Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 01 1996LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 1, 1996 3:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the June 20, 1996 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Doyle Daniel, Jr. Hugh Earnest Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Ronald Woods Sissi Brandon Pam Adcock (One Open Position) City Attorney: Stephen Giles 11 LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING AGENDA AUGUST 1, 1996 3:30 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z-6159 14902 Alexander Road R-2 to 0-1 B. Z-6164 8420 Kanis Road Special Use Permit C. Z-6161 3205 Asher Avenue R-3 to C-1 D. Coulson Oil PCD - Reconsideration (Z-4411-B) E. Land Use Plan Definition Suburban Office II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z-6167 7501-7505 Asher Avenue C-3 to I-2 a 3:Nd tl3RVtli cn 1Y1VBIH1 UJ _ co LU -- D o k z NVW830 0O � N x f o w O W NIVW AVMOVOHB HOHV �lMOb/ H 1SNO H3H3HO o 0 ONII 1W cd OH 3 �PONS o - s Did o MOtl0Did00M 1�3y1s HpyY tlV03O NOIIIWVH 110OS SpMH dS y0 �a Ntltld tllVA N 5 w U CO AilSH3AIWI AlIS83AINn SONItldS 83A3O S3HOnH O fi >r 6 a J WISSIS IW N'Y�6 m LOOWO M088VO NHOf 31V c ¢"HIOAtl3S3H g' i 3JIN13H 3 SIOtltlS N _ 0180i31NOVHS g z r Otl 331 tlH J b N Qv EE tld A3NOOtl g - _ NVWMOS LU > , a u h � AlIw Y 3OOItl AMA S11WIl O c�i �blS Oa0�t � � > O U � P" Z _< NVAn1nS 18VM31S Z bY�r S11WIl A11O O We W > 3 iVOfOO 3lVONtl3i August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-6159 Owner: Earl and Barbara Brisendine Applicant: Barbara Brisendine Location: 14902 Alexander Road Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-1 Purpose: Use existing structure as offices for food service broker Size: 2.0± acres Existing Use: One story brick residential structure which is occupied by Brisco Food Service, Inc. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant lot and Single Family homes; zoned R-2 South - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 East - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 West - Vacant, wooded and Single Family homes; zoned R-7A (also City of Alexander) ENGINEERING COMMENTS Alexander Road is classified as a minor arterial, 90 feet of right-of-way and 60 feet of pavement with sidewalk. Dedicate right-of-way to bring property line to 45 feet from centerline. Driveway must be improved for structure to be used as office. Any planned construction will involve widening of one-half the road to minor arterial standards and the construction of a sidewalk. At the time of permit other development related issues will be discussed. AHTD approval will be required for construction within right-of- way, after City approval. Current construction is a 22 foot pavement with open ditches and no sidewalk. 1992 traffic count for Alexander Road is 1560. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Otter Creek District. The adopted Plan recommends Single Family. There have not been any changes in the area to justify a plan amendment to Office. Staff cannot support the introduction of nonresidential use at this time. August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-6159 (Cont.) TAFF ANALYSI The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2± acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to "0-1" Quiet Office. The property contains a one-story, brick and frame residential structure which has been converted into offices by Briscoe Food Service, Inc. The applicant states she was not aware that the property was in the City of Little Rock until a representative of the City's Code Enforcement Staff issued her a notice for violating the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at the extreme southwest corner of the City, adjacent to the City of Alexander. The area is rural in nature, comprised primarily of single family homes on larger lots. Large areas are undeveloped and wooded. A partially developed manufactured home subdivision is adjacent to the west. The primary zoning in the area is R-2, with the manufactured home subdivision being zoned R-7A. Both of these designations are single family residential. within the city limits, there is no nonresidential zoning within the vicinity of this site. The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan is reflective of the existing zoning by indicating single family for this entire area with the exception of the manufactured home subdivision which is shown as MH on the Plan. The nearest nonresidential on the Plan is well north of this site, at I-30 and County Line Road. The adopted Plan recommends Single Family for this site. There are no other nonresidentially zoned properties within the vicinity of this site. All surrounding uses are single family. Staff cannot support the requested 0-1 zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-1 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter on May 13, 1996 asking that the item be deferred to the August 1, 1996 commission meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the August 1, 1996 meeting by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniel). 2 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-6159 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 1, 1996) The Chairman identified for those present for today's meeting that there was a potential vote problem with the Commission since there were only eight of the eleven members present and six votes are required for final action. The Chairman asked if the applicant wished to address this circumstance and perhaps request a deferral. The applicant came forward and identified herself as Barbara Brisending, a resident at 14902 Alexander Road which is the subject property. She stated for the record that because of the attendance circumstance she desired that her application be deferred. The Chairman requested that staff provide the appropriate deferral date. Richard Wood, of the Staff, stated that the August 29, 1996 Subdivision Hearing is the next scheduled meeting for items of this nature. A brief discussion then followed involving Commissioner Daniel, the Chairman and Staff members as to the appropriate meeting for the placement of this item for deferral. Wood stated that the deferral needs to go to at least the subdivision agenda since the staff does not normally place public hearing items of this nature on the Planning Hearing. A question was posed by a gentleman in the audience as what position the item would hold on the new agenda. The Chairman and Staff identified that it would be a deferred item and would be one of the first items introduced. The Chairman asked for a motion from the Commission. A motion to defer the application to August 29, 1996 was made. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 open position and 1 abstention (McCarthy). The Chairman then stated for the record that the item has been deferred. 3 } August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-6164 Name: Location: Centers for Youth and Families Special Use Permit 8420 Kanis Road Owner/Applicant: Mrs. W. B. Southerland, Owner; Centers for Youth and Families, applicant Proposal: A special use permit is requested to allow for the use of this R-2 zoned property for a family care facility. STAFF ANALYSIS The Centers for Youth and Families requests a special use permit to allow for the use of the "R-2" zoned, Single Family residential structure at 8420 Kanis Road as a family care facility. CYF proposes to use the property to house up to five unrelated youth who will be participants in a "transitional living program" funded by a contract with the Division of Children and Family Services, Arkansas Department of Human Services. At least one staff member will be on duty at all times (24 hours per day/7 days per week) to supervise youth and program activities at the site. The program is described in more detail in the attached narrative. The Ordinance defines a family care facility as "a facility which provides resident service in a family -like environment to six or fewer individuals and not more than two staff personnel. These individuals require a minimal level of supervision and are provided service and supervision in accordance with their individual needs." Family Care Facilities require approval through a special use permit in the "R-2" District. Section 36-54(e)(2) of the Code of Ordinances establishes the site and location criteria for family care facilities. They are as follows: a. This use may be located only in a single-family dwelling. b. Medical or counseling needs must be provided off -site. C. No physical changes in the residence are permitted which would provide other than sleeping accommodations. August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6164 d. Drives and parking shall not exceed that required by ordinance for a single family residence. e. This use shall be permitted to run with the title to the land and be transferable. f. The number and spacing of existing similar facilities in the neighborhood. g. Existing zoning and land use patterns. h. Area wide availability of facilities providing like services. i. Provision for readily accessible public or quasi -public transportation. Section 36-54(f) of the Code of Ordinances establishes separation/spacing requirements for family care facilities to be determined by the Planning Commission so as not to adversely impact the surrounding properties and neighborhood. Issues that the Planning Commission will consider during its review include: (1) The total number of similar facilities and their spacing within the neighborhood. (2) Existing zoning and land use patterns. (3) Area wide availability of facilities providing like services. (4) Provision for readily accessible public or quasi -public transportation. The proposed use is located in a one-story, brick and frame single family dwelling. Other programs of CYF such as the Adolescent Day Treatment Program, Medication Clinic, Nursing Services and the Elizabeth Mitchell Adolescent Center will be utilized by residents of the home, when needed. No physical changes will be made to the residence or the property. It will retain its single family residential appearance. There are no similar facilities in the area. The property is located at the eastern edge of a mixed use area with zoning ranging from 0-3 to C-3 and C-4. A small R-2 zoned single family neighborhood is adjacent to the north. A large, wooded area of R-2 zoned property extends to the east of this site, on both sides of Kanis Road. The mixed use area extending to the west contains a variety of uses including a veterinary clinic, a plumbing supply F August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6164 company and a variety of other commercial uses. The large area of C-3 zoned property across Kanis Road is undeveloped. The site is located on a city bus route, providing access to public transportation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes this is an appropriate location for the proposed use and recommends approval of the special use permit for a family care facility. