Loading...
pc_02 23 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD February 23, 1988 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being ten in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the January 12, 1988, meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: David Jones Walter Riddick III Bill Rector Martha Miller Stephen Leek Rose Collins Jerilyn Nicholson Richard Massie John Schlereth Fred Perkins T. Grace Jones Members Absent: None City Attorney: Stephen Giles February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Z-4103-A Owner: University Properties, Inc., and Bill Lusk Applicant: John L. Burnett Location: Broadmoor North Phase II (Northmoor, Charlotte and Garfield Drives) Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "O-2" to "O-3" Purpose: Office Size: 12.95 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Church, Office, and Commercial, Zoned "R-2, "R-5," and "O-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Church and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 10.5 acres (12.9 acres including the street right -of -way) in the Broadmoor North Subdivision from "R-2" and "O-2" to "O-3" for some type of office park development. No specific plans have been submitted, so it is unknown how the lots will be developed and/or marketed. Broadmoor North is located to the southwest of the intersection of West 12th and University Avenue. There are a total of 45 lots included in this request, and none of them have any direct relationship to either West 12th or University Avenue which is critical to an office area this size. Without access to a major street and having to utilize residential streets for traffic circulation, the proposed "O-3" rezoning is questionable. Also without the high visibility gained from having some frontage on a major street, the potential for this type of land use to work is marginal at best. Another factor that must be carefully considered when reviewing this request is the desirability of allowing a nonresidential rezoning to encroach into an established single family neighborhood. When selecting February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued a viable office site, there are some basic criteria that should be considered, and that does not appear to be the case with this request. 2. There are 45 lots and two streets, Garfield and Charlotte Drives, involved with this request. All the lots are vacant, and the site is relatively flat. The lots under consideration have frontage on either Garfield or Charlotte. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. As of this writing, there have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There is an apparent legal issue allied with this rezoning and that is the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor North. The Bill of Assurance.restricts the land use to detached single family residences so it appears that the Bill of Assurance will have to be amended at some point, if the rezoning is granted. To amend the Bill of Assurance, it takes 70 percent of the property owners. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires that the grantor's, Winrock Development Company, approval must first be obtained before any amendment can be made as long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the subdivision. It is the staff's understanding that Winrock still. owns several lots within the subdivision. 6. Originally, the area under consideration was part of the University Park Urban Renewal Plan which was in effect from 1964 to 1984 and expired in June 1984. The Urban Renewal Plan also restricted use of the land to detached single family units. The lots are now a part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision which was approved in the late 1970's. In October 1983, a rezoning request from "R-2" and "C-3" to "MF-12," "O-2," and "O-3" was filed for basically the same tract of land. The first application included approximately 12 acres and properties that have frontage on both West 12th and University Avenue. The issue was deferred several times, and the request which had been amended to "O-2" for all the lots was finally heard by the Planning Commission in May and June of 1984. At each of the hearings, there were objectors from the area who expressed concerns with traffic, property values, and impacts on the residential neighborhood. After much debate a modified proposal was approved for 5.2 acres of "O-2," the existing zoning pattern. Winrock February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued Development Company was opposed to the 1984 rezoning request. 7. Staff's position is that the proposed "O-3" reclassification is inappropriate for the location and does not support the request. Some of the major issues have been presented in other sections, but there are a number of other concerns. - The appropriateness of filing an application for nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted to detached single family use. - The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle Park Plan which shows single family residential for the lots. - The possible encroachment of nonresidential uses into a viable single family neighborhood. - The request appears to be speculative in nature. - Access is totally inadequate for the proposed rezoning, and the use of residential streets is undesirable. The proposal is contrary to good land use and planning because of various factors, and the "O-3" reclassification could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) The applicant was represented by Pete Hornibrook. There was one objector in attendance. Staff reported to the Commission that the applicant submitted a written request for deferral, but it was received after the five working days as required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. There was some discussion about the request and the objector said that he was not opposed to deferring the rezoning. