Loading...
pc_09 20 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being seven in number. II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes of the August 9, 1988 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members present: David Jones Jerilyn Nicholson John Schlereth John McDaniel Fred Perkins Martha Miller Stephen Leek Walter Riddick, III Members absent: Rose Collins Bill Rector One (1) open position City Attorney: Stephen Giles September 20, 1988 Item A - Z-5032 Owner: Jim Rhodes, Dean Roberts and Gary Lee Applicant: Andrew Hicks Location: Sibley Hole Road (north of Baseline Road) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Office and warehouse Size: 0.27 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Arkansas Highway and Transportation Dept. Facility, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: A "R-2" and "I-2" rezoning change has been requested for the small parcel of land, 0.27 acres on Sibley Hole Road for the purposes of providing access to the larger "I-2" tract located to the southwest. The access is proposed to be a public street constructed across the property from Sibley Hole to the "I-2" land. Since filing the application, a slight modification has been made which involves deleting a portion of the property to the south and adding some land to the west. All this does is change to configuration of the site. It will still be used to provide access. Several years ago, the Otter Creek District Plan was amended to identify the area in question for industrial use so the "I-2" rezoning conforms to the adopted plan. The plan change was the result of the "I-2" reclassification located to the southwest. The "I-2" rezoning is a minor change and staff supports the request. The only issue of any significance is a platting matter. A plat has been filed for review but will have to be modified because of the new land area. September 20, 1988 Item No. A Z-5032 (Continued) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) Staff reported to the Commission that the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the August 9, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 9, 1988) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the September 20, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I-2" request as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. B - Z -5056 Owner: Al Porter Applicant: Al Porter Location: 2804 Peyton Street Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "C -1" Purpose: Single family and food store Size: 0.3 acres Existing Use: Single family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The owner of 2804 Peyton Street applied for a Privilege License to operate a small business out of his residence. The license was denied because of the residential zoning and the applicant was instructed to file a commercial rezoning request, "R-3" to "C-1." The site is approximately 2 1/2 blocks north of Asher Avenue in an area that is primarily residential in terms of land use. To the south and southeast, the zoning is a mix of "O-3," "C-3," and "I-2" with the commercial and industrial zoning being restricted to lots between West 29th Street and Asher Avenue. The nearest nonresidential zoning to the property in question is the half block north of West 29th and east of Peyton that is zoned "O-3;" all the "O-3" lots along West 29th are occupied by residential uses. North and west of the lot the zoning is "R-3" but there are some isolated locations zoned for commercial purposes. Land use around 2804 Peyton is residential and the nonresidential uses are located closer to Asher Avenue. The existing "O-3" line north of West 29th has been in place for many years and has established a definite zoning boundary between residential and nonresidential uses. September 20, 1988 Item No. B - Z-5056 (Continued) 2. The site is an 87' x 150' lot with one single family residence and an accessory structure on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 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 of neighborhood position on the site. 7. As with other commercial rezoning efforts in older residential neighborhoods, Staff has a number of concerns with the current request and is opposed to the proposed "C-1" rezoning. The surrounding neighborhood appears to be fairly stable and a commercial reclassification could have a negative impact on the area and lead to other undesirable rezonings. In this type of neighborhood, the potential for long -term damage to the area is too great and outweighs any short term benefits or justifications for the proposed rezoning. Finally, the "C-1" rezoning is in conflict with the adopted Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which maintains the residential character of the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 9, 1988) Staff reported that the rezoning request needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the item to the September 20, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 1, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 Item No. C POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHWAY 10 AND ROCK CREEK CORRIDORS 1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide a revised statement of those policies for which there was consensus, strong support, or no objection at the joint meeting of the Board of Directors and Planning Commission on August 5, 1988. In addition, the report includes various policy implementation tools to be examined by staff. 