Loading...
pc_06 28 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1888 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being six in number. II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes of the May 17, 1888 were approved as mailed. III. Members present: David Jones Walter Riddick, III Jer,�Iyn Nicholson Richard Massie Martha Miller Bill Rector Stephen Leek (arrived at 1:30p.m.) Members absent: John Schlereth T. Grace Jones Rose Collins Fred Perkins City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles June 28, 1988 Item No. A - Z-4998 Owner: Winrock Development Co. West Little Rock Partnership Applicant: Joe D. White Location: Bowman Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "MF-18" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 16.8 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone 16.8 acres from "R-2" to "MF-18" for a multifamily development. The property is located on the west side of Bowman Road and in an area that is still underdeveloped for the most part. In the immediate vicinity, land use on the developed parcels is primarily single family zoned "R-2." To the north, there is a nonconforming use on the east side of Bowman Road and at the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads, there are several nonresidential uses. In addition to the "R-2," other zoning found in the area includes "MF-12," "MF-18," and "OS." All the property that abuts the site in question is undeveloped and zoned "R-2." The existing "MF" tracts are vacant including the large "MF-12" area across Bowman Road to the east. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The land increases in elevation from east to west especially directly adjacent to Bowman Road. 3. Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. 4. Engineering Comments Dedication of additional right-of-way for Bowman Road. June 28, 1988 Item No. A - Continued The future alignment of Bowman Road will basically remain in the same location. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. The land under consideration is part of the I-430 District Plan which recommends single family use for the property. The multifamily areas are shown adjacent to this site on the north and on the east side of Bowman Road, but the plan does not recognize the existing "MF" area directly to the east. When the "MF-12" was reclassified as part of the larger rezoning action, the I-430 Plan was never amended to reflect the change in land use. (The Planning Commission has endorsed an "MF" rezoning for some land to the north, but no action has been taken by the Board of Directors.) After reviewing the proposal, staff feels that the "MF" use is a legitimate option for the property, but at a density of 12 units per acre and not the "MF-18" as requested. This would provide for a good transition from the proposed commercial at Kanis and the single family to the south. Also, "MF-12" would maintain the density established by the rezoning action to the east. It is envisioned that the same type of development pattern will take place on the west side of Bowman Road as is occurring on the east side. A single family plat has been approved for the land south of the "OS" strip. Because of the area's emerging development pattern, a mix of multifamily and single family, a reclassification to "MF-12" would not change the direction of this trend. One issue that needs to be addressed by the owners is access to the entire site. It appears that a collector through the property would benefit a multifamily development and should be given some serious consideration during a later review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" and not "MF-18" as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988) A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988, meeting as requested by the applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. June 28, 1988 Item No. A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988) The applicant, Ron Tyne, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Tyne said that there were some unresolved issues between the two property owners and requested a deferral. There was a brief discussion and then a motion was made to defer the issue to the June 28, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. It was reported to the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral to the July 12, 1988 meeting. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 12th, 1988 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. June 28, 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 June 28, 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. June 28, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988) Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the request needed to be deferred again and that all parties agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. NOTE: Prior to the May 17, 1988, meeting J.E. Hathaway, the applicant, submitted a modified rezoning configuration for the property in question. The amended request increased the amount of "C -3" land to 15 acres and made some other minor changes. The following is a breakdown of the proposed reclassifications: "O-3" - 13.25 acres "MF-18" - 11.26 acres "C-3" - 15.76 acres Because of the revised request, additional notification of the property owners was completed by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Staff addressed the amended request as submitted by Mr. Hathaway prior to the meeting and recommended that the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be maintained which shows commercial areas to be located on both sides of the proposed north /south arterial and to be approximately 10 to 12 acres in size. (Mr. Hathaway's proposal designates a 15 -acre tract on the east side of the future arterial as a