Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 09 1993LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 9,1993 12:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the January 5,1993 meeting were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:Brad Walker Ramsay Ball Diane Chachere Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Jim VonTungeln Ronald Woods Emmett Willis,Jr.(arrived after the roll call) Members Absent:John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson City Attorney:Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 9,1993 DEFERRED ITEM: A.Z-5627 10,016 Chicot Road C-3 to C-4 REZ I ITEM 1.Z-2228-B 317,319 a 323 N.Van Buren R-4 to 0-1 2.Z-5657 Sibley Hole Road and I-30 R-2 to I-2 H MATTER 3.Arkansas Children's Hospital Bite Plan Review (Z-4336-K) 4.Bylaw Amendment February 9,1993 IT A Z-27 Owner:Chau and Tot Huynh Applicant:Tot Huynh Location:10,016 Chicot Road (at Rebecca Drive) Request:Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Purpose:Auto Repair —Body Shop Size:0.42 acres Existing Use:Commercial RR I E ZON North —Single-Family and Auto Sales,zoned R-2 South —Vacant,zoned C-3 East —Single-Family,zoned R-2 West —Vacant,zoned C-3 TAFF I The request for 10,016 Chicot Road is to rezone the property from C-3 to C-4 for auto repair,a body shop.10,016 Chicot Road is located at the southwest corner of Rebecca Drive and Chicot,which is situated approximately one-quarter mile north of Mabelvale Cut-off.At this time,the site is occupied by two structures,a car wash and a brick building, which is being used for a laundromat.The property in question was rezoned to C-3 in 1982 as part of the South Central Island annexation (Z-3806). Zoning in the general vicinity includes R-2,R-7,0-1,0-3, C-3 with C-3 land abutting the site on two sides.A majority of the nonresidential zoning was accomplished as part of the South Central Island Plan and annexation.Land use is a mixture of single family,office,commercial, warehousing and a mobile home park.The existing commercial uses are primarily retail or service oriented.There are also some nonconforming uses,including a small auto sales lot directly across Rebecca.Throughout the neighborhood, there are undeveloped parcels and vacant buildings. when the South Central Island Plan was developed,the basic concept was to recognize as many of the existing uses as possible and create a rational zoning pattern.Also,a conscience effort was made to establish C-3 as the highest zoning for the neighborhood because it was more compatible with the residential uses.Staff determined that it would February 9,1993 ITEM A Z-27 n have been detrimental to the area to rezone certain uses to C-4,and our position has not changed.Rezoning the site under consideration to C-4 would be undesirable and could have an adverse impact on the nearby properties. The adopted plan for the area,Qeyer Springs Nest,shows the property for commercial use and reinforces the zoning planthatwasimplementedwiththeadoptionofSouthCentral Island Plan.Over the years,the City has maintained theplan's recommended land use and zoning patterns and there is no strong justification to change the direction at this time by supporting the proposed C-4 reclassification. E I EERIN MME T Dedication of additional right-of-way is required for Chicot Road.The Master Street Plan standard is 45 feet and theexistingright-of-way is 37 5 feet Therefore.7.5 feet needs to be dedicated to satisfy the minor arterial requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of a C-4 rezoning, P I Q MMI ION A TI (NOVEMBER 17,1992) The applicant was not present when this item was firstcalledanditwasmovedtotheendoftheagenda.The applicant was still not in attendance when the request wastobeheardbytheplanningCommission.After some discussion,the motion was made to defer the issue to the December 15,1992 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. P I MMI T 0 (DECEMBER 15,1992) The applicant,Tot Huynh,was present.There were threeobjectorsinattendance.Ms.Huynh spoke and addressed the rezoning request to C-4,She then described the existing uses on the site in the surrounding area. Ralph Lloyd then spoke for MS.Huynh.Mr.Lloyd told the Commission that Ms.Huynh would like to defer the issue to allow somebody more familiar with the zoning process to get involved with her request. 