2. Recommended Policies The following policies should be explored in greater depth with a view toward implementation. a. Increase Public Participation In Costs of Arterial Streets In order to meet future transportation needs, to avoid the need to rezone property to recover arterial street costs, and to distribute the costs of arterial streets among the private and public sectors, the following steps should be taken: (1) Initiate Joint Part icipation Program to Assist Development The City of Little Rock should initiate a "joint participation” program to provide public funds needed for street improvement costs beyond the obligations of private developers, in accordance with the Boundary Street Ordinance. (2) Survey Other Cities to Identify Street Improvement Programs A survey of other cities should be conducted to identify various financial means used to pay for street improvements. The extent of "joint participation" programs should be identified together with taxes and fees collected for arterial streets. SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 Item No. C (Continued) (3) Formulate Legislative Package to Increase Street Funding The City of Little Rock should work with other cities through the Municipal League to formulate a legislative package to increase funding possibilities for arterial street improvements in Arkansas cities. Examples include increasing the City share of the current millage tax, impact fees, city-formed improvement districts, and allocation of State funds to urban highway projects. (4) Expand Advanced Engineering Program City funding for advanced engineering should be increased to show how Master Street Plan details can be worked out with individual developers and to provide a basis for advanced right-of-way acquisition. (5 ) Expand Advanced Right-of-Way Acquisition City funding for advanced right-of-way acquisition along arterial streets should be increased. For example, additional rights-of-way at critical intersections should be acquired to allow for construction of future grade separations on the Rock Creek Parkway - Chenal Mountain Parkway. b. Require Tie-on Fees from Developments Benefiting from Arterial Street Improvements The City should establish requirements for paybacks to improvement districts, the City, the State, or developers which have constructed arterial street improvements. For example, property owners not adjacent to arterials would no longer get a free ride, but would contribute to arterial costs when a building permit is obtained. Also, an in -lieu fee would be provided by a benefiting developer after the public construction of an arterial street improvement. The current exemption for development after a street project is completed would be eliminated and provision made to require in -lieu fees to reimburse the public. SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 Item No. C (Continued) C. Establish Design Standards (1) Control Access to Arterials Access control standards specified for Rock Creek - Chenal Mountain Parkway (Ordinance No. 15,239) should be strictly followed. In addition, new standards and regulations should be formulated to provide for proper access control along all arterial streets. (2) Allow Commercial Development with Higher Standards Additional commercial zoning beyond that shown on land use plans should be allowed if increased design requirements are met. This would involve primarily the expansion of existing commercial nodes shown on adopted land use plans. The additional design requirements would include buffer areas, setbacks, height limitations, minimum site sizes, floor area ratios, and access controls. The additional zoned areas would have to be compatible with adjacent land uses and could not constitute spot zoning. Designation of a specific use(s) through the PUD process would be desirable where the additional commercial zoning is adjacent to existing residential developments. (3) Acquire 120' Minimum Right-of-Way Along Parkways A minimum right -of -way of 120' should be required along the Rock Creek Parkway - Chenal Mountain Parkway, to allow future widening to six (6) lanes. (4) Review Master Street Plan Classifications The classifications of arterials in the Master Street Plan should be reviewed as information becomes available from special studies, such as the 36th Street interchange study, and from other sources. This is necessary to assure that right-of-way dedications, right-of-way acquisitions, and boundary street improvements will meet future needs. SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 Item No. C (Continued) (5) Review Design Standards The design standards for the Rock Creek Parkway, Highway 10 and other arterials should be reviewed in light of projected traffic demand, anticipated commercial and office development, and the potential need for grade separations. Particular attention should be given to sections of the Rock Creek Parkway and Highway 10 where capacity deficiencies are expected. As part of this review, the establishment of scenic corridor regulations and special landscaping provisions should be considered. d. Public Transit and Other Transportation Options Consideration should always be given to transit, park and ride, car and van pooling, transit incentives, and staggered work hours as means of meeting future transportation needs, relieving congestion, saving money, and providing for additional trip volume. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) Staff outlined the purpose of the report. After a brief discussion, on motion of Walter Riddick, seconded by Martha Miller, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the report. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 abstentions (Nicholson and ,Jones), 2 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z- 2908-C Owner: Louis and June Nalley Applicant: Terry Lee Eustice Location: 5908 West 19th Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial accessory building Size: 0.33 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Multifamily, Zoned "R-6" East - Single family, Zoned "R-2" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: This rezoning request was filed after the applicant attempted to obtain a building permit for a commercial accessory building. The applicant operates a retail establishment located directly to the west, across Coleman Creek, and the proposed structure is for additional storage with some of the site to be utilized for parking. The City's zoning maps show the property to be zoned "R-2" and the applicant was instructed to file the appropriate rezoning request. For a number of years the property was used for a car wash so there was some discussion between the applicant and the Staff about the possibility of a mapping