commercial tract with a nine acre office parcel on the west side). Also, staff suggested that the land be reclassified to "C-2" and "O-2" and not "C-3" and "O-3" as proposed by Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Hathaway then spoke and said he was representing the owners of the 40 -acre tract. He went on to discuss the amount of time that had been involved with the rezoning and a traffic impact study that had been requested by the City staff. Mr. Hathaway then reviewed the configuration of the amended request and said it was providing adequate buffers for the retirement community to June 28, 1988 Item No. B - Continued the east and a church situated to the west. He also discussed the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and told the Commission that the staff had indicated to him in a previous meeting that locating a commercial area on the east side of the arterial appeared to be a reasonable option. Mr. Hathaway then said the church was comfortable with the existing "O-3" and that there was no public opposition. There was a long discussion about the site and trying to develop it. Mr. Hathaway said there were some problems because of the existing easements and the proposed arterial. He reviewed certain development standards and said that he was trying to have one major retail site, 15 acres, and this represented good planning. He also said this was only a five -acre difference from what was recommended on the plan. Mr. Hathaway said the proposed rezoning was basically in conformance with the adopted plan. Some questions were then asked about the traffic study and the construction of the proposed intersection. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff responded to several of the questions and said some of the construction could be through a private /public arrangement. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said the proposal made good planning sense because of being located at a key intersection with the parkway. He also said removing the commercial area from the west side as shown on the plan was desirable because of the future street system. Greg Simmons of the Mehlburger Firm reviewed the traffic study. He discussed specific numbers in detail and what improvements would be needed to make the intersection work. Mr. Simmons said the findings of the report indicated that off -site improvements would be appropriate and the new arterial should be a standard five -lane section. There was a long discussion about the proposed improvements. L.K. Moore then spoke and said he was representing Darbe Development and Melvyn Bell. He said the two property owners were involved with land to the north and were proposing some major developments in the area. Mr. Moore expressed some concerns about future improvements and that a general improvement district was trying to be formed. He said that land use did not appear to be the major issue and informed the Commission that Mr. Bell's attorney had been unable to meet with Mr. Hathaway to discuss their concerns. Mr. Hathaway then responded to Mr. Moore's comments about trying to set up a meeting. June 28, 1988 Item No. B - Continued Staff made some comments about the north /south arterial and several questions were asked about the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said there was very little flexibility in the alignment because of some design problems created by property ownerships. Mr. Moore said there should be more discussion between the property owners about the arterial and other improvements. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission that land use was the issue and he was willing to meet with the interested parties to work out the alignment of the arterial. Additional comments were offered by various individuals, including several Planning Commissioners. Mr. Hathaway then stated for the record that the current owners, CCMN Joint Venture II, will not request commercial rezoning for the area on the west side of the proposed arterial. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the May 31, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-31-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all interested parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 28, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, A noes, and 2 absent. June 28, 1988 Item B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were several interested persons in attendance. Staff reviewed the new proposal and recommended "O-2" for the proposed "O-3" on the east side of the future arterial, and "C-2" for the commercial tract with the size of 7 acres and not "C-3" for 15 acres as submitted by Mr. Hathaway. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, indicated that the 7 acres was more consistent with the adopted plan and said that the City was satisfied with the new alignment for the north /south arterial. Mr. Hathaway then addressed the Planning Commission and said he was representing the current owners, CCNMN Joint Venture. He reviewed the history of the case and discussed a meeting that was held with various property owners in the area. Mr. Hathaway then discussed the road alignment issue and presented a hand -out. He also reviewed some graphics and the traffic impact study that was requested by the City after the rezoning request was filed. Mr. Hathaway said that a reasonable commercial tract needs 12 -15 acres and that a two - anchor center requires 15 acres to work properly. He then said that he had estimated the Upper Rock Creek District Plan showed a commercial area of at least 12 acres at the location in question. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission that a commercial use was suitable for the site because of the plan and the location which will be a major intersection in the future. There were additional comments about the proposed arterial and the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said the new arterial will be approximately 590 feet from the northwest corner of the property and the City Staff supports the proposed alignment. Mr. Hathaway then discussed the rezoning issue and said 15 acres was appropriate because of certain constraints. He also indicated that the current owners would never ask for a rezoning change for the existing "O-3" to the west and had no objections to amending the Upper Rock Creek Plan to show office west of the proposed arterial. Mr. Hathaway then asked for a vote on the rezoning request and said there was no opposition to the reclassifications. He also pointed out that the arterial alignment appeared to be resolved. Several questions were asked and there was a long discussion about Improvement Districts. At this time, Commissioner David Jones asked for comments from other interested parties and read a statement from Ralph Cloar who was not present. Mr. Cloar was representing Darbe Development Corporation and expressed Darbe's opposition to the request. June 28, 1988 Item B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) Wingfield Martin, representing the Shackleford property, discussed the proposed arterial and was concerned about other zonings in the area. Mr. Martin said that the Shackleford ownership was not opposed to the Hathaway rezoning but the area needs a comprehensive approach. Tom Overby spoke and informed the Commission that Darbe Development wanted a deferral. Joe White, representing Deltic Farm and Timber, also said that a deferral would be proper because of the corridor and the need to study it. Mr. White told the Commission that there was a plan, but a lot of changes were being proposed that needed to be carefully reviewed. Ralph Cloar reinforced Mr. White's comments and said the entire corridor should be studied. Mr. Overby said that the Shackleford ownership would be requesting some new commercial zoning. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments, and again requested a vote on the rezoning proposal. Mr. Greeson then discussed the Staff's position and recommendation. Mr. Greeson said that the plan did not identify the location as a major commercial site,but more of a neighborhood convenience center. He made other comments and said there would be continued pressures for additional rezonings in the area. Mr. Hathaway said he was willing to amend the "C-3" to "C-2" but wanted the "O-3" as proposed. He told the Commission that the "O-3" tract would be subdivided and it was too small for "O-2." Mr. Hathaway said he would submit a written commitment stating that the present ownership would not request a commercial or industrial zoning for the existing "O-3" parcel to the west. He also restated that the plan should be amended to show office west of the arterial. There was a long discussion about various issues, and comments were made about an existing 100 foot easement along the north property line. Several Commissioners felt that an "O-S" area was needed for the proposed "O-3" tract adjacent to a Single Family area. A motion was made which recommended approval of "C-2" as amended for 15.4 acres and "O-3" (3.88 acres) with a 50 foot OS strip adjacent to the north property boundary of the office tract subject to Engineering's approval of the June 28, 1988 Item B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) north /south arterial alignment. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). A second motion was then offered which recommended that the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be changed on the west side of the proposed arterial from a commercial designation to office. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). June 28, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z- 4305 -B Owner: Marion Burton, Agent Applicant: Robert East Location: Cottondale Lane Request: Rezone from "O-2" to "O-1" Purpose: Office Size: 1.6 acres Existing Use: Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Arkansas River, Zoned "O-2" South - Vacant and Office, Zoned "O-2" and "O-3" East - Arkansas River, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "O-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The site under consideration is located in the Riverdale area, and the request is to rezone the property from "O-2" to "O-1." The primary reason for the rezoning action is a platting issue which involves this parcel and the land directly to the north. Currently, the entire site is 3.85 acres, and the proposal is to replat the property into two tracts. The reclassification is necessary for one of the parcels because it will be less than two acres, the minimum site area for "O-2," after the replatting is completed. Within the Riverdale area, the existing zoning includes most of the nonresidential districts so the proposed rezoning will not have any effect on the area or alter the direction of future development. There are no outstanding issues, and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "O-1" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of "O-1" as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. June 28, 1988 Item No. 2 - Z- 4930 -A Owner: Arkansas National Life Insurance Company Applicant: Eugene Lewis, Jr. Location: Flintridge Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3" and "I -1" Purpose: Office Park and Office Warehouse Size: 32.