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the abstract company had provided incorrect information, thus the notices were sent to the wrong persons. Staff stated that the item needed to be deferred to the August 1, 1996 Commission meeting and that the applicant was sending corrected notices. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 1, 1996 meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 1, 1996) The issue was placed before the Commission for discussion. There was a brief update by staff on this application reporting that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this item be withdrawn from further consideration. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it to be appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 3 CYF TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAM Centers for Youth and Families/Youth Services proposes to create a transitional living house to be located at 8420 Kanis Road. This program will be funded by the Division of Children and Family Services, Arkansas Department of Human Services. This home will house a maximum of five residents. The program will recruit and train staff which meet Arkansas licensure requirements of their specific discipline. A behavioral level system will be implemented with in -put from the treatment team, Youth Services administration, legal counsel for Centers for Youth and Families, and TEL residents. Policies and procedures which meet requirements of Arkansas Licensure have been developed and will be implemented. A Risk Assessment process has been developed which is used as part of the admission screening process and will be helpful in predicting appropriate candidates for a community -based transitional living arrangement. Program evaluation has been developed which will meet the standards for Quality Assessment and Improvement in accordance with guidelines established by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). A Level of Comfort Questionnaire, developed specifically for the program will be completed by the residents upon admission and quarterly thereafter as another measure of resident progress. Additionally, treatment goals outlined in the Master Treatment Plan and the Treatment Plan Reviews will be monitored to determine resident progress and program effectiveness. The residents will participate in educational, vocational, occupational activities, attend religious services (if they choose), participate in community service activities, psychosocial counselling, both individual sessions and group meetings, and participate in Life Skills Training group meetings. With appropriate approvals, they visit with family members, friends, and significant others both at the residence and away from the residence. Emergency procedures have been developed, in -serviced, and implemented for psychiatric, emergency medical, and non -emergency medical issues. Other programs of Centers for Youth and Families such as the Adolescent Day Treatment Program, Medication Clinic, Nursing Services, and the Elizabeth Mitchell Adolescent Center will be utilized by residents of the program, when indicated. Residents will be referred to an array of community -based services outside Centers' facilities. Residents will be taught to manage their needs as an independent member of the community and have learned to access such areas as healthcare, recreational facilities, educational facilities, occupational sites, etc. independently. This staffing pattern will provide for at least one staff member to be on duty at all times (24 hours per day/7 days per week) to supervise youth and program activities at that site. All staff will be licensed and/or certified by the State of Arkansas licensing division responsible for their specific discipline. All staff will be employees of Centers for Youth and Families and selected by the Program Manager and Youth Services Administrator. A clinical and management on -call system will be in place to provide 24 hour/7 day coverage. August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: C Z-6161 Owner: Nikitia Hunter Applicant: Nikitia Hunter Location: 3205 Asher Avenue Request: Rezone from R-3 to C-1 Purpose: Convert existing structure into a beauty shop Size: .5± acres Existing Use: Vacant, single family residential structure SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single family residence, vacant lots and dry cleaners; zoned C-3 and word of Outreach campus; zoned R-3 and R-4 South - Single Family residences; zoned R-3 East - Vacant lot; zoned R-3 West - Single Family homes, zoned R-3 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Asher Avenue is a minor arterial street with a reduced right-of-way of 70 feet. Dedicate right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline. with construction on -site, construct half street improvements to Master Street Plan standards, including sidewalk. Provide paved on -site parking to accommodate proposed use. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is in the I-630 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The proposal is in conflict with the Plan. There has not been a change in the area to justify an amendment to the Plan. In fact, changes in the area (the church school across Asher) have made the area more single family friendly. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone this .5± acre tract from "R-3" Single Family to "C-1" August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: C Z-6161 (Cont.) Neighborhood Commercial. The property contains a small, frame residential structure and an accessory building. The applicant proposes to convert the residence into a beauty shop. The property is located on the northern edge of a small pocket of residential homes located south of Asher Avenue, north of Roosevelt Road and west of Roselawn Cemetery. All properties to the east, west and south are zoned R-3. Several of these R-3 zoned properties are vacant but many contain single family residences. A small area of C-3 zoning is located across Asher Avenue to the north. Only one lot is occupied by a business, a dry cleaners. The remainder of these C-3 zoned properties are vacant or, in one case, contain a single family home. The Word of Outreach church and campus occupies several R-3, R-4 and R-5 zoned properties to the west and northwest. The C-1 request is in Plan which recommends have been no changes commercial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION conflict with the adopted Land Use single family for the site. There in the area to justify a change to Staff recommends denial of the requested C-1 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The applicant, Nikitia Hunter, was present. There were no objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mr. Carney distributed copies of the Land Use Plan for the area and discussed the relationship of the property to the plan. He explained that the plan recommended residential for the site. Ms. Hunter addressed the Board in support of her application. She stated that the beauty shop would have 5 booths, employing herself and 4 other beauticians. Ms. Hunter discussed other non-residential uses in the area and pointed out that one of the remaining residences in the same block was owned by her mother, who was present in support of the item. Commissioner Putnam asked staff if a PCD would be acceptable. Mr. Carney responded that a PCD was still commercial zoning, which does not conform to the Plan. Commissioner Adcock asked when the Plan was last reviewed. Mr. Carney responded that the Plan was reviewed in response 0A August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: C Z-6161 (Cont. to this zoning application. He stated that the Plan correctly reflected uses in the area. He described those uses in relationship to the Plan. In response to a question from Commissioner McCarthy, Ms. Hunter stated that there were several vacant lots and a vacant house located near her property. Commissioner Putnam asked if the Plan should be amended, if the Commission were to approve the rezoning. Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded that the Plan would need to be changed to support the requested C-1 zoning. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, commented that the Commission could vote to amend the Plan first. Commissioner Hawn stated that he felt the proposed beauty shop would not harm the neighborhood and, in fact, might provide a service to the neighborhood's residents. A discussion then followed about the possibility of converting the application to a PCD. Commissioner Hawn stated that the item needed to be deferred to address the Land Use Plan, rather than rezone the property and amend the Plan at the same meeting. Commissioner Putnam discussed the deteriorating condition of the neighborhood and stated that he felt the rezoning would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner McCarthy asked why staff did not recommend changing the Plan. Mr. Lawson responded that staff reviewed the Plan in response to the zoning request and determined that there was no immediate need to change the Plan. A motion was made to direct the staff to conduct a further review of the plan. The motion was seconded. In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Ms. Hunter stated that she agreed to a two week deferral. Mr. Lawson noted that staff could very well return in two weeks with the same opinion regarding the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Lichty asked why a conditional use permit was not appropriate for this type of use. Mr. Carney stated that a beauty shop was not a permitted conditional use in the R-3 district. A vote was taken on the motion directing staff to review the Plan. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 3 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO • C Z-6161 (Cont.) A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the August 1, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 1, 1996) The Chairman asked that staff present the item and its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, noted for the record that the applicant had entered the room and was present for discussion on this item. Wood identified the specific request and reminded the Commission that this item was deferred from the last zoning hearing. This due to discussion at the time concerning the potential need for further review of the neighborhood plan especially in light of the circumstances along Asher Avenue and the small residential pocket adjacent to this application. Wood then offered the floor to Tony Hozynski to present the Planning Staff's comments relative to their review of the plan for the area. Tony Hozynski, of the Planning Staff, came forward and presented the specifics of the staff's review of this area. Again, the Commission was reminded of the brief history of this item since July 18, 1996. Hozynski pointed out a graphic which he had erected for the Commission's attention. He identified the I-630 planning district which is the district that provides for the neighborhood plan for this area. He then proceeded to offer a geographic identity to various lines of streets and uses on the map. He specifically pointed out the residential pockets and the commercial strips that lie along Asher Avenue and Roosevelt Road. Hozynski then moved his comments to identifying areas that are zoned in the area, specifically the commercial and industrial. He stated that staff in utilizing maps has reviewed the neighborhood to determine that there had not been a substantial change in terms of demolitions, new structures and such. He stated that primarily staff found that this area south of Asher Avenue is a stable residential neighborhood. He stated that the primary change that was noted in this area has been the Word of Outreach facility which is expanding on both sides of Asher Avenue at this time. Hozynski identified the specific location on the graphic. He stated that staff had considered some other possible areas for amendment on the plan map other than the issue at hand. Hozynski offered for the Commission's viewing a smaller scale map than the one he had displayed which offered the neighborhood land usage. He continued by saying that a reasonable plan amendment at this time would be to extend the existing MX designation on the map to the east from the larger area to include the property in question. It would extend over to 26th Street 4 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.:C Z-61f1 (_Con and then over to.about Brown Street with a depth of approximately 200 feet along Asher Avenue. Bozynski stated that what we would be doing is very similar to what has been done on the north side of Asher and it appears that it has not had an adverse impact. He stated that staff feels the change would be appropriate and would help to stabilize the neighborhood. Bozynski then moved his comments to the designation of MX and identified what that land use designation included. It being residential office and commercial in a mix. He then stated that staff felt the C-1 commercial designation was appropriate. He then moved his comments to the north side of Asher and stated that staff is also offering some change in this area. The change to be recommended principally deals with recognizing the Word of Outreach facilities. The proposed change would be from the current multifamily designation to public and institutional use. Bozynski also identified another area that was showing commercial on the plan and would be changed to MX. He stated that it currently had an office use on it. Bozynski then moved his comments away from the specifics of the plan and stated that staff in reviewing these kinds of plans, request input from neighborhood associations. In this case he identified this was the Garland Neighborhood Association, which lies on both sides of Asher Avenue. He stated that, in a couple of phone conversations that he had discussed the proposal with David Adams from this association. Mr. Adams is currently their president. Bozynski stated that should the Planning Commission recommend this zoning action and the plan change that the staff would like to set down with the neighborhood representatives and discuss these modifications before the item proceeds to the Board of Directors. He stated that in his initial discussion with the neighborhood representative that they did not see any problems. In closing his remarks, Bozynski briefly went back over the several changes which would be recommended by staff. The issue was then passed to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Rahman posed a question as to what kind of zoning is allowed in MX district. Bozynski then responded by saying that zoning districts such as C-1 and Office districts are permitted as the nonresidential types. A second question from Commissioner Rahman was the C-1 inviting uses such as auto part stores to this area." Bozynski responded saying no. That type of use is not permitted in C-1. That type of use is typically located west of the split between Asher and Roosevelt in an area that is more commercial and industrial zoned. Commissioner Rahman then raised another questions as to whether or not it would be appropriate to have some type of buffering use 5 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: C Z-6161 (Con between the MX on the plan and the single family. Hozynski indicated that the existing relationship was not buffered and would perhaps not be appropriate at this location. Commissioner Daniel then raised a question as to whether or not staff is changing its recommendation on the rezoning at 3205 Asher in as much as the staff had recommended the denial previously. He went on to say it appeared from looking at our write-up and what the MX change would allow that the C-1 would then be appropriate if the plan is amended. Hozynski's response was that the MX plan amendment, since it would allow C-1 uses, would then be appropriate for staff to recommend approval of the C-1 application. At this point, Commissioner Lichty gained the floor and asked the Chairman if it was possible for the Commission to proceed at this time with acting upon a recommendation on the land use plan and at the same meeting act on the rezoning application. "Is this appropriate procedure?" Commissioner Hawn gained the floor at this point and offered a motion. The motion being that the Commission waive their recent adopted procedural requirement on land use plan amendments in order to hear this item on the same occasion as the rezoning. Steve Giles, of the City Attorney's Office inserted a comment at this point. He said so long as the Commission acted on the land use plan first and the rezoning petition second that it would be appropriate. Commissioner Hawn then modified his motion somewhat by specifically addressing the land use plan of record in this area and especially showing mixed use in the area under consideration for rezoning. The motion was seconded. The vote on the motion was approval of the recommended land use plan amendment by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. The Chairman then placed the rezoning application on the floor for consideration. Commissioner Putnam at this point offered a motion of approval of the C-1 application as presented. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion approved the zoning application to C-1 by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 6 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-4411-B OTHER MATTERS RECONSIDERATION NAME: COULSON OIL, HIGHWAY 10 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Woodland Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: ROBERT BROWN COULSON OIL COMPANY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 1434-38 Pike Ave. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-422 221-7880 AREA: 1.84 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and Car wash; Restaurant with Drive -Through Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1). Approval of the Highway 10 landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the new line of the right-of-way being dedicated with this application. 2). Approval of a variance of the regulation which requires driveways to be a minimum of 100 feet from intersections. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD development on one of the lots in the Pleasant Ridge Square subdivision, and the development of this site is a part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Square PCD development. The site is a 1.84 acre lot at the corner of Highway 10 and Woodland Rd. Construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps and an enclosed car wash, and a restaurant with drive -through service is proposed. The convenience store - restaurant is a 4,910 square foot building; the service canopy is 47 feet by 84 feet, and stands 25 feet high; and, the car wash area is 720 square feet. The applicant explains that the site rises in elevation significantly at the south boundary of the tract, and development must be limited to the area closer to Highway 10. This is important, also, since buffering of the residential uses August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B to the south is best accomplished by maintaining an undisturbed area along this south boundary. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required 15 feet of additional right-of-way along Highway 10, but wishes to measure the required 40 foot wide Highway 10 landscape buffer from the location of the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the new line when the right- of-way is dedicated. The site design also causes the driveway onto Woodland Dr. to be located approximately 70 feet from Highway 10, and a variance from the requirement that driveways be at least 100 feet from intersections is required. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required additional right-of-way on Woodland Dr. and to make the required street improvements on this street. The applicant states that site lighting will be directed to the vehicular use areas, and light fixtures will be below the elevation of the required fence along the south property line. Signage, the applicant states, will conform to the Highway 10 standards. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the Coulson Oil PCD. variances from the requirement that the buffer width be measured from the right-of-way line, subsequent to the dedication of additional right-of-way, and from the requirement that driveway access points be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersecting street are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain rises from an elevation of approximately 497 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of the tract to 530-535 feet at the south property line. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The area to the west is zoned R-2, as is the area to the south and east. Across Highway 10 to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) dedication of an additional 12.5 feet of right-of-way for Woodland Rd. will be required; 2) Master Street Plan improvements will be required on Woodland Rd.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction may begin; 4) the cut planned for the rear of the property will require terracing, according to the recommendations of Sec. 29-190 (Every 10 feet of vertical cut requires a 10 foot terrace, with plantings.); 5) ditches will be required to intersect drainage on each of the terraces; 6) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required; and, 7) the driveway shown on Woodland Rd. is less than 100' from the K August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B intersection, and this driveway must be moved to the south to conform to the Ordinance requirements. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements, pursuant to the comment for the preliminary plat item. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet the Hwy. 10 Overlay requirements with the exception of a portion of the western perimeter which falls 12 feet short of the 25 foot width requirement. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen this site from the residential property to the south. This screen can either be a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. Trees are required along Highway 10 with an average spacing of 20 feet. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. An 8 foot high opaque wall or wood fence will be required around 3 sides of the dumpster. A cross section showing the proposed method of handling the slope area must be provided. Because of the degree of cut, Public Works will be requiring terracing to lessen the impact. Trees will be required to be planted within the terracing areas. Raised curbing, fencing, grading, or other physical protection should be provided at the slope base to protect the vehicular use areas from falling rocks and erosion. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning Staff comments that the request is in the River Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the area be developed as Single Family uses. The Planning staff adds that, at this time, staff can find no justification for amending the Plan from Single Family to Commercial in order to allow development of a community level development. The Planning staff adds that, if the shopping center use is not approved, and only the gas station is considered, then there is no justification for the use which could lead to the stripping along Highway 10. 3 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B Ordinance No. 16,577 requires that access points shall not be placed closer than 100 feet to the right-of-way of any intersecting street. The applicant is seeking a variance of this requirement in order for the driveway to woodland Rd. to be 70 feet ± from Highway 10. All technical requirements for the submittal have been met; there are no issues to be resolved, except as cited above. E. ANALYSIS• Public works has indicated that no widening of Highway 10 is required at this time, and the applicant has asked for a variance to permit the measurement of the required buffer width to be taken from the existing right-of-way, in lieu of from the location of the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. If, in the future, Highway 10 is widened, the width of the landscape buffer will be lessened by the amount of improvements made. The proposed development is a community level development, and, not only is the proposed development in conflict with the land use plan, but it is "community" oriented rather than "neighborhood" oriented. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the PCD application, since the proposed development is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, reviewed with staff the comments contained in the discussion outline. There was discussion regarding the requested variance for the buffer along Highway 10, regarding the various Public Works comments, including the need for the driveway onto woodland Dr. to be a minimum of 100 feet from Highway 10, and regarding the various Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments. Mr. Brown responded that he would meet with the Public works staff to come to an agreement on the needed modifications, and would provide the requested information as noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the PCD request to the full Commission for the public hearing. N August 1, 1996 ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Chairperson Chachere stated that the discussion on Items 9, Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD (Z-4411-A) and Item 10, Coulson Oil, Highway 10 -- Short -Form PCD (Z-4411-B) would be conducted as one discussion item, but that each of the items would be voted on individually. Staff presented an overview of each of the two items. Staff pointed out to the Commission that both items required a variance from the Commission on the depth of the front landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. Mrs. Meredith Catlett, an attorney representing Mr. Lou Schickel, the applicant for Item 9, the Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD, spoke in support Mr. Schickel's application. Mrs. Catlett outlined the scope of the application, and stated that the proposed development consists of a neighborhood shopping center, plus an outparcel for a future office building. She told the Commission that the application is for a mixed use PCD application, and that, therefore, the issue raised regarding single -use PCD's is not applicable. Mrs. Catlett related that, as far back as 1980, the land use plan for the area had indicated that the site was appropriate for neighborhood shopping. She explained that "neighborhood shopping" centers are typically anchored by large super markets, have a maximum size of 100,000 square feet, and occupy a site of approximately 15 acres. She contended, then, that the proposed development fits into the "neighborhood shopping" category exactly, since the proposed development very nearly meets the definition requirements. She contested the staff comment that the shopping center constitutes a community -level shopping center, saying that the definition of a community -level shopping center states that such a center is anchored by two general merchandise stores, that such a center has a maximum size of 300,000 square feet, and that such a site has a maximum area of 50 acres. The proposed project, she concluded, does not fit the definition of the community -level shopping center, but does fit precisely into the definition of the neighborhood shopping center category. Mrs. Catlett added that, in 1986, the land use plan had been updated, and that the land on the south side of Highway 10 at the Southridge intersection had been designated as a commercial node. She said that the request was for a very limited expansion of the commercial node which already exists on the property. She explained that, in 1989, the Highway 10 overlay requirements were adopted, and that the proposed project meets the requirements of the overlay ordinance, as well. She stated that the developer, Mr. Schickel, lives in the area, and plans to own and manage the project for the long term. Mr. Schickel, she said, had met with and talked with numerous persons from the area, and had met with representatives of various land owners and property owners 5 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B associations in the area. She reported that she was submitting a petition, signed by over 200 area land owners, who are in support of the project. Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, presented the proposal. He pointed out that the existing E-Z Mart would be razed, and the entrance to the shopping center would be at the location of the present E-Z Mart store. This, he elaborated, would allow the new entrance to take advantage of the existing signalized intersection. He pointed out that the existing E-Z Mart has two access points, and that, when the E-Z Mart is removed and the new center is developed, the new center would have only two access point along the Highway 10 frontage. Thus, he explained, there would be no increase in access points on Highway 10. The shopping center and the Coulson Oil property to the east would, he indicated, share an internal driveway. He stated that the architecture of the proposed center was handsome, and that the architectural style would be carried over to the Coulson Oil development. Mr. David Jones, with Vogel Realty, representing Coulson Oil spoke in support of the Coulson Oil proposal. He stated that the agreement between Coulson Oil and Mr. Schickel requires that, when Coulson Oil is granted its building permit, the existing E-Z Mart, which Coulson Oil currently owns, will cease to exist, and that the number of convenience stores will remain at the same number as currently exists: the new Shell store at the eastern end of the block and the Phillips 66 store at the western end. He stated that the new Shell store will meet the Highway 10 overlay standards, whereas the E-Z Mart store does not. He stated that the Coulson Oil persons had gone "step by step" with Lou Schickel and his group to the neighborhood meetings and to other land owners in the area. The petition which has been presented by Ms. Catlett in support of the shopping center development, he said, was also a document in support of the Coulson Oil development. Mr. Mike Coulson, with Coulson Oil, stated that, after the defeat of his proposal for the opposite side of Highway 10, he had heeded the neighborhood's concerns regarding location and being a "part of the neighborhood". He said that there would be no net increase in the number of convenience stores and gas service stations on the property; that the E-Z Mart store would be closed. He said that the architectural style of the new Shell store would be consistent with the shopping center's architectural style. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, described the site development scheme, and stated that, although the Coulson Oil site is being developed on a separate lot in the subdivision, it is an integral part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Shopping Center site. He said that the internal traffic circulation system was integrated with the shopping center site, as is the architectural style of the 6 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B buildings and landscaping. He described the various uses which had been requested in the application. He stated that, counting the green space measured from the existing right-of-way line, site landscaping and green space are close to 50% of the ground space of the site. He reiterated that the site plan which has been presented has the 40 foot minimum green space along Highway 10 measured from the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the right-of-way line after dedication of additional right-of- way. He explained, though, that there are no plans to widen Highway 10; that curb -to -curb on Highway 10 is a minimum of 50 feet at the present time, and he requested approval by the Commission of this proposal. He explained that Woodland Road, the boundary street to the east, is very steep as it extends southward from Highway 10, and that it was necessary to place the access point to Woodland Rd. closer to Highway 10 than the ordinance standard of 100 feet. He explained that the proposed access point to Woodland Rd. is approximately 70 feet off Highway 10, and requested approval of this location. He went on to say that there is adequate frontage on Highway 10 for a third access point onto Highway 10 from the development, with woodland Rd. being a forth access point for traffic onto Highway 10, but that the two developers had limited the number of access points on Highway 10 to two, plus Woodland Rd., in lieu of three plus Woodland Rd. Mr. Mark D'Auteuil, who identified himself as president of the Pleasant Forrest Property Owners' Association, stated that the Pleasant Forest neighborhood opposes rezoning of the property for commercial uses, explaining that traffic would increase through the neighborhood as a result. He said that the Association opposes any extension of commercial rezonings into the neighborhood. Mr. Donald Glowen, who identified himself as a resident of Candlewood and representing the Walton Heights Neighborhood Association, affirmed that, at the neighborhood meeting with the developers, the group from the neighborhood who had attended were in support of the proposed development, but that the neighborhood still has concerns regarding land use along Highway 10. He asked that a decision on the proposed rezoning be deferred until further study of land use issues could be conducted. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, expressed opposition to rezoning unless there is clear and compelling reason for doing so. She contended that the shopping center, although meeting the definition standards for a neighborhood commercial center, is going to be drawing traffic from a larger area than "the neighborhood", and is more than a neighborhood center. She expressed concerns regarding the likely increase of traffic which will be generated thorough the neighborhoods to the south, and she expressed concern that the buildings be visually attractive and blend in with the surroundings. 7 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B Mr. Bill Mauldin, who identified himself as a long-time resident of Walton Heights, said that, at the neighborhood meeting at which the developers' plans had been presented, there were approximately 30 residents represented, but that he did not feel that the positive reaction to the proposal represented the majority of the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood association was concerned that residents were unaware of the scope of the proposed project. He reiterated a request that the decision on the rezoning be deferred until the neighborhood has time to meet with City staff, Commission members, and the developers to study the request further. Mr. Ernie Peters, a traffic consultant for the developers, spoke, and explained that the great majority of traffic coming to the development from the south would be generated by persons from the neighborhoods to the south, and would not be traffic of persons driving through the neighborhoods from beyond these neighborhoods. He said that the signal light at the Southridge Dr. intersection will be improved, and that the developer will pay the costs of modifying it to be a four-way signal. Steve Giles, deputy City Attorney, stated that the Schickel development seems to meet the ordinance definition for a shopping center, therefore, would meet the criteria for approval as a PCD. The Coulson development, he said, since not having the mixture of uses which are required by the ordinance, would have to meet the definition requirements for a shopping center in order for it to be approved as a PCD. Mr. David Jones stated that the Coulson site is a mixed use commercial development, and, as such, meets the ordinance standard to be classified as a shopping center. He said that he felt that the Coulson proposal could be approved as a PCD. He added, though, that the proposed ordinance changes to permit single -use PCD's would clarify the situation. Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, related that the concern of the City and residents along Highway 10 is that there be a land use plan which promotes retention of the scenic beauty of Highway 10 and does not permit the stripping -out of the corridor. He conceded that the existing residential zoning of the site is inappropriate, but stated that commercial development is also inappropriate. He recommended that a appropriate land use of the site is a mixed office and multi -family development. The proposed development, he said, is too intense, and said that the trade area is too large for classification as a neighborhood shopping center. He expressed concern regarding the increased traffic along Highway 10 and in the abutting neighborhoods. He stated that approval of the PCD's would necessitate a major land use plan amendment approval by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Ball raised the question of whether one PCD could be built without the other; whether the Coulson Oil PCD could be 8 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B built without the shopping center PCD being started or built. Commissioner Walker stated that it would be a catastrophe if the Coulson Oil site were developed and the shopping center were not; that the two developments need to be paired as a unified development. Mr. Schickel stated that, when the Coulson Oil development is constructed and opened, the E-Z Mart store would cease to operate as a convenience store or gas service station, but that the building would remain until it is torn down as part of the shopping center construction. He stated that the time frame for construction of the shopping center is dependent on getting a lessee for the grocery store, but that he felt that construction would begin within a year. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Coulson had related to him that he would amend the Coulson Oil PCD application to place the condition on it that construction of the Coulson Oil PCD would begin only in conjunction with the shopping center construction; that the Coulson Oil PCD would not be built until and at a different time than the shopping center is built. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD and an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property. The motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Coulson Oil, Highway 10 PCD, to recommend approval of an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property, and to recommend approval of the street access variance for the driveway location on Woodland Rd.. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. STAFF REPORT: (JUNE 18, 1996) This issue is before the Commission to request relief from a Commission imposed condition that the Coulson PCD be constructed only when the adjacent shopping center is constructed. This is the only change proposed. The land owner does not know when the center might start but Coulson is ready to start now and has requested site excavation approval to prepare the site. Staff will offer comment at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present its comments on Item No. 22. Jim Lawson, director of Neighborhoods and Planning, briefly outlined the applicant's proposal which was a request of the Commission to relieve the developer of a commission imposed site 60 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B restriction. Mr. Lawson identified the project as Coulson Oil, a convenience store and food service, which was designed as an integral part of a shopping center complex proposed by Mr. Lou Shickle on the adjacent properties to the west. Lawson pointed out that the minute record reflects that during the course of discussion of the Coulson PCD and the Shickle PCD. They were an integrated development and one should not be developed without the other. Specifically, his comment was that Commissioner Ramsay Ball at that time had concerns about building the convenience without the balance of the shopping center being in place. Lawson told the Commission that he had instructed the applicant that he was bring this item to the Commission in as much as this was not a debated item at the Board of Directors level or a specifically instructed item for inclusion in the PCD ordinance. However, there was the Commission constraint placed on the project and noted on the file. Lawson said that what staff had agreed to do is if Coulson wants to begin construction on this convenience store site and then not obtain his certificate of occupancy. (That is not open this store until the other convenience store immediately to the west is removed.) Lawson said the shopping center would be sometime before it.is constructed. He felt that is was just not reasonable to maintain this restraint on this developer. Lawson also pointed out that he had obtained an agreement with Mr. David Jones, the applicant, at this time. It would be limited grading on the shopping center side of the boundary line, so as to limit the effect of the site clearing. Lawson asked David Jones respond to this statement as to whether it was appropriate and correct. Mr. David Jones stated he agreed with everything that Jim Lawson had stated except for one clarification. He stated that it was his understanding that the EZ Mart store would have to be shut down but not with the building being removed. It could not simply be operated as a convenience store. Acting Chairman Putnam inserted his thought at this point that perhaps it could continue to be used as a drycleaner or other retail type use. Jim Lawson then intervened in this discussion to point out that was not what he understood the agreement to include. He stated that he understood that it was to be removed because the existing C-Store sits at an intersection with a traffic signal conflict. Mr. Jones pointed out ultimately the C-Store would be torn down when the shopping center is constructed. Mr. Jones further stated what they are attempting to do here is proceed with getting the Coulson site developed prior to the shopping center's development. Mr. Shickle is simply saying that if he does not get around to getting the shopping center constructed at the same 10 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B timetable as the Coulson site, he is willing to agree to not allow that existing convenience store to continue as a convenience store but allow it to be rented for something else. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, inserted a comment that staff has not even discussed that prospect. A brief exchange between David Jones and Jim Lawson indicated that there was a difference of opinion as to what had been discussed or perhaps agreed upon. Chairman Putnam then offered that the minute record of the PUD hearings indicate the existing EZ Mart closes when the proposed Coulson convenience store opens. Jim Lawson indicated that he understood that it was to be removed and not simply shut down and converted to another use. Lawson then stated that he wanted to make it perfectly clear that what he thought we were doing today was dealing with this as an interpretative kind of issue. The staff has not required him to notify neighbors and we have not published a legal ad or done any of the usual kind of things that we would do for amending a PCD application. If we start talking about changing elements of the other PCD involving the other C-Store, then we have a whole new issue. He stated if this is the case, we need to start all over an amended application and we have an whole new issue. This will involve doing new notification, legal ad and etc. Lawson stated that this was the first time he had heard this proposal attached to what we were to deal with today. Commissioner Adcock then obtained for the purposes of inserting a comment which she had derived from the minute record. She quoted from it a specific paragraph in the minute record which stated: "Upon completion of the Coulson convenience store that the EZ Mart would disappear and the end product would be one convenience store." A brief discussion then followed where several persons indicated certain paragraphs on certain pages of the minute record of this issue. There was general commentary as to what each of those paragraphs meant as applied to the proposal at hand. As a result of this conversation, Jim Lawson offered a comment that the language in one paragraph left open to interpret as whether the building was simply to be left unused after EZ Mart abandoned the site or would it be utitilized for some other purpose. Mr. Jones agreed that the EZ Mart building would have to be removed at the time the shopping center is constructed. At this time, he is not disagreeing with that prospect but whether or not the building can be continued with some other use other than EZ Mart. 11 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B At this point, Jim Lawson posed a question of Mr. Jones as to whether the EZ Mart was a part of the original application for the shopping center PCD. Mr. Jones responded that it was a separate zone site but it was a part of the site plan. His specific was pointed out it was not involved in the Coulson site but in the shopping center site, in as much as it lies at the intersection of South Ridge and Highway 10 which is to be a primary entry point for the shopping center. Jim Lawson asked Mr. Jones what type of uses were listed for the C-Store occupancy after the removal of the EZ Mart. Mr. Jones responded by stating that he could not speak on that issue as much as that application was Lou Schickle and not his. Mr. Jones stated that his interpretation of it was the types of uses that were permited in the PCD would ultimately control what could occupy the EZ Mart building after the EZ Mart use is removed. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Jones what was meant by cease to exist. He responded by saying that he understood that to mean that it would not continue as a C-Store. Mr. Jones further stated that ultimately the building had to come down in as much as that was a primary entry point to the shopping center. Jim Lawson stated that he understood that comment to mean that the building had to come down. He stated that he never thought about it being occupied by any other use or activity. Commissioner Earnest pointed out that it appeared we had here a severe conflict in opinion on this subject. He stated he was at this point not certain but perhaps we needed to discuss a deferral motion. Jim Lawson response was that based on what he heard from Mr. Jones that this is a amendment to the PCD and needs to renotify for public hearing and start all over with a review of a revised plan. Again a brief discussion occurred involving David Jones and a number of others. Following that discussion Jim Lawson asked of David Jones if the use of this EZ Mart building is going to put to. Does it have to be resolved in order for Mr. Jones to build Coulson Oil. Mr. Jones responded by stating that he could not speak for Mr. Schickle. He stated that what we are really dealing with in this instance is something that revolves around Mr. Schickle and his project. He stated that Coulson's understanding with Mr. 12 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B Schickle was he doesn't have any problem with Coulson starting construction of the C-Store if Mr. Jones can get the approval to do so with the understanding that the EZ Mart would cease to exist as a convenience store but would be retained in his ownership and he be able to use the building for some other business activity. Mr. Jones stated that in his reading of the language in the minute record that was his understanding. Jim Lawson stated that his recommendation to the Commission would be that we allow Mr. Jones and Coulson Oil to proceed with their development on the Coulson Oil site and with the understanding that they will not get a Certificate of Occupancy on the new store until the EZ Mart is torn down or dealt with. He pointed out that Mr. Schickle could then file an amended PCD to clarify this other issue. He stated that he felt staff and the applicant were not on the same page on the issue and that staff never did discuss that building being used for anything else. During our discussion with Mr. Jones on this application, Chairman Putnam then offered comments having to do with access to the site and the need eventually to remove the EZ Mart building. Commissioner McCarthy then inserted a comment that she remembered the conversation around the issue of the EZ Mart and that the Commission at that time was discussing access to the Coulson Oil development. She stated there was at that time a lot of concern on the part of the Commissioners about entrance and exits off Highway 10. She stated that in the discussion of that issue that it was a specific point that access to the Coulson site would in fact be tied to access at Highway 10 at that traffic signal and that's were the issue of razing the EZ Mart begin. There was then a discussion between Mr. Jones, Mr. Putnam and others discussing the location of curb cuts or excess points to serve the Coulson site as well as the shopping center, with Mr. Jones pointing out that this Coulson site did not require the signal access point at this time but that there was another entrance to Highway 10 at the Western boundary of the Coulson site, and that would be constructed with the Coulson development. At this point David Scherer of the Public Works department came forward and presented a graphic illustrating the neighborhood of Highway 10, Rodney Parham and Woodland Heights. This graphic indicated the basic shopping center layout, the Coulson site, the EZ Mart and other surrounding properties. David Scherer offered a lengthy explanation of what was presented on the map and his opinion as how to apply it to the proposal. He addressed several questions to Mr. Jones as to exactly what they proposed to do. Mr. Jones indicated again that they would the Coulson site directly from Highway 10 and that was what was basically approved Woodland Heights road. be building an acces to at their West boundary along with excess to Fed August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B Jim Lawson stated at this point that he was not comfortable with this issue at all and he thinks this issue needs to go to the City Board for an amended PCD. David Jones stated that he was not entirely certain that this was all that different and he felt the real issue here was perhaps the EZ Mart building. Jim Lawson reminded Mr. Jones that in a letter he wrote several weeks ago that before he obtained a C/O for the new convenient store that the EZ Mart would be torn down. After additional give and take comments between Mr. Jones and Mr. Lawson, Mr. Jones offered to accept a deferral of this issue for a period of two weeks, which would of course offer the opportunity to have more Commissioners present and Mr. Schiekel in attendance and that maybe Mr. Schiekel will perhaps go ahead and agree to tear the building down. Jim Lawson stated that if in fact Mr. Schiekel is going to want what Mr. Jones first discussed is going to require a Legal Ad in the public hearing by the Planning Commission and we don't have time to advertise a legal ad before the next meeting in two weeks. But if Mr. Schiekel came into that meeting and agreed to go ahead and tear that building down, that we are close to what staff had already agreed to with Mr. Jones and that would be alright. If Mr. Schiekel wants to pursue the idea of putting another use in that building then Mr. Lawson stated he thinks that is an amendment to the PCD that requires a complete review. Chairman Putnam addressed the meeting by saying he thought Mr. Schiekel was going to need to make these decisions and that during the two weeks Mr. Jones could get with him and they could make a determination on Mr. Schiekel approach, and Mr. Schiekel was the key person to make the decision in this instance. Mr. Jones stated that he was comfortable with the interpretation as he was hearing it from Staff and the Commission, and asked that in the meantime let him have the two week deferral and he would meet with Mr. Schiekel and Mr. Coulson. Mr. Coulson is only absent from the meeting because he is out of town on this occassion and he would hope to resolve the issue in two weeks or not at all. Jim Lawson stated that he did want to resolve this, he didn't want to leave the issue were in two weeks Mr. Schiekel walks in and says he wants to re use the EZ Mart site for some other retail use and if we haven't done a legal ad and we can't deal with the issue. Chairman Putnam voiced a similar comment. 14 r August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B Commissioner Brandon then offered a motion for the floor, a motion that this item be deferred for a period of two weeks which would be August 1, 1996,. The motion was seconded. Chairman Putnam then asked for a vote on the motion prior to the vote a question was proposed by Commissioner Adcock as to whether or not the Commission could defer this item for two weeks. Cindy Dawson of the City Attorney office responded by stating yes the Commission could do so. Chairman Putnam then asked for a showing of hands on the vote for this produced a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 1, 1996) The Chairman recognized staff for comment on this proposal. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, offered a statement to the effect that the Planning Staff could recommend this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval if no one was present wishing to discuss the item. Lawson presented a statement indicating a letter had been received from Mr. Lou Shickle, the owner of the shopping center properties abutting to the west. Mr. Shickle's letter committing to the removal of the existing Food Mart on Cantrell Road within 90 days of the issuance of the Certificate -of -Occupancy for the new Coulson Convenient Store. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present wishing to offer further comment on this item. Mr. David Jones identified himself as being present. If there were questions, he had no problem with the staff's recommendation for placement on the consent approval list. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that affect was made. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. The PCD modification is approved. 15 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: E LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NAME: Land Use Plan Definition Change REQUEST: Modify the definition for Suburban Office SOURCE: Planning Commission - Staff STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Commission, the Plans Committee and Staff reviewed the definition for Suburban Office (SO). The Committee, with Staff assistance, attempted to better define "SO" without writing a special ordinance. The definition is for the Land Use Plan, which the Zoning, Landscape etc. Ordinances will implement. There will be two types of Suburban Office, a campus on a large site or a single building on a small site. Either type is to be well landscaped (beyond average) and designed with the site in mind. Attention should also be paid to impacts on adjacent or near by residential areas. The revised wording was agree to by the Committee after two meetings on the issue. The current definition for Suburban Office is: "The suburban office category provides for development of professional office parks." The new definition would be: "The Suburban Office category provides for the development of large office complexes (over 10 acres) within a park like setting with increased setbacks and landscaping encouraged. Office Parks will have a campus design with buildings ranging in elevation, not more than 5 stories. For smaller areas (10 areas or less), the office buildings will be low rise (no more than 2 stories) with extensive landscaping including trees, and the structure will easily blend into a residential setting. Either sized area shall encourage: 1) access to pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems through the design and siting of the buildings and their entrances; and 2) extensive landscaping, distributed throughout the site using methods optimizing the existing natural features and trees to produce a composition which is ecologically user friendly. A Planned Unit Development is recommended." August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The item was placed on the Consent Agenda August 1, 1996. By unanimous vote 7 ayes, 1 open position, the item was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DULY 18, 1996) for deferral to 0 nays, 3 absent and (AUGUST 1, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II stated that this item was developed by Staff and the Plans Committee at the request of the Commission. After two meetings on the issue the Committee developed the wording as distributed in the agenda. Approximately 160 notices were distributed with the wording change. Three written comments were received and one call. All were supportive, the John Barrow Association and League of Women Voters supported and City Attorney's Office suggested some clearer wording. All correspondence was mailed to the Commission for review. Staff at this time would suggest using the City Attorney's version which reads better, with "Suburban Office" changed to -office Complex" in the second sentence. Mr. Malone distributed the revised wording. There was discussion about making the definition more clear (specific i.e. 0-3). Mr. Lawson, Director of Planning and Development indicated a land use definition is to be general and used as a guide. Further discussion on making specific versus general wording and the use of the word "shall" followed. Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, suggested replacing "shall" with "should". This was generally agreed to. Discussion continued about specific vs. general wording for the definition. David Jones was asked to speak. Mr. Jones expressed concern that the definition was trying develop design standards for the first time in a land use definition. If the desire is to have a low rise office district with design requirements, then the zoning ordinance should be amended to add such a district. Land Use classifications are important because they are used to tell developers and property owners no they cannot get their change. This definition is getting into zoning classification rather than a land use. A second concern is the acreage requirement. If an "SO" area is twenty-five acres and the first person comes in with a 5 acre site, they are penalized (must build a smaller building). E August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.; E (Cont.) - Or if one can get just a couple of more acres then the height increases three stories. If the entire area is developed except 5 acres, that last area would have stricter height requirements than the rest of the area. Commissioner Putnam agreed with Mr. Jones' concerns. Let's look at developing a "SO" zoning district. This definition could penalize additional property owners. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development reminded the Commission that this was a land use definition and the Planning Commission would determine the specifics when a rezoning was filed. The Commission will have to weigh the area of the proposal, closeness to residential, etc. Commissioner Putnam suggested taking out the acreage and some related statements and adding "PUD required". Mr. Lawson stated staff did not recommend requiring a PUD. This would blur the line between land use and zoning. Commissioner Rahman indicated that the issue might not be height but location relative to residential. Acreage is not the issue. Campus is another area with definition problem. Height is a key issue. There was discussion whether a land use classification should be specific or allow the Commission to use discretion. Mr. Jones indicated the development community preferred for definitions to be spelled out. Landowners need to be able to put a value on land. we (the City of Little Rock) have been moving to land use and zoning being the same. There was discussion about land use definitions versus zoning definitions. Mr. Malone read the definition for Mixed use (MX) to the Commission. Commissioner Daniel indicated he needed more guidance and a deferral was desirable. Tom Cole was invited to speak to the Commission. Mr. Cole wished to support Mr. Jones' comments. In addition, design requirements and changes do affect market value. The definition does not consider terrain, grades, etc. The impact is to force combination of ownerships. There was discussion about the specifics of a Summit Road property. The definition of campus is unclear. These decisions are getting into values and ignoring terrain. The Commission should look at the I-430 plan which has a lot of Suburban Office. The issue should go back to Committee. Commissioner Lichty asked about forming a Suburban Office zoning classification. Mr. Lawson discouraged this idea. It would be another district this is a land use issue not zoning. The definition was a suggestion on what should be reviewed with the rezoning. In response to a question if he had a problem with any other land use classification, Mr. Jones said no to be best of his memory. Commissioner Lichty said all the definition are ambiguous. This is the most defined of any land use 3 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO. E (Cont. classification. There was discussion about specific vs. general definitions. Mr. Jones discussed multifamily zoning classifications (MF-6, MF- 12, MF-18, MF-24) as land use classifications, and stated one must know what is allowed by a land use classification. Mr. Giles stated a rational definition helps when he must defined the City in court. Discussion about "LMF" and "MF" land use classifications and PUD requirement/recommendation followed. Commissioner Earnest stated the definition was trying to set a vision and should just say that, not get into specifics of a zoning classification. Mr. Richard Stephens was called. He passed. There was discussion about sending the issue back to Committee (more defined, having dangling issues). Commissioner Lichty and Commissioner Earnest developed a wording, using three of the sentences from the definition. Commissioner Rahman stated height had to be addressed. Commissioner Rahman moved the item be sent back to Committee, seconded by Commissioner Putnam. Discussion about land use definition versus zoning followed. Commissioner McCarthy asked Mr. Giles to define land use definition versus zoning definition. Mr. Giles stated zoning definitions are mandatory, land use definitions are discretionary, guides and ideas. Land use can get as defined as you wish but if get too specific, you will be zoning. Land use gives discretion and is a guide. The question was called, by unanimous vote ( 8 for, 0 against) the item was deferred. 4 August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-6167 Owner: Atley Davis Applicant: Atley Davis Location: 7501-7505 Asher Avenue Request: Rezone from C-3 to I-2 Purpose: Auto and truck sales and storage Size: 2.135 acres Existing Use: Day care center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Public school; zoned R-3 South - Multiple industrial uses; zoned I-2 East - Gun shop; zoned C-3 West - Multiple auto and truck related businesses; zoned I-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Plans for construction will involve a review of ordinances associated with commercial development. For example: this frontage by Ordinance will allow only one driveway. The site will require stormwater analysis and other erosion control and drainage considerations. Asher is currently being reconstructed by the AHTD. Acquisition of right-of- way is not required as a condition of this zoning request. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The property is located on a Central Arkansas Transit bus route and has ready access to public transportation. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Boyle Park District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Light Industrial. The proposed reclassification conforms to the Plan. n August 1, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-6167 (Cont.) AFF ANALYSI The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2.135± acre tract from "C-3" General Commercial to "I-2" Light Industrial. The site currently contains two buildings occupied by a day care center/preschool. These buildings are located on the northern end of the property, near Asher Avenue. The applicant proposes to retain the day care/preschool operation but would use a portion of the remaining property for auto and truck sales and storage. The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses. The I-2 zoned property abutting to the west and south is occupied by a variety of light industrial and vehicle related uses. These uses range from lawnmower repair and a welding shop to auto repair and truck parts sales and installation. The large tract of C-3 zoned property adjacent to the east was once occupied by a building supply company. A portion of this property now contains a gun shop. An elementary school is located on the R-3 zoned property across Asher Avenue to the north. Other industrial uses in the area include Davis Truck and trailer and Borden Dairy, both located west of the site in question. The Boyle Park District Land Use Plan recommends Light Industrial for this site. The "I-2" Light Industrial rezoning request conforms to the adopted Plan and is not out of character with other uses in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 reclassifi- cation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 1, 1996) The Planning Staff presented this item with a recommendation that it be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that the request does conform to the adopted neighborhood land use plan. The Planning Staff does recommend approval and that the neighborhood associations for Westwood and John Barrow Addition have recently participated in a meeting with staff members and Mr. Atley Davis, the property owner. In this meeting, the neighborhood representatives endorsed the application. 2 r August 1, 1996 ITEM NO • 1 z-6167 (Cont.) After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that it was appropriate to add this item to the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that affect was made. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. The application is approved for I-2. 3 IIYIII IIYpI�III ��1�l1E 111111 e�o�e O .n b) z H H M CQ H z w as w 4 z w August 1, 1996 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. Date �� ��