error. (The car wash structure has been removed.) After reviewing several Board of Adjustment case files for the site, Staff has determined that the western lot is zoned "C-3" and the accessory building is permitted. The old files indicate "F "(C-3) zoning on the western lot and residential zoning on the eastern lot. The car wash was placed on the western lot and the Board of Adjustment issues were for setback variances. Because of the Staff's decision, the applicant will be able to secure a building permit for the structure but would like to rezone the remaining lot which is 50' x 144' and has a West 19th Street orientation. (The applicant will also have to receive a floodplain variance from the Board of Adjustment to place a building on the lot.) September 20, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z-2908-C (Continued) Across West 19th Street is a multifamily development zoned "R-6" and the zoning to the west is "C-3." To the east, the lots are zoned "R-2" and face Grant Street so they have a rear yard relationship to the site under consideration. Based on the existing zoning, Coleman Creek has created a boundary between residential and non - residential zoning with the only exception being the lot on West 19th Street. It appears that the eastern lot is functioning as a zoning buffer for the residential lots to the east and Staff feels that the "R-2" zoning status should not be changed. Rezoning the remaining land would move the commercial line adjacent to the "R-2" lots and could have an adverse impact on the residential area. The lot is platted so it could have a separate use on it. Should the applicant want to use the property for additional parking, then there is a Board of Adjustment procedure that can be utilized to permit the off-site parking. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Additional right-of-way will be required for the Coleman Creek Drainage Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" zoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) The applicant, Terry Eustice, was present. There were no objectors. Staff recommended that the item be deferred because an incorrect address was used on the notice form to the property owners within 200 feet. Terry Eustice addressed the notification issue and said that an additional letter was mailed with the notice. Mr. Eustice said that he had not provided Staff with a copy of the letter but could. There was a long discussion and a motion was made to defer the item to the end of the meeting to allow Mr. Eustice to get a copy of the letter /form. The motion was seconded and approved. The matter was then continued at the end of the agenda. Terry Eustice discussed the request and reviewed the proposal to place an accessory building on the property for storage purposes. Mr. Eustice said that the Coleman Creek Drainage project would probably require additional land area from the western lot and because of that, the remaining September 20, 1988 Item No. 1- Z-2908-C (Continued) "R -2" lot needed to be rezoned. He told the Commission that he wanted to place a 30 x 40 foot building on an existing slab which encroaches onto the "R-2" lot. Richard Wood of the Planning Staff provided some history on the site and made additional comments. Jerry Gardner, City Engineering office, said that there were no existing easements at this location for the creek. There was a long discussion about various issues including the need for a side yard variance. A motion was then offered to defer the request to after the October Board of Adjustment meeting and to recommend that the Board of Adjustment grant any necessary variances subject Engineering's approval. After some comments, the motion was withdrawn. A second motion was then made to recommend approval of "C-3" for the site, less and except the east 20 feet of Lot 12 which will remain "R-2." The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 2 - Z-4639-A Owner: The Lutheran Church Applicant: Floyd H. Fulkerson Location: 700 block of Bowman Road Request: Rezone from "MF-12" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 4.54 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Right-of-way for the Parkway Extension, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "MF-12" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "MF-12" (The applicant has requested that the item be withdrawn from consideration. The Planning Commission will need to vote on the request because the issue has been advertised for a Public Hearing.) PLANNING ACTION: (September 20, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the item be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made to withdraw the issue without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-4807-A Owner: John W. Shackleford Applicant: Mark Spradley Location: Shackleford Farm (north of Kanis Road) Request: Rezone from "R -2" and other districts to various districts Purpose: Mixed uses Size: 172.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "MF-18" South - Vacant, Church, Single Family & Commercial, Zoned "MF-18," "O-2," "O-3," and "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2," "MF-6," "O-2," and "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue before the Commission is to rezone 172 acres to several different classifications. The proposed districts and acreage are: "R-3" - 33.79 acres "MF-6" - 42.56 acres "MF-12" - 32.03 acres "MF-18" - 12.59 acres "O-2" - 40.15 acres "C-3" - 10.94 acres Also included in the request is an "OS" area for 19.03 acres. The property was initially zoned as part of the large Deltic rezoning, approved March 1987, and is currently classified as "R-2," "R-3," "MF-6," "MF-12," and "O-2." During the Staff's initial review of the request, a number of issues or concerns were raised. They included: The need to coordinate with other major property owners in the vicinity because of the potential for additional September 20, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-4807-A (Continued) large scale rezoning proposals and the overall direction of the area. Potential conflicts with the Master Street