Loading...
pc_08 27 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 27, 1985 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 9 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Jerilyn Nicholson William Ketcher Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth David Jones Jim Summerlin Ida Boles Members Absent: Betty Sipes John Clayton City Attorney: Pat Benton FOR YOUR INFORMATION Next Month's Meeting Dates: Filing Date: 8-26-85 Planning Commission Meeting: 9-24-85 Board of Directors Meeting: 9-17-85 August 27, 1985 Item No. A - Z-3592-C Owner: Dr. W. Wise Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: South of Kanis and East of Bowman Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "MF-6" to "MF-12," "MF-18" and "O-3" Purpose: Multifamily and Office Size: 100 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Mixed, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant and Office, Zoned "O-2" and "O-3" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal before the Planning Commission is to rezone a portion of a 100-acre site west of the existing Koger Executive Centre for office and multifamily development. There are four parcels that involve the following acreage: Parcel A "R-2" to "O-3" 5.6 acres Parcel B "MF-6" to "MF-18" 21.1 acres Parcel C "R-2" to "MF-12" 12.5 acres Parcel D "R-2 to "MF-12" 31.1 acres (The parcel designations correspond to those on the accompanying zoning sketch.) The site is situated in a section of west Little Rock, the I-430 Corridor, that is experiencing significant growth and development. This is created in part by the area's accessibility to the interstate system and the general location. The primary land use is still residential with a majority of the land being zoned "R-2." This is due to some of the area just recently coming into the City as part of the referendum area. Along both Kanis and Bowman Roads, the land use pattern is more mixed with nonconforming office and commercial uses. The most significant rezoning change that has occurred in August 27, 1985 Item No. A - Continued the immediate area is directly to the east of the property in question and involves large tracts zoned "O-2," "O-3" and "C-2." Development is taking place on the "O-2" parcel, but there are sites still vacant. There are no significant multifamily projects in the area, but two developments were recently approved by the City. One is east of I-430 and the second one is to the northwest of the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The property does have some significant topography on it with certain locations increasing in elevation between 60 and 90 feet. 3. The Master Street Plan identifies three new collectors through the vicinity, so dedication of right-of-way for those streets will be required. One is an extension of the existing Executive Centre Drive that will connect with Bowman Road. Another collector is proposed to tie into Hickory Hill and a third one is located along the east side of the property in question. Dedication of right-of-way will also be required for both Kanis and Bowman Roads. 4. No adverse comments have been reported by the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. Some of the property was recently annexed into the City through the annexation referendum that was upheld by the State Supreme Court. 7. Staff's position is one of general support for the proposed concept with the exception of the zoning request to "MF-12" for Parcel D. The I-430 Plan does not identify that tract for multifamily development, and the multifamily line should remain to the north as shown on the plan. If a multifamily project is proposed in the future, staff feels that a "PRD" is more appropriate for this particular site. Staff supports "O-3" for Parcel A as requested but recommends "MF-12" not "MF-18" for Parcel B and "MF-6" for Parcel C. "MF-12" should be the maximum density allowed for this area. The stepping down of densities has been utilized in other locations when there is a single family subdivision in close proximity. August 27, 1985 Item No. A - Continued This zoning pattern will maintain the I-430 Plan for the most part. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "O-3" request as filed, "MF-12" for Parcel B and "MF-6" for Parcel C. At this time, staff recommends denial of "MF-12" for Parcel D. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Planning Commission that a written request for a 30-day deferral had been submitted. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 30, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) The applicant submitted a request for a second deferral of this matter. The Commission was advised by staff that the owner had failed to mail notices to adjacent property owners as required. The Commission voted unanimously to defer this case to the August 27, 1985, hearing. The vote 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-27-85) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the rezoning be withdrawn without prejudice. Linda Shepherd, representing the Sand Piper Property Owners' Association, then addressed the withdrawal request. She asked that the item be withdrawn from the agenda with prejudice. Ms. Shepherd then discussed the bylaws and said the applicant should have to wait one year to refile a rezoning application. She specifically asked if Subsection 8 of the bylaws had been followed. Don Chambers, representing James Hathaway, then spoke. He presented some background and history on the property. Mr. Chambers told the Commission that the required property owners had not been notified and requested that the item be withdrawn without prejudice. Linda Shepherd spoke again. A motion was then made to accept the withdrawal request. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. B - Z-4465 Owner: Richard Easterly Applicant: Truman Ball Location: 3023 Ware (West 31st Street and Ware - Northeast Corner) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "R-4" Purpose: Duplex Size: 0.16 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, 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 before the Planning Commission is to rezone a single lot for a duplex. The property is located west of University Avenue and north of Asher in an area that is primarily single family with a scattering of duplexes to the north and south. The existing duplexes are all nonconforming. Other land uses in the immediate vicinity also include churches and two schools to the south on West 32nd. The zoning is all "R-2" with the exception of a five-block "R-3" pocket to the east. The area appears to be stable, and the properties are well maintained for the most part, which usually indicates a high percentage of owner occupied units. The primary issues with this request are the appropriateness of rezoning a single lot and the potential effect on the other properties in the neighborhood. 2. The site is a typical 50-foot residential lot and is vacant. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues involved with this request. August 27, 1985 Item No. B - 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 neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. The rezoning, if granted, would create a spot zoning, and staff could not support that type of zoning pattern. Because of that and the Boyle Park Plan which identifies the area for continued single family use, staff is opposed to the rezoning request. The zoning has been maintained over the years, and approving this "R-4" request would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood being the first non-single family rezoning. Undesirable precedent could be set by approving the change, and it could have a disruptive influence over the neighborhood. Another concern that staff has is the width of the lot - 50 feet. The Zoning Ordinance does recommend that an "R-4" lot not be less than 70 feet which staff feels is an adequate width. The 50-foot width appears to be too narrow, but because of this being a previously platted lot, a rezoning action can take place on it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-4" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed to be deferred because of the required notification of property owners had not been completed. A motion to defer the request to the July 30, 1985, meeting was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-30-85) This applicant remains uncertain about the continuation of this petition. A deferral was requested until August 27th with the thought that the owner may withdraw this application in its entirety and pursue other uses. The Commission voted unanimously to defer the application to the August 27, 1985, agenda. The vote - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-27-85) Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning request. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z-1791-A Owner: Applicant: Landscape Associates, In . R. Wingfield Martin Location: Candlewood Subdivision - 1/4 mile north and 1/4 mile east of Cantrell Road and Pinnacle Valley Road Intersection Request: Rezone from "R-5" Urban Residence to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial Development Size: 4.04 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone 4+ acres to "C-3" for an unspecificed commercial use. The property is located approximately 800+ feet north of Highway 10 and will have frontage on Candlewood Drive should it ever be constructed. The site being removed from Highway 10 does not lend itself to being a viable commercial location. Even if the nro-- ty is proposed to be developed in conjunction with the "C-3" tract to the south, the desirability of extending commercial zoning this far north of Highway 10 is questionable. In the immediate area, a majority of the land is still vacant, including the existing "C-3" parcel. Development in this area includes single family residential, some minor commercial uses and a 1 rge mini-storage complex on the south side of Highway 10. Because of the existing "C-3" being undeveloped for the most part, it appears that the need for additional commercially zoned l -nd is not present. August 27, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued 2. The site is vacant and increases in elevation from south to north. The northern portion of the parcel has slopes between 15 and 30 percent. 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 neighborhood position on the site. The rezonings that were accomplished through File No. Z -1791 occurred approximately 20 years ago. 7. The adopted Suburban Development Plan identifies the tract to the south for commercial development but does not recommend commercial use north of the existing "C-3" zoning line. Because of the plan and a recent plan change to establish the Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road intersection for commercial development, staff is opposed to the rezoning. With the Taylor Loop location and the existing "C-3" directly to the south, there appears to an adequate amount of land designated for commercial use. In addition to those areas, there is a 65 -acre "C-2" tract further west than Highway 10. The demand for more commercial land has been established. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were two persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the case. Mr. Martin spoke and amended the application to "O-2" and not "C-3" as originally filed. He then presented a proposed plan for the Candlewood Development and pointed out the substantial grade differences in the general area. Chris Thomas, a resident in Candlewood, then spoke. He requested additional information about the specifics of the development. David Werling, representing the Candlewood/ Walton Heights Property Owners' Association, wanted to know what assurances the residents had that the development would take place as proposed. There was discussion about the necessary site plan review because of the amended request to "O-2." The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of "O-2" as amended. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. August 7, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z-4512 Owner: Robert I. Shaheen and Curtis E. Goodfellow Applicant: R. Wingfield Martin Location: Candlewood Subdivision - 1/4 mile east and 1/4 mile north of the Intersection of Cantrell Road and Pinnacle Valley Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF-12" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 20.69 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-5" and "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone this 20+ acre tract to "MF-12." No specific development plans have been submitted at this time. The property is located north of Highway 10 and east of the "C-3" request - Item No. 1 on this agenda. The site is landlocked and has no access to a developed street. The surrounding area is primarily v -ant with some single family development to the north, the Walton Heights / Candlewood neighborhood. To the west, there is some "R-4" and "R-5" zoning in place but undeveloped. The zoning to the south, north and east is "R-2" with a small "R-4" parcel on the northwest side. The property also abuts some "C-3" land along the west property line. Because of the location, the site is not suitable for multifamily development at this time. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. Som- -f the property has slo -es between 15 and 30 percent with certain locations along the north boundary exceeding 30 percent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued 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 neighborhood or history on this site. 7. The "MF-12" rezoning is in conflict with the Suburban Development Plan, and staff cannot support the request. The plan recognizes locations to the west and east along Highway 10 for higher density residential development. Staff feels that the currently identified sites are more appropriate. In the immediate vicinity of this request, the plan recommends some commercial to the southwest and the remainder for single family use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "MF-12" rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Wingfield Martin, was present. There were two interested persons in attendance. Mr. Martin reviewed the rezoning proposal and a tentative site plan. There was a long discussion about the proposed density. Chris Thomas asked about the densities and how the rezoning would impact the single family area to the north. After additional comments, Mr. Martin amended the application to "MF-6" and "OS" for that portion of the property lying northeast of the existing utility easement with the provision for density transfer from the "OS" area to the "MF-6" tract. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as amended to "MF-6" and "OS." The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z -4509 Owner: Charles J. and Mary A. Ready Applicant: Mary A. Ready Location: 100 Rice Street Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily Size: 6750 square feet Existing Use: Multifamily SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Public, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of action taken by the City's Enforcement Division. The structure was a legal nonconforming use with three units in it. At some point, there was a fire that heavily damaged the building. When the previous owner rebuilt the interior, he converted the attic into a fourth unit, thus, expanding a nonconforming structure without first trying to obtain the necessary zoning. An attempt was made to obtain a fourth utility meter, and that was how the City became aware of the expansion issue. The lot is located on the south side of West Markham across from the Schools for the Deaf and Blind. The immediate neighborhood is made up of primarily single family units, but there are also some two and three -unit structures. The zoning is "R-3" with a few lots zoned "R-4" and one "R-5" parcel within a block of the property in question. Further to the east, approximately two blocks away, the area includ -s more "R-5" and some "R-6" but appears to be less stable than the neighborhood around Rice Street. Some land east of Barton is still vacant and is close to the MOPAC Railroad tracks. 2. The site is occupied by one two -story frame structure. August 27, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Engineering has stated that parking lot improvements are needed on the site. There have been no comments received from the other reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received one call objecting to the rezoning. The only history on the site has been enforcement action. 7. In the past, staff has tried to discourage single lot rezonings in older neighborhoods to permit higher densities. With this case, the staff position remains the same and opposes the "R-5" zoning. Staff recognizes the existing three units but feels that an "R-5" reclassification could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish precedent for similar zonings. The current mix of "R-3" and "R-4" zoning seems to be working and should be maintained. Conversion of existing structures to two units is desirable, but allowing "R-5" zoning, the possibility of removing structures to accommodate more unit units becomes a concern. The buildings with three or four units should be left as nonconforming uses if they have not been rezoned. This area is part of the Woodruff School Neighborhood Plan which recognizes the neighborhood for single family use and does not advocate higher densities for this location. The plan recommends multifamily development /zoning further to the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Ben McMinn, an attorney. There were no objectors. Mr. McMinn spoke and presented some background on the property and the enforcement matter. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement Division then discussed the installation of a fourth utility meter which expanded the existing nonconforming use and created the enforcement issue. He stated that the structure had three legal units. Mike Batie of the Engineering staff discussed the parking and access concerns. There was a long discussion about the various issues. The Planning Commission then voted on the rezoning as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). The request was denied. August 27, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z-4504 Owner: Dixie Knight Applicant: Same Location: 124 N. Spruce Street Request: Rezone from "R3" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Convert Garage into Apartment Size: 7000 square feet 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 request is to rezone the lot to "R-5" to allow the conversion of the existing garage into a residential unit. The "R-5" reclassification is necessary because the two units, if approved, would be detached. The lot is located north of West Markham in a neighborhood that is still single family with the exception of certain properties fronting West Markham. Along West Markham, there is a mix of residential, office and commercial uses with the appropriate zoning. North of West Markham, the zoning is "R-3" with a "PRD" west of North Monroe. Between West Markham and Lee Streets, west of Monroe for at least four blocks, there is no "R-4" or "R-5" zoning in the neighborhood. In this block, there are a number of lots that have Accessory structures on the alley, but it appears that a majority of them are used for storage and as garages or a combination of the two. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single famil 11 ture and garage on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. August 27, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued 4. Engineering reports that parking and access should be provided. No other comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. A possible legal issue associated with this request is one of spot zoning. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. This area is part of the Heights /Hillcrest Plan which recommends single family use only for the neighborhood. Because of the plan and the issue of spot zoning, staff is opposed to the "R-5" rezoning. Another concern is the property's ability to provide the necessary off - street parking. Because of the location of the structure, it appears that it will be somewhat difficult. The "R-5" change could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood by establishing precedent for additional rezonings. The area is stable, but a gradual shift to higher densities through rezoning changes could be a disruptive influence for the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Dixie Knight, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Knight spoke and explained her reasons for requesting the rezoning change. She said she wanted to generate some extra income and that the apartment would not be used as a rental unit forever. Staff stated that they had received one call and one letter objecting to the rezoning. There was a long discussion about several of the issues. The Planning Commission then voted on the request as filed. The vote: 1 aye, 7 noes and 3 absent. The "R-5" rezoning was denied. August 27, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-3238-A Owner: Troy Braswell Applicant: Greg Nomland By: Steve Bonds Location: 10801 Fairview Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Commercial Development Size: 3.3 acres ± Existing Use: Skating Rink SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF-6" and "MF-12" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "O-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the tract to "C-3" for a commercial development. Currently, there is a skating rink which is nonconforming on the property, but it is unknown whether the rink will remain or be replaced with a new use. There has been some discussion about a teen center as a possible use. The site is located west of Rodney Parham and south of Highway 10 in a pocket that has a fairly mixed zoning and land use pattern. The zoning includes "R-2, "MF-6," "MF-12," "O-3" and "PCD." Th land is similar with nonresidential uses to the east and the developed residential primarily to the west and south. Adjacent to the property on the east side is a nonconforming commercial use. To the north, the land is undeveloped and zoned for residential uses. The site abuts single family residential on the west and south sides. The land is somewhat isolated because of the existing development pattern to be considered is a viable "C-3" location. 2. The site is occupied by a single structure and a large parking area. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. August 27, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Complete sidewalk on Fairview Road. (2) Leave access to site at existing driveway with no entrance to Fairview Road. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. A commercial rezoning was applied for in 1978, and it was denied by the Planning Commission. At that time, there was substantial opposition to the request from the surrounding neighborhoods. A petition with approximately 70 signatures was submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff has not received any comments regarding the current proposal. 