Loading...
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