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-4" East - I -430 Right-of-way, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 32 acre site from "R-2" to "O-3" and "I-1" for future development. The proposal is to subdivide the tract into a total of 13 lots for office and office warehouse uses. If approved, the rezoning request will create two large "I -1" lots and 11 "O-3" parcels. Flintridge Road is located west of the I-430 /Stagecoach Road interchange and Flintridge Road intersects Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) just west of the southbound ramp. Flintridge Road is a substandard residential street and terminates at the western boundary of the 32 acres. Zoning in the area includes "R-2," "C-1 " "C-2 " "C-4 " and "PCD. " Several of the nonresidential tracts are undeveloped including the "C-3" on the south side of Stagecoach Road and the "C-2" site east of I-430. The land use tends to be a conglomeration of both residential and nonresidential uses especially property fronting Stagecoach Road. Along Flintridge, there are single family residences, a light industrial use, and a church. 2. The site is heavily wooded and increases in elevation from 285 to 355 along the west property line. The grade differences between I-430 and Flintridge Road are fairly substantial. June 28, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Engineering has indicated that access is inadequate for the proposed development and have also expressed concerns with the topography and potential grading. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In December of 1987, a "C-4" request was filed for the entire site, 32.0 acres. At the Planning Commission public hearing, residents from Flintridge Road spoke against and in support of the rezoning. Some residents voiced concerns about access, grading, and how the residential uses would be protected. One property owner said a quality office park was desirable and spoke for the rezoning. After a lengthy discussion, the "C-4" request was withdrawn without prejudice. Staff recommended denial of the "C-4" rezoning. 7. As with the previous rezoning attempt, staff has problems with the current request and does not support the "O-3" and "I-1" reclassifications. The adopted Otter Creek District Plan does not recognize the property for nonresidential uses, and staff feels that there is no justification for changing the direction of the plan at this time. Another factor in opposing the request is access, which is inadequate for nonresidential development. The street system is also substandard and does not provide the needed traffic circulation /movement to make the site a viable office location. Others concerns include the existing topography and grading of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-3" and "I-1" rezoning request. June 28, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant, Gene Lewis, was present. There were several interested residents in attendance. Mr. Lewis requested that the item be deferred to the July 12th meeting because of a potential problem with the Commission and a quorum. The item was placed on the consent Agenda and deferred to the July 12, 1988 meeting. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent, and one abstention (Bill Rector). June 28, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-5025 Owner: Lusk Properties, Inc. Applicant: Bill Lusk Location: 924 Rushing Circle Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Plumbing Shop Size: 0.64 acres Existing Use: Plumbing shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone one lot in the Rushing Circle /Rodney Parham area from "C-3" to "C-4" to allow an existing plumbing shop to expand. In the "C-3" District, plumbing shops are not permitted so prior to any expansion or new construction taking place, a rezoning to "C-4" must be approved. With this request, an existing building will be removed and replaced with a larger structure. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is "R-2," "C-3," and "I-2" with the property in question abutting "C-3" and "I-2." Land use conforms to the zoning for the most part with a mix of commercial and industrial uses south of Rodney Parham Road. Also, some of the "C-3" and "I-2" sites are undeveloped, and on the north side of Rodney Parham a substantial amount of land is utilized for the I -630 right -of -way. A major public facility is located to the west and that is Kanis Park. Because of the existing zoning and uses, "C-4" is appropriate, and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning as requested. June 28, 1988 Z-5025 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-4." The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. June 28, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-5027 Owner: City of Little Rock Applicant: Elvin Shuffield Location: East Roosevelt Road and Confederate Boulevard Request: Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Shopping Center Size: 3.97 acres Existing Use: Shopping center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Cemetery, Zoned "R-3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Cemetery and Commercial, Zoned "R-3" and "I -2" West - Cemetery and School, Zoned "R-3" and "R-4" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone 3.97 acres on East Roosevelt Road from "I-2" to "C-3." The site is occupied by a small -scale shopping center with two major tenants, and the proposal is to make an addition to one of the buildings. To accomplish the expansion, either a rezoning or a conditional use permit must be approved because in the "I-2" District most retail uses are listed as conditional use. In this particular case, the applicant elected to file for a rezoning change because "C-3" is more compatible with the existing development and the surrounding area. (A variance request has also been filed with the Board of Adjustment to permit the proposed addition to encroach into a setback area.) Land use is a mix of residential and nonresidential with several major public facilities, a school and cemeteries. The property in question abuts the school and a cemetery on the west side with another