Plan. Lack of information about the street layout and types; status of the streets are not identified on the proposed zoning plan. How will the dedication of the necessary right-of-ways for the streets be accomplished. A traffic impact study /analysis needs to be submitted to help address questions about the proposed street system. The status of several parcels that are owned by other individuals who are not part of the application. How the zoning proposal conforms to the Land Use Plan and how it will impact other development plans. Do land use and population projections for the area justify additional multifamily, office and commercial acreage as proposed in the rezoning request. Also, will some of the increases in the densities change the basic development concept. Until these issues are addressed or additional information is submitted, Staff feels that a deferral is appropriate at this time. Staff is of the opinion that making a recommendation now would be premature and done without benefit of all the necessary information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the December 13, 1988 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) Staff reported that the applicant had agreed to a deferral as recommended by Staff. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 13, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-4940-A Owner: Robert O. Smith, Jr., Trustee Applicant: John Collins Rogers Location: County Line Road and Vimy Ridge Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-1" Purpose: Commercial Size: 2.5 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant (Saline County) East - Vacant, Zoned "C-1" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone 2.5 acres at the northwest corner of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road from "R-2" to "C-1" for an unspecified commercial development. Existing development in the area is single family residential with a majority of the structures located in two subdivisions to the north and east. There are also residences found on large unplatted tracts of land both in Little Rock and in Saline County. To the southeast in Saline County, there is a new elementary school and a percentage of the area is still undeveloped, especially to the south and west. Zoning in the area includes "R-2," "MF-6," and "C-1" with the "MF-6" and "C-1" tracts vacant. The land directly to the south across County Line Road is in the City of Shannon Hills and is zoned "R-1" Single Family. Another predominant zoning classification in the general area is "I-2" which is found to the northeast just beyond the scope of the zoning sketch. The demand for additional commercial sites can be questioned because the existing "C-1" is still undeveloped and it was rezoned three or four years ago. 2. The site is wooded and vacant. September 20, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-4940-A (Continued) 3. Vimy Ridge Road is classified as a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. Engineering will have to determine the amount of dedication because of its being situated at an intersection. County Line Road is shown as a collector west of Vimy Ridge Road and a minor arterial east of Vimy Ridge. The survey indicates there is adequate right -of -way for a collector. 4. There have been no adverse comments from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In January 1988 an application to rezone a larger tract (9.1 acres) to "I-2" and "C-3" was heard by the Planning Commission. During the public hearing, the request was amended to "C-2" for the entire acreage and after a long discussion the item was withdrawn from consideration at the request of the applicant. At the January meeting, there were ten objectors present and a petition with 25 names opposed to the rezoning was submitted. Also, the Shannon Hills Planning Commission voiced their opposition to the proposed rezoning through a letter. Staff recommended denial of the initial rezoning and of the amended request. 7. The site under consideration is in the Otter Creek District Plan area which recommends a mixed residential pattern for the west side of Vimy Ridge Road from County Line to Alexander Road. The proposed rezoning is in conflict with the adopted plan and Staff does not support the request. It appears that the need for more commercial land does not exist because of the undeveloped "C-1" tract. Also, commercial services can probably be provided by existing commercial properties including areas in the Shannon Hills community. Allowing small neighborhood commercial nodes to expand could have a negative impact on the existing and future residential areas. Staff's position is consistent with the previous application for the property and other rezoning requests west of Vimy Ridge Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" request as filed. September 20, 1988 Item No . 4 - Z-4940 -A (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) The applicant, John Collins Rogers, was present. There were nine objectors in attendance. Mr. Rogers spoke and said the site was suited for a "C-1" classification and there was a need for a good "C-1" location in the area. He went on to say that the tract was 330 feet by 330 feet and then submitted a petition with 105 names in support of the rezoning request. Mr. Rogers also presented a letter from a property owner in Saline County that supported the commercial rezoning because it was needed for future residential development. He told the Commission that the owner was ready to develop the property and that 2.5 acres equals the existing "C-1" on the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road. Mr. Rogers then discussed the previous rezoning application and said there were no plans for the remaining 7 acres. He indicated that a possible use was a day care center. Robert 0. Smith, Jr., owner of the property and 80 acres to the west, then addressed the Commission. He said the 80 acres would be used for residential development and there was a need for a day care center. Mr. Smith said that a market study had been done and made some additional comments. A. C. Dean, a