7. Staff's position is that the "C-3" rezoning could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and does not support the request. Because of the direct relationship to single family uses in the area, a commercial zoning of the property could create a number of problems for the residents. In addition, the Suburban Development Plan does not identify the location for commercial development. The property is also removed from more viable commercial locations and has a relatively poor access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Greg Nomland, was present. There were approximately 15 objectors also in attendance. Mr. Nomland spoke and stated that he was proposing to convert the existing building into a teen club. After some additional comments, Mr. Nomland requested a 30 -day deferral. The 15 or so persons present indicated that they were opposed to the deferral request. Clyde Bayless, a resident of the owner, spoke against the rezoning. He said that the current use had caused too many problems, such as traffic, and because of that situation, the new proposal was not a good idea. Another resident discussed a number of issues. He was very concerned with the various uses permitted in the "C-3" district. Mr. Nomland said that they would like to explore some other options and that was the primary reason for requesting the deferral. Diane Robbins voiced her August 27, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued opposition to the "C-3" rezoning and said that the use should be something that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission then voted on the deferral request. The vote was: 2 ayes, 6 noes and 3 absent. The request was denied. The Planning Commission voted on the "C-3" rezoning as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The "C-3" application was denied. August 27, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-2477-A Owner: Greater Christ Temple Applicant: Carl Phillips Location: NW Corner of W. 13th at Abigail St. Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family and "C-3" General Commercial to "MF-24" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Size: 0.4 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "C-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Church, Zoned "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone approximately a one -half acre site to "MF-24" to permit development of a multifamily project. The proposal is to construct a single building, two stories with a total of 12 units. The necessary parking and landscaping will be provid -d. The property is located south of West 12th Street in a block that is zoned "R-3" and "C-3." The neighborhood south of West 13th is zoned primarily "R-3,' and the use is single family. The location of the proposed project is somewhat unique in that it would abut single family use only on the west side and one lot on the north side. To the east, there is a large church zoned "C-3," and some of the remaining land on the north side is vacant. Because of the zoning pattern and the property's position in the block, it appears that the site is suitable for some type of multifamily development (Abigail between WeGt 12th and West 13th has been closed, thus, creating a large block between Peyton and Lewis Streets. The church occupies what would be one entire typical block.) 2. The site is vacant and made up of two lots and a portion of the closed right-of-way for Abigail. August 27, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued 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 neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. The staff's position is that some type of residential development along West 13th is more desirable than certain commercial uses allowed in "C-3" and supports the request to "Mf-24." A multifamily project properly designed and sited should have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood because of the property's location. The potential for commercial use at this site creating problems for the area is greater than a residential project. This location is part of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan area. The plan identifies the area for single family, but staff feels that the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood. In addition, the lots are vacant and, if approved, the development would remove a possible eyesore - overgrown lots from the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "MF-24" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "MF-24" request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z-4510 Owner: Fred W. Hicks, Jr. and Freida L. Hicks Applicant: Same Location: 1506 Commerce Street Request: Rezone from "C-3" General Commercial to "R-4" Two Family Purpose: Single Family Residence Size: 3750 square feet Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Duplex, Zoned "C-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to construct a single family residence on the lot in question, currently zoned "C-3." Because of the commercial classification, rezoning to a residential district is required. An "R-4" zoning was chosen because of being the predominant district in the immediate area that permits single family units. The rezoning should not create any problems for the neighborhood and will put a vacant lot to use. The intersection does not appear to be viable commercial location because the majority of the "C-3" lots are either vacant or used for residential purposes. Only one lot has a nonresidential building on it, and that is in substandard condition. Because of the size of the lot, 50' x 75', variances have been requested for the rear and front yards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 