cemetery located across Confederate Boulevard. The one residential pocket is south of East Roosevelt Road, and the area is zoned "I-2." Other zoning found in the area is "R-3," "R-4," and "C-3." Staff views the proposed "C-3" reclassification as appropriate and supports the rezoning. There are no outstanding issues associated with this request. June 28, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988 The applicant, Elvin Shuffield, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Shuffield spoke briefly and answered several questions. A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-3" as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. June 28, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-5030 Owner: Bishop Estate Applicant: McKay Properties, Inc. By: John P. McKay, Jr. Location: North of Labette Manor Drive Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-3" Purpose: Office Size: 10.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" South - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "MF-12" East - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a ten acre site located to the southwest of the Barrow / Kanis intersection from "R-2" to "O-3" for future development. The property is situated directly north of Labette Manor Drive and adjacent to the Twin Lake Subdivision, approximately 600 feet west of Barrow Road and 700 feet south of Kanis Road. If the "O-3" request is granted, the applicant has indicated that the 10 acres will probably be platted into lots and be an extension of the "C-3" area to the north. A preliminary plat for a commercial /office subdivision has been approved for the "C-3" land which has two streets serving the "C-3" lots one from Kanis and the other from Barrow. To provide access to the ten acres under consideration, the plan is to extend the proposed north /south street from Kanis into this site. On the east, west, and south sides, the property abuts residential zoning, "R-2," "MF-12," and "R-5." Other zoning in the general area includes "MF-18," "O-3," and "C-4." Land use is a mix of single family, multifamily, and nonresidential uses with some of the land still undeveloped. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. Dedication of any streets will be provided by the plat. June 28, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the property. 7. The site is located in the Boyle Park District Plan area, and the Land Use Plan suggests a low density residential pattern for the property. The current land use designation was part of a larger plan amendment which occurred several years ago and involved a number of sites in the vicinity of the Kanis /Barrow intersection. The plan change increased the amount of land recommended for both residential and nonresidential uses throughout the area. It appears that the emerging trend is a mix of residential and nonresidential development with a major concentration of office and medical related uses because of the Baptist Hospital Campus. In the area, a high percentage of the land is still vacant, both residential and nonresidential, so it seems that any type of reclassification would be adding to existing surplus of properties available for development. While reviewing the request, staff debated at length the merits of adding to the office land and decided that an "O-3" rezoning is a reasonable option for the property. The primary reason for this position is the proposal to combine the ten acres under consideration with the "C-3" area to the north and develop a quality office subdivision. Also an office classification provides a good transition from the "C-3" development to the north and the residential areas located to the south and west. To reduce any potential impacts on the existing residential areas, staff recommends that the west and south 50 feet be rezoned to "OS" for a buffer and to prohibit access into the ten acres from Cerelle and Labette Manor Drives. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "O-3" rezoning with a 50-foot "OS" strip on the west and south sides. June 28, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: June 28, 1988 The applicant, John McKay, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. McKay started to address the Commission but had to stop because of quorum problems. (The item was brought back up at 2:35 p.m. and the discussion continued.) Mr. McKay told the Commission that he had some problems with the recommended open space area on the south side because of the topography and the existing multifamily zoning to the south. He said the 50 foot OS strip on the west side was reasonable and then proceeded to describe the proposed layout /development of the site. Mr. McKay went on to elaborate on his concerns with the open space along the south property line. He said that there was no need to buffer a multifamily area and there would be problems with the drainage and water retention requirements if a 50 foot open space area was required. There was a long discussion about the open space area and staff indicated that the primary concern was access from the residential areas. Mr. McKay informed the Commission that he had complete support of the surrounding property owners and submitted a petition to that effect. Additional comments were made about access to the south and the open space area. A motion was made to recommend approval of O-3 with a 50 foot OS area on the west side and with the condition that the northern 20 feet of Labette Manor Drive be closed. After some discussion about the motion, an amended motion was then offered which recommended approval of "O-3" with a 50 foot "OS" strip on the west side and a 50 foot "OS" area along the south property line from the southwest corner of the site extending to the east right -of -way line of Labette Manor Drive. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstention (Walter Riddick III). June 28, 1988 Item No. 6 - 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" to "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 the 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 modified because of the new land area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning request. June 28, 1988 Item No. 6 - Continued 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. June 28, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5033 Owner: H. Maurice Mitchell, Trustee Applicant: J. Creed Location: 5703 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4" Purpose: Sales and service of cycles Size: 0.35 acres Existing Use: Auto parts and body shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" South - Multifamily, Zoned "R-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Multifamily, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed use of 5703 Baseline Road is the sales and service of four wheel cycles with outside display and a "C-4" reclassification is necessary. There will also be the sale of various cycle parts. Currently, the lot is being used for auto repair and the sale of auto parts, both are nonconforming uses. By adding the outside display, the nonconforming status is not applicable, and the "C-4" rezoning must be granted. This segment of Baseline Road is a mix of residential and nonresidential uses with a high percentage being nonconforming. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is either "R-2" or "C-3" with the property in question abutting "R-2" zoning on all sides. Several of the "C-3" parcels are vacant including the one adjacent to Lew Drive. Most of the area was developed prior to being annexed into the City. The Geyer Springs East District Plan shows a commercial pattern for the south side of Baseline Road between Geyer Springs and Lew Drive. Because of the site being located on an arterial, staff feels that either "C-3" or "C-4" would be an appropriate rezoning and still maintain the plan's concept. June 28, 1988 Item No. 7 - Continued ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Dedication of additional right-of-way for Baseline Road will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The Applicant was present. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-4." The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. June 28, 1988 Item No. 8 - Z-5037 Owner: Estate of Amelia Metrailer Applicant: J.C. Whisnant Location: Fair Park Boulevard and Maryland Street - SW Corner Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3" Purpose: Retail or Office Size: 0.45 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-6" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned PCD West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The matter before the Planning Commission is to rezone three lots at the southwest corner of Maryland and Fair Park Boulevard from "R-3" to "C-3." The applicant has provided no specific development proposal other than the property will be used for either an office or retail use. The site is located in an area that has been impacted by I -630 and previous zoning actions which have created an undesirable zoning pattern. Zoning in the immediate vicinity includes "R-3," "R-4," "R-6," "O-3," "C-3," "C-4," "I-2," and "PCD." Land use is just as varied as the zoning with a mix of residential, office, commercial, and industrial. The residential use is primarily single family, including the existing "R-6" area to the north. For the most part, the single family areas including the pocket west of Fair Park and north of West 10th have not fallen into a state of disrepair. The most significant development found in the area is the PCD property (Z-3143 -A) which is a motel and eating establishment in a separate building. Approximately the southern one -third of the PCD parcel is still vacant, but the City has approved some commercial uses for it. When the original PCD plan was approved, the southern portion of the property was identified for future office use. Other vacant tracts of land are located east and west of Fair Park Boulevard, including two lots situated at the northwest corner of West 10th and Fair Park. Based on the existing patterns, it June 28, 1988 Item No. 8 - Continued appears that little thought has been to the area in the past, and this should be avoided by discouraging a piece-meal approach to rezoning or developing the properties. 2. The site is three residential lots that are all vacant. 3. Fair Park Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan so additional dedication will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. 4. Engineering reports that dedication of additional right -of -way is needed for an arterial standard. No other comments have been received as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff is concerned with lot by lot rezonings to permit nonresidential development in the neighborhood and feels a comprehensive approach is more desirable which should be encouraged by denying the "C-3" rezoning. This is consistent with the staff's positions on other rezoning proposals along Fair Park Boulevard. To properly develop tracts with frontage on Fair Park Boulevard, it should be done with a minimum of one-half block to ensure a more workable design and to avoid a commercial strip between I-630 and West 12th. Continuing to rezone in a piece -meal fashion will create problems and adversely effect the existing residential uses. The Oak Forest Plan identifies the area in question as mixed use, and in a conceptual design plan, shows the three lots as part of a larger multifamily development. Commercial and office areas are designated for the blocks to the west and north. For this part of the Oak Forest neighborhood, one