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request for a 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) The applicant, John Burnett, was present. There were no objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, addressed the Commission and said that "O-2" would be more desirable for the "R-2" property north of the existing "O-2" and that the lots to the south should remain "R-2." Mr. Burnett then discussed the rezoning proposal on the property. He told the Commission that one reason for not wanting an "O-2" reclassification was the various utility easements and the inability to construct over them. Mr. Burnett said that "O-3" was more suitable for the proposed type of development and suggested that some type of condition restricting lot size could be made a part of the rezoning approval. The proposed condition would require the acreage in question to be replatted into 14,000 square foot lots the minimum site area for the "O-3" District. Mr. Burnett then went on to say that he had met with the one objector who attended the first public hearing and the resident indicated that the neighborhood was no longer concerned with an "O-3" development but rather with small housing units. There was some discussion about the traffic concerns, and Mr. Burnett said that he would be willinq to cul-de-sac Garfield Drive at the end of the proposed office lots. Mike Batie of the Engineering staff said that a cul-de-sac was a reasonable solution to the problem. Mr. Burnett told the Commission that the area was a viable location for a small garden office park and there was a demand for one level office buildings in Little Rock. Additional comments were made about the differences in the "O-2" and "O-3" Districts including the permitted heights in the two zoning classifications. Stephens Giles of the City Attorney's Office said that requiring 14,000 square foot lots was a reasonable condition to attach to the rezoning approval. There was some discussion about the final plat and other issues. A motion was then offered which recommended approval of the "O-3" rezoning with the condition that a preliminary plat be filed with 14,000 square foot lots as the minimum lot size and then a final plat be filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no, and 0 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. B - 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 February 23, 1988 Item No. B - 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. February 23, 1988 Item No. B - 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. February 23, 1988 Item No. C - Z-4933 Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: Kanis Road at Rock Creek Parkway Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 8.85 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Church, Zoned "O-1" and "O-3" South - Single Family, Unclassified East - Office and Industrial, Unclassified West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified STAFF ANALYSIS: The rezoning request is to rezone property to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial use. The site is currently outside the City limits so it is unclassified; the property abuts the City limits on the north side. The land is vacant and located at the southeast corner of where Kanis Road intersects the Rock Creek Parkway. The site under consideration is part of the Upper Rock Creek District Plan area which recommends the location for commercial development. With this type of land use designation, the proposed "C-3" reclassification is appropriate, but staff feels that the rezoning action should be deferred for several reasons. The first and primary concern is the location of an arterial which the land use plan places along the east boundary of the tract. As with Item No. 2, Z-4470-A, this alignment has not been finalized and needs to be looked at in the recommended traffic impact study for the area. Also with the pending reclassifications, review of the entire street network should be part of the study to avoid any circulation problems in the future. The other issue has to do with the annexation of the property. In the past, the policy has been that the annexation petition must be filed with the County before the Planning Commission can act on the February 23, 1988 Item No. C - Continued request. Staff has not received any documentation to this effect, and the issue should be deferred until the proper filing is completed. One final plan element that needs to be mentioned is the Master Parks Plan. Some of the land in question is identified on the plan as Priority 2 Proposed Open Space. The priority system refers to the need for acquisition relative to other streams throughout the City. Because of the current rate of development in this part of Little Rock, all the waterways in West Little Rock could be categorized as Priority I. Another Parks Plan issue that could affect this property is the recommended open space acquisition width for Rock Creek. The plan suggests a minimum acquisition width of 350 feet for Rock Creek, and it is possible that could include some of this site. The Engineering staff is in the process of reviewing what is needed for this area in terms of acquisition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request be deferred until the traffic study is completed and the annexation issue is addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) Staff reported that the applicant was in agreement with deferring the item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed to be deferred and the applicant agreed to deferring the issue. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request for another deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. D - Z-4945-A Owner: Unity Missionary Baptist Church Applicant: Mark S. Guinee Location: 1223 South Garfield Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "R -5" to "O-3" Purpose: Church - Future Expansion Size: 2.8 acres Existing Use: Vacant and Church SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-5" and " C-3 " South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "O-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal before the Commission is to rezone two tracts to "O-3" for an existing church to accommodate future expansion plans. The church facility is located on the South Garfield site and the property that fronts West 12th is currently vacant, but the church does use it for parking. An "O-3" request was filed because a church is permitted by right in this office district, and the church does not want to put itself in a position of applying for a Conditional Use Permit every time any new construction is proposed. Zoning in the area includes "R-2," "R-4," "O-2," "O-3" and "C-3" with the two parcels abutting "R-2," "O-3" and "C-3." The West 12th and University intersection is heavily built up with office and commercial development. Directly to the south and east is the Broadmoor North Subdivision, with the lots closest to the sites under consideration vacant. The developed lots in Broadmoor North are located along Cleveland and at the southern ends of Charlotte and South Garfield. To the north, there is a well established single family neighborhood that is almost completely developed. Another significant land use in the immediate vicinity is a major recreation complex located to the west of Cleveland Street. This area includes a public park and several quasi-public facilities. February 23, 1988 Item No. D - Continued 2. The site on West 12th is vacant and the property on South Garfield is the location of the existing church facility. 3. Based on the current Master Street Plan, there are no right-of-way requirements or plan issues. 4. Engineering has requested that there be only one access point on West 12th. Also, Engineering has indicated that possible right-of-way dedication and street improvements will be necessary because of the proposed University Avenue project which is still being designed. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. Both parcels were involved with previous rezoning and Board of Adjustment actions a number of years ago. 7. This area is part of the Boyle Park District Plan which recommends a nonresidential pattern for properties along West 12th and University with single family residential uses to the south and west. Based on this land use concept, staff supports the "O-3" reclassification for the site on West 12th, but not for the church property on South Garfield. This position is consistent with other rezoning proposals in the area including Item B, Z-4103-A, on this agenda. Staff feels that the "R-2" zoning within the Broadmoor North Subdivision needs to be maintained to protect the existing developed residential lots. The existing "O-2" zoning within the subdivision is totally inappropriate and should have never been granted. An "O-3" reclassification is not necessary for the church to expand because that can be accomplished through the Conditional Use Permit process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "O-3" for the property with frontage on West 12th and denial of "O-3" for the tract on South Garfield. February 23, 1988 Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) The applicant, Mark Guinee, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Guinee described the property and said the "0 -3" request was filed because the church wants a classification that allows a church by right. He also said the church felt it would not be beneficial to go through the Conditional Use Permit process each time an expansion was proposed. At this point, Mr. Guinee read a prepared statement that explained the church's position in detail. There was a long discussion about various issues. David Ward, Minister of the church, addressed the Commission and said the church has been at its current location since 1954, and there were no plans to move. Mr. Ward said one of the primary reasons for the rezoning request was to simplify the process for future development. Additional comments were then offered by both Mr. Guinee and Mr. Ward. There was some discussion about the possibility of acting on the West 12th Street site and deferring action on the South Garfield property. Mr. Ward then agreed to split the request by deferring the South Garfield site. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "O-3" rezoning for the property on West 12th Street and defer the "O-3" request for the tract of land on South Garfield to the February 23, 1988, hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) The applicant, Mark Guinee, was present. There were no objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, modified the staff's position and recommended approval of the "O-3" request because of the Planning Commission's action on the "O-3" rezoning request for Item A, Z-4103-A. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "O-3" rezoning as filed. The motion was approved. The vote: 10 ayes, 1 no, and 0 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z-506-A Owner: Don Kirkpatrick Applicant: David P. Henry Location: Asher Avenue and Mary Street Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "I-2" Purpose: Industrial Size: 0.32 acres ± Existing Use: Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "I-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "I-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request before the Commission is to rezone the southeast corner of Asher Avenue and Mary Street from "C-3" to "I-2" for an unspecified industrial use. The site, two 50-foot lots, is currently occupied by a single building on the north two - thirds and the remaining area is covered by concrete. There is also a paved area in front of the building that is used for parking. Zoning along this segment of Asher Avenue is a mix of "C-3" and "I-2" with a majority of the area south of Asher Avenue zoned "I-2." To the southwest of the property in question, there is some existing "R-3" zoning; this area has been impacted by previous actions and the proposed rezoning will not have any effect on the "R-3" lots. The land use pattern includes residential, commercial, and industrial which is very similar to the existing zoning. In addition to the developed lots, there are also some vacant parcels. It appears that the proposed rezoning is reasonable and compatible with the Asher Avenue Corridor to the east of Fair Park Boulevard/Mabelvale Pike. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Additional right-of-way dedication for Asher Avenue - 50-foot from the centerline. February 23, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued 2. Mary Street needs a right-of-way of 30 feet from the centerline so if the existing right-of-way is deficient additional dedication will be required. 3. With the issuance of the next building permit, street improvements for Asher Avenue and Mary Street will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to additional right -of -way for Asher Avenue being dedicated. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 2 - Z-3645-B Owner: Charles and Elizabeth Menard Applicant: Phillip E. Kaplan Location: Rodney Parham and Green Mountain Drive Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-2" Purpose: Commercial Size: 1.0 acres ± Existing Use: Commercial (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-24" East - Cemetery, Zoned "R-2" West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property under consideration is located at the southeast corner of Rodney Parham and Green Mountain Drive, and the request is to rezone it from "R-2" to "C-2." The property is occupied by a small commercial center which is a nonconforming use. Zoning in the area includes "R-2," "MF-24," "R -5," "O-3," "C-3," and "C-4" with the existing commercial zoning found to the east of Green Mountain Drive. The land use pattern is very diverse with a mix of multifamily, office and commercial. Other uses in the immediate vicinity are a cemetery to the east and single family residences to the northwest. The property in question abuts "MF-24" on the south and "R-2" on the east with "R-5" across Green Mountain Drive and "R-2" to the north. 2. The site is 1.0 acres in size, and the existing structure is L-shaped with approximately 8,880 square feet and has a number of different uses. There is a pump island in the parking lot and a paved ditch along the north boundary of the property. 3. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required for both Rodney Parham and Green Mountain Drive. February 23, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued 4. Engineering Comments: Rodney Parham requires a right-of-way of 50 feet from the centerline. Green Mountain Drive requires a right-of-way of 40 feet from the centerline. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. History on this site dates back to 1976, at which time the first commercial rezoning application was made. The request was approved by the Planning Commission but denied by the Board of Directors. Again in 1981 and 1982, two more requests were filed for commercial reclassifications. Each time the requests were supported by the Planning Commission but denied by the Board of Directors. Prior to the 1981 application, the existing center was constructed while outside the City limits and then it was annexed. With the previous rezoning request, there was some opposition expressed by the residential neighborhood to the northwest. The earlier rezoning requests were in conflict with the Suburban Development Plan which covered the area at that time. 7. In July 1987, the City adopted the Pleasant Valley District Plan which includes the location in question. The plan recognizes the existing use and identifies the site for commercial land use. Because of the plan element, staff's position is that the proposed "C-2" reclassification is reasonable and supports the request. It appears that the development has not impacted the area and "C-2" will not change that. "C-2" is a site plan review district and its minimum site area is five acres, but the parcel is a lot of record so the five-acre requirement does not apply to this situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-2" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Phillip Kaplan, was present. There were no objectors. There was some discussion about the right-of-way dedication, and Mr. Kaplan said that the owners will work with the City because of some concerns with the Green Mountain-Drive right-of-way dedication. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-2" request subject to February 23, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued dedication of additional right-of-way for Rodney Parham and Green Mountain Drive. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-4963 Owner: North Star Holding Co., Inc. Applicant: Same By: Bill Bruton Location: 10601 I -30 Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Truck terminal Size: 1.84 acres ± Existing Use: Truck terminal SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - I -30 right-of-way, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Industrial, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of an enforcement action by the City. The existing use, a truck terminal, was established on "R-2" land, and the owner was instructed to file the appropriate application or discontinue the operation. The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "I-2" to allow the use to continue. Along this portion of I-30, the City has endorsed a mixed development concept by supporting both commercial and industrial rezonings. A good example of this can be found on the north side of I-30, directly to the north of this site, where the existing zoning is "C-3," "C-4," and "I-2." The proposed "I-2" rezoning is compatible with the existing land use pattern, and staff feels that the request is appropriate for the location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning request as filed. February 23, 1988 Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I-2" rezoning as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-4973 Owner: Consolidated Leasing, Inc. Applicant: Grady L. Wahlquist Location: 3021 Cantrell Road Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Auto leasing with storage Size: 0.89 acres Existing Use: Speciality auto leasing SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "O-2" and "I-2" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone 3021 Cantrell Road from "C-3" to "C-4" to permit auto leasing with outside storage/display. Over the years, the property has been utilized primarily for auto related uses including a service station and a speciality auto service, the most recent use. The site has one building on it and is currently unoccupied. Even though the property has had a variety of similar uses to the one being proposed, the lot does not have nonconforming status for outside display according to the City's Zoning Enforcement Office. Zoning in the area is a mix of residential and nonresidential with the site in question abutting "R-2" and "C-3." Across Cantrell Road, the current zoning is "O-2" and "I-2." The existing land use includes single family, multifamily, office, and commercial uses ranging from eating places to a tire service center. To the west, there is an established single family neighborhood, but the proposed reclassification will not impact it because there is a grade difference and the prior auto uses did not create any problems. The Heights/Hillcrest District Plan recommends a commercial pattern for this portion of Cantrell Road but does not suggest that it be restricted to any particular commercial classification. Considering the location and the existing development, staff views the "C-4" request as being a reasonable option. February 23, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Access points to be reviewed by the City Engineering staff . 2. A right-of-way of 50 feet from the centerline for Cantrell Road. This will require dedication of additional right-of-way because the survey reflects existing right-of-way of 60 feet, 30 feet from the centerline. 3. A 20 to 25-foot drainage easement adjacent to the west property line is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) The applicant was represented by Henry Osterloh, an attorney. David McCreery, an adjacent property owner, was present and expressed an interest in the case. Mr. Osterloh spoke briefly and said there were no problems with the dedication of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. Mr. McCreery said he was not necessarily opposed to the use but did have some concerns about development specifics such as lighting. There were a number of comments made by the Planning Commission and staff responded to several concerns. Mr. McCreery spoke again and said he was concerned with the rezoning because of not restricting the use and then went on to discuss the PUD process. There was a long discussion about "C-4," and Mr. Osterloh tried to answer some questions. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement staff responded to a comment about the site's nonconforming status. The Planning Commission then discussed the possibility of deferring the item, and Mr. Osterloh agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 8, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-4974 Owner: APAC -AR- KANSAS, Inc. Applicant: E. Louis Schuette Location: Mabelvale Pike and Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 2.0 acres Existing Use: Concrete Block Manufacturing SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Public and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-4" East - Vacant, Commercial, and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-4" West - Public, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone two lots from "R-2" to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property currently has a nonconforming industrial use on it, and it is the staff's understanding that the existing use will be relocated in the near future. The site has several structures on it that are used for the manufacture of concrete blocks, and a large portion of the property is paved for storage purposes. Most of the immediate area is zoned "R-2" because of being annexed to the City several years ago. Because of the "R-2" zoning, a high percentage of the existing uses are nonconforming and include both commercial and industrial. The property abuts "R-2" and "C-4," the most recent rezoning change in the area. The land to the north is also a nonconforming industrial operation. In addition to the commercial and industrial uses, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportion Department is located directly across from Mabelvale Pike. Staff believes that the area will continue to develop with a mix of commercial and industrial uses with a "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" zoning pattern. In this particular situation, a "C-3" classification is probably the most appropriate because of the site's location and its visibility. February 23, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Access needs to be reviewed by the Engineering staff. 2. A right-of-way of 40 feet from the centerline is required for Mabelvale Pike. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" request 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 subject to dedication of additional right-of -way for Mabelvale Pike. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 6 - Z-4975 Owner: Real Properties Applicant: C. Ray Gash Location: Mann Road Area /MoPac Railroad Tracks Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Concrete Block Manufacturing Size: 13.5 acres Existing Use: Concrete Block Manufacturing SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R 2" and "I-2" South - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2" East - Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: Currently, the site is a nonconforming use, a concrete block manufacturing plant, and the issue is to rezone the 13.5 acres from "R-2" to "I-2." The request is being made to allow future expansion of the existing facility and to facilitate the sale of the property. The site abuts railroads tracks on the south and "I-2" on the west with "R-2" and "I-2" zoning adjacent to the north property line. The "I -2" parcels to the west and north are vacant, and the "R-2" property is a nonconforming industrial use. Across Mann Road to the south, there is some "I-2" land, and it is all occupied by various industrial uses. To the northeast, there is an established single family area zoned "R-2." The neighborhood has very little direct relationship to the property in question, and the "I-2" rezoning should only have a minimal impact, if any, on the development. The existing industrial uses appear to have not created any problems for the area. Being adjacent to the railroad tracks limits the potential use of land, and the "I-2" reclassification is a reasonable proposal for the site. February 23, 1988 Item No. 6 - Continued ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Engineering has expressed some concerns about the access because of the railroad crossing that is utilized by this property. Discussion with the Engineering Office should be initiated as soon as possible, because it appears that the crossing will need to be improved prior to any additional development occurring on the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I-2" rezoning as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-4976 Owner: M.D. Nash Applicant: Same Location: 10325 I-30 Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Service Station Size: 0.70 acres Existing Use: Service Station SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - I -30 right-of-way, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The property in question is occupied by a service station that does some vehicle repair. The proposal is to expand the facility and to accomplish this the property has to be rezoned from "C-3" to "C-4." In the "C-3" District, "service stations with limited motor vehicle repair" are only conditional uses while the "C-4" District allows them by right. Because of the site's location, the owner feels that the rezoning approach is reasonable and nothing would be gained by a site plan review through the conditional use permit process. The proposed rezoning conforms to the Otter Creek District Plan, and there are no outstanding issues. Staff feels that a "C-4" reclassifcation is the appropriate option and supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning 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. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. oATe,;/4s/tf ZONING MEMBER W.Riddick, III J.Sch le re th R.Massie M.Miller J.Nicholson w.Rector S._Leek. T-. Grace Jones O. J. Jones R.Collins f.Perk ins ✓AYE @NAYE P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS SUBDIVISION fr e C: D I ;2_ 3 (/ V V V V V V V V J/ V V V V v V v-- V V V v V V V l,,,- v V' v v ✓ l/ V ,_, t,/ l,./' V v V v V 1,/ v' V v J/ V V V V V I 1...-"'V V V V V V V ft ff V IJ 6) A v v' V v V V V V V .0 V V 0 V V V v ✓V V v' V v v V--�;.; A--p -f"A_+­ADSENT _t:l.ABSTAIN ,,s-to 7 V V V V V Jr V V V v V I/' ... v V I,/ V V V J/ v fl /-l A V v t/ v V V v V . , - "'"' ,.. ' I I I t February 23, 1988 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2 p.m. Date Chairman Secretary