8 - Z-4514 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: W. Christopher Barrier Location: Hinson Road, North Side at Martha Street Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "O-3" General Office Purpose: Office Use Size: 12.7 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant, Single Family and Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Golf Course, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" South - Single Family and School, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a 12.7 acre site on Hinson Road to "O-3." The proposed use is office, but no specifics hav- been provided at this time. The property is located in an area that is primarily single family development with the exception of a school on the south side of Hinson Road and the Pleasant Valley Golf Course -hick abuts the site on the north side. Some of the platted residential lots in the immediate vicinity are still vacant. The surrounding zoning is either "R-2" or "R-4." Based on the current development patterns and zoning in the area, an office rezoning of this tract is questionable and could have an impact on the single family development. 2. The site is flat and occupied by single family and industrial uses. In addition, some of the property is still vacant. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. August 27, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued 4. Engineering reports that the internal traffic plan and access to Hinson Road must be coordinated with the Traffic Engineer. No other comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. At this time, staff is unaware of any neighborhood position relative to the rezoning request. 7. The Suburban Development Plan does not endorse an office development at this location. Because of the plan, staff is opposed to the request. On the north side of Hinson Road from Rodney Parham, the rezoning is "R-2" and has always been identified for residential use only. Between Green Mountain and Napa Valley, the south side of Hinson has been shown for nonresidential use on the plan and a majority of the land is already zoned to accommodate office development. Staff feels that the area further to the east is more appropriate for office uses and that the location under consideration is misplaced and somewhat removed from more viable office areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomends denial of the "O-3" rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Chris Barrier, was present, and he indicated he was representing Danny Thomas, the proposed developer. There were 15 objectors in attendance. Mr. Barrier described the site and some slides were presented. He said the developer needed the entire tract to make the project feasible and that there were 13 separate ownerships involved with the property. Mr. Barrier said that a possible option for the site was an office park. Mike McQueen, an architect, presented a conceptual development plan for an office park project. There was a long discussion about various issues. Danny Thomas then spoke. He described some previous development proposals for the site and said the property was an eyesore. William Griep said he was opposed to the request and presented a petition with approximately 114 signatures objecting to the rezoning. Ron Fuller presented another petition from the Marlowe Manor Subdivision. He indicated that traffic was a major concern and that the rezoning was out of place with the area. August 27, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued Ben Allen spoke against the request. Jack Holt, representing the Pleasant Valley Country Club, indicated that the club was opposed to the rezoning. Ruth Hinson, owner of the tract, then addressed the Planning Commission. She said that she had been residing on the property for 45 years and described the site. Ms. Hinson went on to make a number of other comments. The Planning Commission voted on the "O-3" request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 7 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Dorothy Arnett). The rezoning to "O-3" was denied. August 27, 1985 Item No. 9 - Z-4515 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Larry Henderson Location: SW Corner of Bankhead Drive at I-440 Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Motel and Restaurant Size: 2.7 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Interstate Right-of-Way, Unclassified and "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the site to "C-3" to permit a restaurant and motel. The property is currently outside the City limits, so annexation of the land must also be accomplished prior to the rezoning being finalized. The tract is located at an interchange with I-440 and in close proximity to the airport, so it appears that the location has commercial potential. To the east across Bankhead Drive, there is an existing motel that has proven to be very successful. Land use- on the west side of Bankhead Drive include single family, an auto salvage operation, but most of the land is vacant. Besides the rezoning and annexation issues, several of the street rights-of-wav and alleys are proposed to be closed. 2. The site is wooded and vacant for the most part. There is a single family residence on a portion of the tract. 3. There are no right-of-wax, requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. August 27, 1985 Item No. 9 - Continued 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Boundary street improvements required on 33rd Street as well as Bankhead Drive, including drainage structures. (2) Recommend closing Riffel Street. If not, require boundary street improvements. (3) Coordinate all access with Traffic Engineer and AHTD at new intersection at Bankhead Drive. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received several informational calls concerning this request. There is no documented history on the site. 7. Being located at a major interchange with an interstate is an appropriate location for a motel and staff supports the "C-3" request. The rezoning and proposed use should have little impact on the surrounding area and will probably encourage further new development in the immediate vicinity. The general area is better suited now for a more intense development pattern because of the interstate and good access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Gene Lewis. There were no objectors present. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 noes and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). August 27, 1985 Item No. 10 - Z-4516 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Michael Watson Location: 6706 S. University Avenue Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family, "PRD" and "C-3" General Commercial to "C-4" Open Display Purpose: Auto Sales Size: 6.7 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant and Auto Sales SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-4" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and and "C-3" East - Right -of -way and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "I-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. ThP request is to rezone the land to "C-4" for auto sales. That portion of the property that has frontage on S. Unversity is currently used for a car sales lot so the rezoning if approved would remov- 'he nonconforming aspect of that use. The remainder of the site is vacant. The rezoning proposal as submitted would have leave a 200-foot "R-2" strip east of Mabelvale Pike. (The tentative agenda sketch did not reflect the proposed "R-2" tract). That type of zoning pattern is consistent with the east side of Mabelvale Pike where none of the commercial zoning extends all the way from S. Unversity to Mabelvale Pike. The only non - single family residential classification along Mabelvale Pike is the "PRD" which has never been developed and will hav^ to rescinded if this rezoning is approved. Currently, there are "C-3" and "C-4" tracts that are closer to Mabelvale Pike than what is proposed with this request. So, no new precedent will be established by the rezoning as filed. August 27, 1985 Item No. 10 - Continued 2. A portion of the property is occupied by an auto sales lot and related buildings. The remainder of the site is vacant and wooded. 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. The existing "PRD" was approved in 1984, and there was opposition from the neighborhood to that reclassification. Over the years, the residents in the area have expressed dissatifaction with the rezoning proposals in the general area. With the request, it is staff's understanding that several of the nearby homeowners are opposed to the rezoning. 7. The strip between S. Unversity and Mabelvale Pike has been affected by previous commercial reclassifications, and this rezoning, if granted, should have a minimal impact on the area. Because of the 200 -foot "R-2" strip, the staff supports the "C-4" request as filed. For the most part, the 200-foot area is greater than the remaining "R-2" land along Mabelvale Pike north of this site and should provide an adequate buffer. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the area for strip commercial use and "C-4" is a compatible zoning district for that type of development pattern. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" request with the 200-foot "R-2" strip east of Mabelvale Pike. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Don Chambers, was present. There were six persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the item. Mr. Chambers discussed the property and development of the site. He said that there would be adequate buffers, proper drainage would be installed and there would be no outside maintenance of vehicles. Fonda Lyle, a resident on Mabelvale Pike, then spoke for three of the adjoining property owners in the area. She expressed some concern about the required notification. Staff indicated that it August 27, 1985 Item No. 10 - Continued was all in order. Ms. Lyle then suggested a possible deferral because of one of the property owners being out of town. She then presented a map and some written information. Ms. Lyle said that the residents were not opposed to the rezoning but did want certain conditions met such as drainage, fencing, landscaping and proper lighting. Mike Batie of the City Engineering staff said that normal drainage requirements would be placed on the project /property. Ms. Lyle then discussed in detail some of the conditions. She reauested that certain trees be left and that there be no loud speakers or large lights. She also informed the Planning Commission that the neighborhood would keep a close eye on what was taking place on the property. D.J. Jones of Twin City Motors said because of the short period of time to review the conditions, that he had problems agreeing with certain aspects. Joan Adcock indicated she was concerned about the future of the property. After some additional comments, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as filed. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. The Planning Commission also passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent a resolution recommending to the Board of Directors that the existing PRD be rescinded. August 27, 1985 Item No. 11 - Z-4517 Owner: Eagle Properties Applicant: Lawrence Jacimore Location: 4721 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Make Existing Uses Conform Size: 1.4 acres ± Existing Use: Retail and Mini - Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The site in question is located along a section of Baseline Road that was part of the referendum area which was upheld by the Supreme Court in April of this year. The property is completely developed with a small-scale shopping center on the front portion and mini-warehouses in the rear. Mini-warehouses will require a conditional use permit to establish them as conforming uses. The proposed Geyer Springs East District Plan recognizes the existing commercial uses, and staff supports the request because of the plan. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required for Baseline Road. Additional right-of-way for South Heights Road may also be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 12 - Z -4518 Owner: Eagle Properties Applicant: Lawrence Jacimore Location: 8300 Block of Shelley Drive and 5310 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-4" Open Display Purpose: Make Existing Uses Conform Size: 1.7 acres ± Existing Use: Retail and Mini - Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" East - Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The property under consideration is located on Baseline Road, east of Geyer Springs, and came into the City in April 1985, by the State Supreme Court upholding the annexation of certain lands by referendum. The parcels are fully developed with nonconforming uses such as mini-storage units and an auto service center. It is possible that several of the uses in the building fronting Baseline will require a conditional use permit to discontinue their nonconforming status because of certain retail uses in "C-4" being listed as conditional uses. The proposed Geyer Springs East District Plan identifies the location for a continued commercial development. The "C-4" reclassification is appropriate for Baseline Road which was classified as a major arterial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 13 - Z-4520 Owner: Salvation Army Applicant: Raymond Branton Location: 1111 West Markham Street Request: Rezone from "C -4" Open Display to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: To Expand Use and Building Size: .67 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant and Quasipublic SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C-4" South - Parking, Zoned "C-4" East - Parking and Commercial, Zoned "C-4" West - Commercial and Industrial, Capitol Zoning District STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is by the Salvation Army to rezone the property to "C-3" to allow for the expansion of their uses and building. A rezoning is necessary because the "C-4" District does not permit the "establishment of a religious, charitable or philantrophic organization," and with the proposal, expanding a nonconforming use becomes the issue. The new addition will accommodate both the adminstrative functions and transient lodging for families. Staff feels that the rezoning is appropriate for the location and supports the request. Once the rezoning is approved, the property will be compliance with the ordinance. The existing "C-4" zoning in this part of downtown was accomplished through the conversion from the old zoning ordinance to the current one. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 14 - Z-4521 Owner: Leo B. King Applicant: Burton Speights Location: 1301 S. Shackleford Road (south of Kanis Road) Request: Rezone from "O-3" General Office to "O-2" Office and Institutional Purpose: Motel (96 rooms) Size: 3.2 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "O-3" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "O-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "O-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the tract to "O-2" for a motel which will require a conditional permit prior to the site being developed. The property is located on the east side of Shackleford just south of Kanis Road. The area south of Kanis has a mix of office and commercial zoning with the east side of Shackleford being zoned "O-2" or "O-3." Staff's position is that the rezoning is compatible with the area and the proposed use should not cause any adverse impacts. The rezoning to "O-2" conforms to the "I-430 District Plan and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "O-2" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 27, 1985 Item No. 15 - Planning Commission Review of the 1985 Calendar of Meeting Dates PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning staff presented the revised calendar for meeting dates October through December 1985, for purposes of restructuring the scheduled public hearings. The staff offering included two public hearings during the month of November in place of the current scheduled single meeting and a restructuring of the December meeting by moving the hearing date from December 10th to December 17th. After a brief discussion of the matter the Planning Commission voted on a motion to approve the calendar as presented by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE t (ftf£U,2f 0,,... / C / "GC:J -. ZONING ----· SUBDIVISION MEMBER A B I z J.StJffilllPrl-in / / ✓✓ J.Schlereth ,/ / ,/ ✓ R.Massie v I✓ / ✓ B.Sipes II n J.Nicholson ✓( ✓ I w.Rector v I ✓ I w.Ketcher ✓/ I v D.Arnett v ,/ ,/ I D.J. Jones ✓✓ / I I.Bo_les v ,I ✓ ,/ J� Clayton II I I 3 , , , , , I I t • 1-, , , , � , , ✓ j/ V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS 5 l, 1 8 9 /o , / / , / ✓ ' ✓ I/ '✓✓ I I✓ ,/ •✓✓ , ✓ I ,✓ ,/' ✓ ✓ ' i / ' ✓ ✓ ,.. ,/ ✓ •v ii IJ'i ✓ v' ✓ ✓ ' ✓ ✓ II ✓ ✓ If II--4, ✓AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN - // /Z✓ ✓ ✓I✓✓ ✓ ✓ � ✓v"✓✓ ✓V✓v✓ ✓ ]� I l) d'v /3 /¥ I ✓✓ /v ✓ v, ✓✓ ✓ IA 4 n ✓✓ ✓✓ v ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ v ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ri /J 4 ,, August 27, 1985 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m. Chairperson Secretary Date