2 February 9,1993 ZT A —27 Tot Huynh made some additional comments.She said that she had contacted some of the neighbors and obtained their signatures in support of the rezoning. After some discussion,a motion was made to defer the issue and to allow comments from the objectors present. Discussion continued before the motion was voted on. Harold Zook,a resident across Chicot,said he was opposed to the C-4 rezoning.Mr.Zook agreed with the staff analysis and challenged the petition in support because of problems with the way the signatures were obtained by Ms. Huynh. Tot Huynh submitted her petition and then described conversations with some of the neighbors. Harold Zook addressed the Commission again,and responded to some of the comments made by Ms.Huynh. Prior to the vote on the deferral motion,the Planning Commission decided to defer the issue to the February 9,1993 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent. P I T (FEBRUARY 9,1993) The applicant,Tot Huynh,was present.There were two objectors in attendance.Ms.Huynh addressed the Commission and said the proposed use would not hurt the area. Ms.Huynh then offered some thoughts on the neighborhood and said that the neighborhood needs improvements. Harold Zook,representing the property owners in the 10,000 Block of Chicot,which is directly across the street from the site,then spoke.Mr.Zook stated that he supports the staff analysis and recommendation.Some questions were asked of Mr.Zook and he said that nothing could be done to lessen the impacts of a body shop. There were some additional comments and a brief discussion about various aspects of the rezoning. The Planning Commission then voted on the C-3 to C-4 request.The rezoning was denied by a vote of 0 eyes, 9 nays and 2 absent. 3 February 9,1993 IT 1 Z-22 -B Owner:Richard A.Kelly and Larry E.Schmalz Applicant:Larry E.Schmalz Location:317,319 a 323 North Van Buren Request:Rezone from R-4 to 0-1 Purpose:Office Size:0.35 acres Existing Use:Single-Family and Duplex Z North —Single-Family and Multifamily,zoned R-3 and R-4 South —Single-Family,zoned R-3 East —Single-Family,zoned R-3 West —Single-Family,zoned R-3 TAFF Y I The property in question involves two lots located at the southeast corner of North van Buren and "c"streets.The request is to rezone both lots from R-4 to 0-1 for quiet office use.Currently,the lots are occupied by a single family residence on the northern lot and a duplex on the southern lot.The proposal is to convert the existing structures into small offices and owners would like to relocate their engineering firm to one of the buildings. zoning history on the property dates back to 1968 when a request for E-1 Quiet Business was filed.The Commission did not support the office rezoning because it did not conform to the adoptive plan and the location was reclassified to the current duplex zoning.1n 1983 another attempt was made to rezone the location to 0-1 and the request was denied again.There was neighborhood opposition to the office rezonings,and some residents opposed the R-4 because they viewed the neighborhood as a stable single family area. Zoning of the area is R-3,R-4,R-5,0-1,0-3,C-3,C-4,PRD and pCD.The property in question is surrounded by R-3 with an exception of the northeast corner of "C"and Van Buren, which is also zoned R-4.At this time,all of the February 9,1993 TBM ~1 Z-aiba -B n nonresidentially zoned properties are found south of"B"Street.Land use is just as diverse as the zoning,and includes single family,multifamily,office and various types of commercial establishments.There are several nonconforming uses in the neighborhood,and they are a beauty shop on "A"Street and an office at the northwest corner of "C"and Van Buren.The PCD at "B"and Van Burenisanofficebuildingwithtwousers. Over the years,the nonresidential zoning has gradually moved northward along Van Buren to "B"Street,two blocks north of West Markham.At first,the zoning line was the alley between "A"and west Markham.Because of the approvedreclassifications,the line has shifted to "B"Street.It appears that the City has recognized "B"Street as the extent of the nonresidential zoning because of several requests that have been denied or withdrawn north of "B- Street.In addition to the request for the southeast cornerof"C"and Van Buren,rezonings have been tried at the northwest corner of "C"and Van Buren and the northwest corner of "B"and van Buren.Staff has always viewed "A" Street as a reasonable line and has not supported any rezonings north of "A"Street. The proposed 0-1 reclassification is three blocks north of west Markham,and does not conform to the adopted Height/Hillcrest plan,which shows the location as part of a large residential area.The plan still uses "A"Street for the nonresidential zoning line.The blocks north of "A"are residential and totally different from the block between "A" and West Markham.The land use plan recognizes this uniquecharacteristic,and that is why the line has never been moved to reflect the reclassifications north of "A".Stafffeelsthattheplanneedstobemaintainedbykeepingthe existing zoning lines,and does not support the 0-1 request. Our position is consistent