resident on Vimy Ridge Road, spoke in opposition to the "C-1" rezoning. Mr. Dean said that the residents of the immediate area were against the request and presented a petition with 45 names opposed to the commercial rezoning. He also said that meeting was held with 27 residents who were against the rezoning. Mr. Dean said that the existing "C-1" was 238 feet by 238 feet and submitted some photos. He then discussed traffic circulation which he described as being a problem, especially at the intersection. Mr. Dean said the rezoning would have an impact on the area because it was planned primarily for residential uses. Robert J. Hall spoke in opposition to the "C-1" rezoning. He said the area was peaceful and the residential status should be maintained. Staff then addressed the existing "C-1" site and the Otter Creek District Land Use Plan. There were also some comments made about zoning and the area by several Planning Commission members. September 20, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-4940-A (Continued) Mr. Dean discussed the "C-1" property and said that a limited amount of commercial land was reasonable. He also said that because of the existing market, it would be two to three years until the location was feasible for a small retail use or a convenience store. Robert 0. Smith spoke again and said that approximately 160 lots were proposed for the 80 acres to the west. Mr. Smith then informed the Commission that he was agreeable to a Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development. There was long discussion about a Conditional Use Permit and Robert Hall, Jr. asked some questions about the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Rogers then addressed the "C-1" rezoning and asked for a vote on the request as filed. Gerald W. Dean, a resident of the neighborhood for eight years, described the area and discussed the street system. He said the intersection of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road has too many problems for a commercial use and that it was difficult to get out of driveways at certain times of the day. Comments were then offered by several individuals and some Commissioners. A. C. Dean said that a convenience store was in the total plan for the development of the area. Doug Toney indicated that the 330 foot dimension was from the center line of both Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road. There was a discussion about the size of the tract. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-1" rezoning for a site 238' x 238' or equal to the "C-1" parcel on the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road (the motion reduced the size from 330' to 238'). The vote was 3 ayes, 5 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position. The motion failed because of failing to receive 6 votes and the item was deferred to the October 4, 1988 meeting. September 20, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-5057 Owner: John and Beverly Collier Applicant: Beverly Collier Location: 4721 Confederate Boulevard Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Single Family and Commercial Size: 1.34 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone 4721 Confederate Boulevard from "R-2" to "C-3" for a retail use. Currently there is a single family residence on the site and the proposal is to construct a second building for a used furniture store. The lot is located just west of the City limits on Confederate Boulevard and abuts "R-2" zoning on three sides with "R-2" directly across Confederate Boulevard. Other zoning districts found in the immediate vicinity are "C-3" and "I-2." The land use is made up of single family, commercial and several churches with vacant tracts of varying sizes found throughout the neighborhood. The existing commercial uses are located on the south side of Confederate Boulevard, primarily at the intersection of Carolina Street and Confederate Boulevard. On the north side of Confederate, the properties are either vacant or occupied by single family residences. One other significant land use found in the general vicinity is a mining /industrial operation located to the northeast. 2. The site is a long narrow tract with one residential structure on it. September 20, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-5057 (Continued) 3. Confederate Boulevard is a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the survey indicates the existing right-of-way is 60 feet. The standard right-of-way for a minor arterial is 90 feet. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. The property in question is in the Sweet Home /College Station Planning District and the adopted plan shows the site as part of a large mining area with a 100 foot "OS" strip adjacent to Confederate Boulevard. The "OS" area was included to help protect the residential pocket on the south side of Confederate Boulevard which the Plan identifies for continued residential use. The commercial area for the neighborhood is shown east of Carolina Street and continuing for several blocks to the east. The recommended commercial node is of sufficient size to accommodate the needs of the area for several years and there appears to be no justification for creating a commercial lot on the north side of Confederate Boulevard. In addition to the Plan issue, Staff does not support the "C-3" request because the rezoning could lead to a commercial strip, eliminate the potential for the 100 foot "OS" buffer, create a spot zone, and could have an impact on the existing single family uses. Also, Staff is concerned about whether adequate access can be provided to a commercial use in the rear yard area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "C-3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) The applicant, Beverly Collier, was present. There were no objectors. Mrs. Collier discussed the adopted Land Use Plan and the area. She said that there were other commercial uses in the neighborhood with a nonresidential building directly across Confederate Boulevard. Mrs. Collier told the Commission that the plan was to place the