of the primary goals of the plan is to discourage fragmented rezonings and to support well - planned developments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request as filed. June 28, 1988 Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) The applicant, J. C. Whisnant, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Whisnant described the area and said the character had changed because of I-630 and the Fair Park interchange. (A recess was called at 1:20 p.m.) Mr. Whisnant continued to discuss the area and said the property was inappropriate for Single Family use. He reviewed the Staff's report and said the owners did not have the choice of adding additional lots or land. There was some discussion by the Commission about various issues. Mr. Whisnant did not disagree with the comprehensive approach as suggested by Staff, but that it could not be done with the site in question. He also said there was a contract to purchase and the prospective buyer would develop the property. There were comments made about other options and "O-1" was suggested as a possibility. Mr. Whisnant agreed to "O-1" and a one -lot replat for the site. A motion was made to recommend approval of "O-1" as amended subject to replatting the three lots into one lot. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, and 1 abstention (David Jones). June 28, 1988 Item No. 9 - Z-5038 Owner: Bill Mathis Applicant: Joe D. White Location: Highway No. 10 (East of Bella Rosa Drive) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" and "OS" Purpose: Commercial and Open Space Size: 18.25 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Single Family, and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue is to rezone approximately 18.2 acres on Highway 10 from "R-2" to "C-3" and "OS." The property is located east of Bella Rose Drive, and the land is situated on both sides of Highway 10 with 95 percent of the property in question being south of the highway. On the north side, there is a small strip approximately one -half acre in size and the proposed rezoning is "OS." The acreage breakdown for the land is 7.55 acres for "C-3" and 10.13 acres of additional "OS" with a floodway line being the boundary between the two requested zoning districts. Existing zoning is primarily "R-2" with the exception of an "AF" tract to the east that is currently occupied by a plant nursery. Other land uses found in the vicinity are single family residences, a day care center, a church and several nonconforming uses along Highway 10. The property abuts "R-2" zoning on all sides and either single family residences or vacant land. 2. The site is vacant and Taylor Loop Creek bisects the land so there is floodplain and floodway involvement. Due to the recent rechannelization of Taylor Loop Creek, the floodplain and floodway alignments may have changed. Official revision of the floodplain and floodway will have to be accomplished through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). June 28, 1988 Item No. 9 - Continued 3. Highway 10 is classified as a principal arterial which has a recommended right-of-way standard of 100 feet. The survey reflects an existing right-of-way of 80 feet so some dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. Because of being a State Highway project and close to an intersection, more right-of-way than the standard could be needed. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. Staff has received several informational calls concerning the request. 6. There is documented history on the site. 7. The most significant issue influencing the potential rezoning of this property is how the request conforms to the adopted Highway 10 Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as floodplain and floodway land so the proposed "C-3" reclassification is totally inconsistent with the direction of the plan. Even if the property is out of the floodway and floodplain due to rechannelization, the plan would not call for commercial development. At most, a transition zone would be the appropriate land use. Staff strongly believes that the plan needs to be maintained and cannot offer a positive recommendation for the proposed rezoning. Other concerns identified by the staff are the possible adverse impact on surrounding residential uses, and the potential for a strip development pattern being established should the "C-3" request be granted: Since the adoption of the Highway 10 Plan, the City has not deviated from the Land Use Plan, and there is no reason to make an exception for the site in question. Commercial nodes are shown on the plan at the appropriate locations and sufficient land area is provided to accommodate commercial growth for the next several years. In addition, the proposed rezoning would be spot zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request as filed. June 28, 1988 Item No. 9 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral to the August 9, 1988 meeting. A motion was made to deter the Item to August 9, 1988 and it was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent, and 1 abstention (David Jones). DATE�o{�(W 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 .ZONING_,,,, MEMBER W.Riddick, III J.Schlereth R.Massie M.Miller J.Nicholson W.Rector S._Leek T-. Grace Jones D.J. Jones R.Collins F.Perkins It 1$. I � 3 tf s--� 1 3' v v V v' V V flf> I/ v'l,/ A A I} -II fJ fj I} 11 ..fl A v At3 V V V V V V' V' J/ v v V V V V V V v V � c./ I/ I/ v v' v I.,/ V V V . K3 V V V V V V V y ,4 V ,4 It A -,4 v 11-A-v· fJ-f} ,4-ft It fJ.A-,4 ,4 ,4 ✓ v v v V V v V V AB . A fl � It fl /i >4 fr A-,4- If A-A-,4 It A-/}-r1-If A----· -. . ✓AYE @ NAYE ,¾ A'" AD�EN� ':i,AB�Tl'\�N \ �-�, ) Cf U/ V I/ V V A fl ltB A ��- I I June 28, 1988 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Date: Chairman Secretary