with the plan's direction toestablisharationalzoningpatternalongNorthVan Buren and with previous zoning actions in the area.A nonresidential reclassification north of "B"Street could have an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood,and lead to an undesirable zoning scheme along North Van Buren. There are none to be reported. TAFF ATI N Staff recommends denial of the 0-1 rezoning request. a Pebruary 9,1993 I 1 —2 -B n P I I I TI (PEBRUARY 9,1993) The owners,Dick Kelly and Larry Schmalz,were present. There were a number of objectors in attendance.Dick Kelly spoke and made comments about the existing zoning and businesses north of "B"Street.Mr.Kelly said that they would like to utilize the property for small offices, including their own engineering company. Staff responded to some questions about the neighborhood and the existing zoning pattern. Dick Kelly and Larry Schmalz said they have no definite plans for the property at this time.Mr.Kelly then commented about the heavy traffic flow on North Van Buren. Bertha Dickinson,a resident on North Jackson,described the area as a stable family neighborhood,and opposed the office rezoning. Richard Dickinson discussed some of the nonconforming uses, and said the area was a stable middle class neighborhood, and not declining.Mr.Dickinson told the Commission that there has always been a lot of traffic on North Van Buren. He then asked the Planning Commission to deny the 0-1 rezoning. Christina Peild,representing the Hillcrest Residence Association,read a letter from the association opposing the 0-1 request.Ms.Peild said the rezoning would weaken the plan,and the property is surrounded by residential uses. Ms.Pield then presented the letter and some photos of the immediate vicinity. Carol Wilson,5008 "C"Street,said she lives across the street and voiced her concerns with the proposed development.Ms.Wilson said the rezoning would be devalue her property and asked that the 0-1 request be denied. Gibson Warren,a resident in the area,said the neighborhood is nice and family oriented.Ms.Warren asked that a reasonable zoning pattern be maintained along North Van Buren.Ms.Warren concluded by saying that she is strongly opposed to the 0-1 rezoning. Comments were then offered by various individuals,including Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney.Mr.Giles told the Commission 'tha't plans are important and courts have indicated so. A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-1 request. The vote on the motion was 0 ayes,9 nays and 2 absent.The rezoning was denied. 3 February 9,1993 IT 7 Owner:ACC Properties Applicant:Roger Sanders Location:Sibley Hole Road and I-30 Request:Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Purpose:Industrial Size:3.19 acres Existing Use:Vacant RR I North —I-30 Right-of-way,zoned R-2 South —Vacant and Industrial,zoned R-2 and I-2 East —Vacant,zoned R-2 Nest —Industrial,zoned I-2 TAFF Y I The request before the Commission is to rezone 3.2 acres on Sibley Hole Road from R-2 to I-2,and the proposed use is heavy equipment sales and service.The site is situated on the south side of I-30 and has street frontage on three sides,the north,south and west.Sibley Hole Road borders the land on the west and south sides.The property was wooded at one time,however,it has been cleared and somesiteworkhastakenplaceinanticipationoftheacreage being developed for the industrial user. Zoning of the general vicinity includes R-2,C-4 and I-2. The property in question is surrounded by R-2 and I-2 land. Land use found in the area includes single family,a church, commercial,a funeral home and industrial.A major user that is located directly across Sibley Hole Road is Central Arkansas Tractor Sales and Service,an industrial operation that is similar to what is being proposed for the property under consideration.Vacant tracts of land are found on both sides on I-30.(The site identified by Z-4822 is the property that was reviewed and denied by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for the "Fishing Hole".) February 9,1993 7 The adopted plan,Qeyer Springs west,shows the area west of the creek for light industrial uses.Therefore,the proposed I-2 reclassification conforms to the City's land Use plan and staff supports the request.The creek is identified on the plan as part of a "open space corridor", which should provide a buffer area between this property and the R-2 lands to the east.Because of the property'slocationandtheexistinglanduse,the I-2 rezoning should not have an impact on the area. I ERI MME T Sibley Hole Road is classified as a collector and the MasterStreetPlanstandardis30feetfromthecenterline. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. TAFF RE A I Staff recommends approval of the I-2 rezoning. P I I I A T (FEBRUARY 9,1993) The applicant was present.There were no objectors,and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.As part of the Consent Agenda,the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the I-2 rezoning.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 February 9,1993 ITEM Z-4 Arkansas Children's HospitalSitePlanReviewforparking ~~i&n:The Southwest corner of West 11th Street at Wolfe Street and the Southwest corner of West 9th Street at BarryStreet. r Arkansas Children's Hospital by William E.Ruck of Garver and Garver Engineers ~PR P QAL: To construct two parking lots on two parcels of land recently recommended for rezoning to 0-2 by the Planning Commission.These lots will consist of parking spaces at 164 on the 9th at Battery site and 126 on the 11th at Wolfesite.The applicant indicates that approximately 36 spaces will be lost due to the construction of a building at 9th atBatteryrecentlyapprovedbytheCommission.Therefore, 1,877 total parking spaces will be available if these proposed lots are completed as illustrated.This number of spaces encompasses all of the scattered lots now owned and occupied by the hospital plus the two new lots in this application.The applicant owns the block from 9th to 10th on Battery;however,an existing apartment building will be retained and maintained for resident staff members. There is one single family residence not owned by the hospital that will be maintained in the middle of the block fronting Battery.All of the existing residential and commercial structures on these sites will be removed.A small portable structure will be reguired to house security guards at each of the hospital's parking lots.Security will be enhanced by a chain linked perimeter fencing, approximately 6 feet in height with a single break for parking lot entrance adjacent to the guard house.A wooden privacy fence,6 feet in height,will be substituted for chain linked for parking lots adjoin residential uses. I E DE I ST ARD 1.i L in These project sites lay in the west central area of the hospital's ownership,and along the Battery corridor which is a primary traffic artery through the area. February 9,1993 IT -K n 2.m i ili w'i rh The parking lots proposed are an extension of existingsignificantoff-street parking owned and operated byChildren's Hospital.The Battery at 9th Streetlocationisasouthwardextensionofalargeparkinglotwhichrunsfrom9thStreetnorthtoI-630.ThesiteatthecornerofWest11thandWolfeisacross thestreetfromseveralareasnowutilizedbythehospital, both as parking and as structural involvement.These two parking lots are separated by a large commercial user being an engineering firm along Battery Street. On the east side of Battery between 10th and 11th,a large high-rise building operated by the Housing Authority for elderly housing. The design of the blocks,plus the provision for screening and access control,should make each of these parking lots compatible with their neighbors. 3.n-i Driv P The parking lots as proposed have a single point of entry to control access as well as security.The design and layout is compatible with minimum ordinance standards for surface parking. 4.i and B ff r The projects as proposed include 6 foot cpa&rue screening fences along those boundaries which immediately abut residential occupancy.Both blocks and both parking lots involve the 6 foot screening,but more at the 9th and Battery site than the other. Landscaping within and about both parking lots will meet the minimum standards for the zoning ordinance andbufferordinance. 5.'n in r mm n The City Engineer staff has recommended that the Planning Commission disallow the Battery Street accesstothenorthernmostparkinglot,and recommends thataccessberetainedonWest9thStreet.The second lotat11thandWolfeisrecommendedforredesignofthe driveway for placement of the drive at approximately midblock on 11th Street in order to move the drive away from the intersection at Wolfe Street. 6.ili mm n None received at this writing. a February 9,1993 ITEM 7.~An 1 ~i The staff review produces little or no comment on this proposal.It is an ongoing expansion of the surface parking to support the Children's Hospital and the various allowed functions that are scattered over a 15 or 16 square block area.The development of thesesitesinthefashionproposedshouldhavelittleorno adverse impact on the neighborhood.In fact,in several instances,the development as parking will clean up an existing circumstance which is a blight on the neighborhood. TAF T Staff recommends approval of the zoning site plan review subject to resolution of those driveway issues discussed in the Engineering Comments. P I I A (FEBRUARY 9,1993) TOny Bozynski of the staff presented a brief overview of the proposal on the two parking lots.The Chairman then asked the applicant to come forward and present his application. Mr.Bill Ruck of Garver and Garver Engineers was present representing the Arkansas Children's Hospital.Mr.Ruck identified what he believed to be the single point of discussion for this item.That point being the landscaping required for the project.Mr.Ruck pointed out that he had been discussing this proposal with Bob Brown of staff for sometime.He stated all of the several landscape and buffer requirements had been determined and applied to the plan. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr.Ruck to respond to the question on opaque fencing,adjacent or across fromresidential.Mr.Ruck responded by saying that the 6 foot board fence,commonly referred to as "a good neighborfence",would be erected along certain portions of the parking lot perimeter.The balance of the parking lot would be a chain link fence for security purposes.This fence would perhaps be provided with some type of landscaping material which would grow on the fence and provide additional screening. Bob Brown of staff came forward and responded to several questions concerning landscaping.He pointed out the ordinance requirements on the several parking boundaries. 3 February 9,1993 EM -K n Chairman Walker posed a guestion to Mr.Ruck and Mr.Brownastowherethechainlinkfencewouldbelocatedrelativetothelandscapingstrip?The response was that thelandscapedareawouldbepredominantlyonthestreet side ofthefence,thereby affording landscaping and screening totheresidences'ide of the security fence. The concern expressed by Commissioner Oleson was theplacementofthelandscapingandfencewouldprovide more ofascreeningeffectofthevehicles,parking lot and chainlinkfence.In response to additional guestions concerningthefence's location relative to the property line andsidewalk,Mr.Ruck offered a detailed outline of therelationshipofthephysicalelements.He indicated fromthecurbwouldbeagrassstripasusualtothesidewalk,then the sidewalk and a small strip of grass area to thepropertywherethereareretainingwalls.Behind the wallandpropertyline,there would be a 15 foot buffer strip aerequiredbyordinance.A 6 foot required landscape stripwithinthatdimensionandallofthe15footbufferwould atleastbesoddedandgrass. A general discussion was held involving several commission members who had expressed concerns about the procedure forvotingonthisitem.A determination was made to vote ontheitemaspresented.The Chairman placed the item beforetheCommissioninthismanner,and a vote on the applicationproduced9ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.The application wasapproved. The approval by the Commission accepts the several amendments reguired by Public Works for the movement ofdrivewaysawayfromintersections. 4 February 9,1993 IT T R TTE Rgggggg:To amend the bylaws to permit a smaller sign for sites large than 10 acres. The bylaws currently read: All properties involved in rezoning,conditional use permit or planned unit development applications shall be posted with a sign as follows: 1.Sites less than one acre in area —a sign 11 inches by 17 inches; 2.Sites one acre to ten acres in area —a sign 22 inches by 34 inches; 3.Sites larger than 10 acres in area —a sign 4 4 f These signs shall be provided by the staff to applicants at cost.These signs shall be posted on the site at least 30 days prior to the meeting date. It is recommended that the bylaws be modified to allow a f 4 f sign for sites 10 acres or greater.Staff feels that the smaller sign is still very visible and will give adequate notice to interested parties of the proposed reclassification or conditional use permit request. I I (FEBRUARY 9,1993) Richard wood presented the proposed bylaw Amendment and made several comments about the issue.Mr.Wood said that the staff is comfortable with the reduced sign size because the lettering would remain about the same size. Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,then addressed the Commission and offered her thoughts on the amendment. There was a long discussion and staff was instructed to draft a bylaw amendment for a future meeting.There was no vote on the matter. PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD f C)93 ~C X~I BpCFtt&~——ACE/Bl MEMBER z A BALL,RAMSEY 0 CHACHERE,DIANE 0 P WILLIS,EMMETT ~0 MCDANIEL,JOHN A A NICHOLSON,JERILYN PAW OLESON,KATHLEEN 0 VONTUNGELN,JIM PUTNAM,BILL A v'OODS,RONALD ~ y'ELZ,JOE H.y'0 WALKER,BRAD P' TIME IN AND TIME OUT BALL,RAMSEY CHACHERE,DIANE WILLIS,EMMETT MCDANIEL,JOHN NICHOLSON,JERILYN OLESON,KATHLEEN VONTUNGELN,JIM PUTNAM,BILL WOODS,RONALD SELZ,JOE H. WALKER,BRAD Meeting Adjourned 2.OO P.M. AYE NAYE ~ABSENT ~ABSTAIN February 9,1993 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 y.m. Date 2+'