proposed September 20, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-5057 (Continued) building in the rear yard area and there would be no problems with access because of a circle driveway. Staff reviewed the Land Use Plan and the recommended 100 foot "OS" strip along the north side of Confederate Boulevard. It was pointed out that a commercial rezoning would not allow the "OS" buffer. There was some more discussion about the Land Use Plan and access for a commercial use. Mrs. Collier informed the Commission that the proposed use was a used furniture store, a small family business. After some additional comments, a motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Stephen Leek) and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 6 - Z -5068 Owner: Tim Dennis Applicant: Same Location: 3331 Old South Shackleford Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4" Purpose: Storage lot for cars and repair shop Size: 0.28 acres Existing Use: Storage lot for cars SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Office /warehouse, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This request is before the Planning Commission as a result of an enforcement action by the City. In January of 1987, the owner approached the City about operating a storage lot for autos on the property in question. An initial inspection was made by an enforcement officer in January 1987 and at that time nothing was being stored on the site. It was determined that the property did not have nonconforming status and there was no basis for allowing an auto storage yard. Based on the enforcement file, the property was fenced in February 1987 and after that time, the owner started storing cars. Following the normal enforcement procedure, the owner was directed to file the appropriate rezoning request or discontinue the use. After some contact with the Planning office, the "C-4" application was filed by the owner. The property is located on Old Shackleford Road and in an area that has a mixed land use pattern. There are a number of residential units along Old Shackleford but there are also some nonresidential uses in the general vicinity. Directly to the east there is a large office /warehouse, a nonconforming use, and there is also a wholesale warehouse operation on the existing "C-4" tract on Shackleford Road. On the west side of Old Shackleford, September 20, 1988 Item No. 6 - Z-5068 (Continued) there is an automotive repair business, also a nonconforming use. Zoning includes "R-2," "MF-12," "C-2," "C-3," and "C-4" with the "MF-12," "C-2" and "C-3" tracts still undeveloped. 2. The site is fenced in and has several vehicles stored on it. There are no structures on the property. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Documented history on the property dates back to January 1987 when the first inspection was made by the City's Enforcement office. Staff has received one call in opposition to the request. 7. In 1987, the I-430 District Plan was amended to show the area in question as mixed commercial and office with any land use proposals being submitted as Planned Unit Developments. This was done to have additional design control over a project and to encourage uses that would compliment the proposed Summit development. Also, PUD's would help discourage a piecemeal development /zoning pattern in the area. Staff's position is that the requested "C-4" reclassification is not compatible with the plan for the area and cannot support the rezoning. Also, Old Shackleford Road is only a residential street and the Zoning Ordinance states that "appropriate locations for this district (C-4) are along heavily traveled major arterials." Allowing the "C-4" rezoning could established undesirable precedent for the area and impact future development that would be more in keeping with the Land Use Plan's concept. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning as requested. September 20, 1988 Item No. 6 - Z-5068 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) The applicant, Tim Dennis, was present. There were two objectors. Mr. Dennis said that he has used the property for a number of years and it was being utilized as outside storage for an auto recovery company. He went on to say that he plans to purchase additional property for an office but the site in question was only used for auto storage. Mr. Dennis mentioned the possibility of adding a small garage to repair the recovered autos and said that he did not have a Privilege License. Jim James, owner of a resident on Old Shackleford Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. James described other ownerships and said that the area did not need the use. He concluded by saying all other members of his family were opposed to the rezoning. Roger C. Richards, representing a property owner on the west side of Old Shackleford Road, voiced his objections to the "C-4" rezoning and said it would have an impact on the area. Mr. Dennis then addressed the Commission again and described the use. There was along discussion about the auto storage and whether "C-4" was the appropriate district. Several Commissioners indicated that a more restrictive classification could probably accommodate the use. After some additional comments, Staff suggested that the Board of Adjustment could address the use question. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 1, 1988 meeting and to have the Board of Adjustment review the use issue at their October 17, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5069 Owner: Union National Bank Applicant: Pete Hornibrook Location: 7316 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Auto sales Size: .52 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Office, Zoned "C-3" West - Bank, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the northeast corner of Baseline and Sunflower Drive from "C-3" to "C-4" for an auto sales lot. Baseline Road from Chicot Road to Cloverdale Drive can best characterized as a commercial strip on the north side of Baseline Road. All of the frontage is zoned "C-3" with the exception of one lot which is zoned "C-4." The uses are small and range from a bank to a car wash. On the south side of Baseline, there is a small shopping center. The property in question abuts "C-3" on the east and "R-5" on the north which is developed as multifamily. Across both Sunflower and Baseline Road, the zoning is "C-3." A majority of the land in the immediate vicinity is developed but there is a large "C-3" tract on the west side of Sunflower Drive that is still vacant. 