to this
property is an "R-4" lot and at McKinley, there is
"R-5" zoning with a multifamily structure. Continuing
to the west at Alden Street, there are a number of lots
zoned "R-4," and at the intersection of Pine Valley and
McKinley, the zoning is "R-5" and "C-3." Single family
residences are the predominant land use, but there are
duplexes and multifamily units at the various "R-4" and
"R-5" locations. The blocks that front Alden Street
are a mix of a residential types and densities. The
"R-5" tract (Z-3820) north of the existing "C-3" was
rezoned several years ago, and the development appears
to have had little impact on the surrounding area.
2. The site is a 50' x 120' lot and and currently, there
is a condemned structure on it.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. Because of the existing zoning in the area and the
condition of the dwelling unit found on the lot,
reclassifying the property to "R-4" appears to be a
reasonable option for the location. There are certain
blocks in the general vicinity where allowing an "R-4"
rezoning would be undesirable, but with this particular
block, that is not the case. Rezoning the lot at
6307 Kavanaugh could also be viewed as a positive
action because of the potential for removing a
neighborhood eyesore while at the same time maintaining
the low density residential character of the area.
Staff feels the "R-4" reclassification will not create
any problems for the nearby properties, and supports
the proposed rezoning. (The owner is reminded that a
two-family structure is required to provide three
off-street parking spaces.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-4" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommend approval of "R-4" as requested.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-5018
Owner: M.D. Nash
Applicant: Same
Location: 8209 Geyer Springs Road
(at Dreher Lane)
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Service Station
Size: 0.582 acres
Existing Use: Service Station (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND 17SE AND ZONING:
North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone a nonconforming service station
from "R-2" to "C-4" at the northeast corner of Geyer Springs
and Dreher Lane. The service station is doing some repair
work, so a "C-4" reclassification is being asked for because
the "C-4" District allows "service station with limited
motor vehicle repair."
Geyer Springs Road between I-30 and Baseline Road is a mix
of nonresidential zoning districts, including "O-3," "C-1,"
"C-3," and "I-2" with the property in question being
surrounding by commercial zoning "C-1" and "C-3." The land
use pattern along this segment of Geyer Springs can best be
characterized as a commercial strip with the full range of
commercial uses. Because of the existing zoning and
development patterns, the proposed rezoning should not have
any impacts on the area. "C-4" is designed for arterials
like Geyer Springs, and staff endorses the rezoning request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning as filed.
May 17, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to recommended approval of the "C-4"
rezoning as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 absent.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V 0 T E R E C O R D
DATE
ITEM NUMBERS
?0t3TT7r S11R117I1TSTnM
7T 1-t
'.o/AY" ivrlxE �f-� 3SENT ABSTAIN
W. Riddick, III
MENIONINE
won
ON
INNEEO
MEN
EMENNEEME,
W. Rector
k�-mmmmm
mmommmoomm
MENEM
moommmommmo
T-. Grace Jones
MONSON
ME
NONE
E
mom=
mmommmmommoom
somommmom
EMEMENSEEME
omm
moom
Emmomommomm
7T 1-t
'.o/AY" ivrlxE �f-� 3SENT ABSTAIN
May 17, 1988
There being no further business before the Planning
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Date
Chairman Secretary