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