2. The site is vacant and flat. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. September 20, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5069 (Continued) 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. The established zoning pattern along this segment of Baseline Road is "C-3" and Staff feels that "C-3" should continue to be the most intensive zoning classification. This does not restrict the property's use for auto sales because once the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are adopted by the Board of Directors, auto sales and display will be allowed as a Conditional Use in a "C-3" district. Being situated at the entrance to a residential area and abutting a multifamily development, the site should have some additional review for certain uses such as used car lot and a Conditional Use Permit does require site plan review. Some design control over the development of the site is needed because of being adjacent to a multifamily area and its relationship to the single family neighborhood located to the north. The "C-4" District does not require any further review after a rezoning is approved and it could have an impact on the area. The Conditional Use Permit (Z-4615) located to the east was approved for an auto related use so the suggested Conditional Use approach is consistent with the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning and that the Conditional Use Permit process be utilized for the auto sales lot. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 20, 1988) The applicant, Pete Hornibrook, was present and represented the owner, Union National Bank. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Hornibrook said that the Conditional Use Permit option was a possible problem and went on to describe the area. He said the site has a 80 foot easement running across the property which limits the development potential and estimated that the easement leaves about 4500 square feet of land area that could be utilized. Mr. Hornibrook told the Commission that there was an 8 foot privacy fence along the north side that helped buffer the existing multifamily units. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of using a PUD and buffering the property. Several Commissioners commented that there was a need to restrict the use and Staff said restricting the use was the key issue. September 20, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5069 (Continued) Mike Gillum, 7201 Baseline Road and a member of the Southwest Merchants Association, opposed the "C-4" rezoning and the car lot. He talked about the area and said it did not need another used car lot. Mr. Gillum said a used car lot could cause more problems and was not a good land use. He also gave some history of the area and described other car lots. Henry Burton, 7308 Baseline Road and adjacent to the site, said he was against the request. Mr. Burton submitted a letter of opposition from another property owner and presented some photos. He also told the Commission that the property was a good bank location. Mr. Hornibrook then addressed the Commission again. He said there was a contract to sell the property and it could not be developed for a bank because of the easement. Mr. Hornibrook said the car lot was a reasonable use and made some comments about the proposed site plan. There was a long discussion about various issues including the possibility of utilizing a PUD. Additional comments were made about the proposed use and both Mr. Burton and Mr. Gillum said they were opposed to a car lot through any type of review process. Mr. Hornibrook then agreed to change the request to a PCD. A motion was made to convert the request to a PCD and to waive any additional filing fees and further notification of property owners. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position. September 20, 1988 Item No. 8 - Resolution Establishing a Policy and Procedure for Extraterritorial Subdivisions This resolution was prepared in response to a request that a procedure be formulated to aid the Commission in handling of Subdivisions in the Extraterritorial Area. Provisions of the resolution were discussed briefly at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Directors on August 5, 1988. The resolution deals with total waiver requests, plat requirements, street improvements, and fees. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 6, 1988) Staff outlined the provisions of the resolution. It was noted that Commissioner Rector had proposed some wording changes that did not change the content of the resolution. Martha Miller suggested that the reference to transfers from parents to children be modified. It was agreed that the language should cover transfers "among family members." David Jones suggested an amendment in Section 3 to cover situations where a majority of lots along a roadway have been developed without street improvements and the making of street improvements in connection with the application would be impractical. Staff agreed with these changes, and the resolution was approved with the two suggested amendments. The vote was unanimous. PLANNING COMMISSION,ACTION: (September 20, 1988) By consensus, the Commission agreed upon a revision of the wording in Section 1 as suggested by Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney. The wording change was to the effect that requests for total waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance will be recommended for approval by the Commission, instead of wording that no further requests for total waivers will be considered by the Commission. September 20, 1988 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Date: Chairman Secretary