Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 06 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 6,1992 12:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the August 25,1992 meeting were approvedasmailed. III.Members Present:John McDaniel Ramsay Ball Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam Joe Selz Jim VonTungeln Brad Walker Ronald Woods Emmett Willis,Jr.(arrived after therollcall) Members Absent:Diane Chachere City Attorney:Susan Oswalt Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA OCTOBER 6,1992 REZONING ITEMS: 1.Z-5110-B Baseline and Dailey Drive R-2 to 0-3 2.Z-5603 1408-1410 West 11th Street R-4 to 0-3 3.Z-5608 5720 West 65th Street R-2 to I-2 OTHER MATTERS: 4.Convenant release for property located at Chenal Parkway and Bowman (Z-4423-B) October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-5554 NAME:Heritage Baptist Temple— Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:4910 Stage Coach Road OWNER APPLICANT:Heritage Baptist Temple by Rev.Graham Lewis,Agent PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of the property for a mobile home security residence. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location The site is located on the west side of Stage Coach Road and immediately south of Asher Avenue on a large site occupied by the church structure. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The church and school currently on the property are compatible with the neighborhood and no adverse impact will be experienced by the adjacent properties with the addition of this single manufactured home. 3.On-Site Drives and Parkin Access to the site is by way of the existing driveways through the church properties,to the northwest quadrant of the site on which the unit will be placed.There are no proposed expansions or additions to the existing drive or parking system in connection with this proposal. 4.Screenin and Buffers The applicant plans to use the existing screening and buffering along the perimeter of the site,which is natural foliage.If additional is needed or required,the applicant will comply. 5.Cit En ineer Comments To provide the additional right-of-way dedication for a total of 55 feet from the centerline on Stagecoach Road and along Colonel Glenn Road frontages.Participation in the in lieu account for improvement of Stagecoach Road should be offered in the amount determined by Public Works based upon the value of this improvement. 1 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:A Continued FILE NO.:Z-5554 6.Utilit Comments The only comment received has been relative to waste waterserviceforthisproposeddwelling.It is the understandingofstaffthattheexistingunitisonaseptictank, provision will need to be made for a tie to the existingcitysewersystemorapprovalforuseofthesameseptictank. 7.A~1 The proposal before the Commission is for a mobile home forsecuritypurposes.Currently,there is a singlewide mobile home on the site which has been on the site since 1976.Significant repairs are required to bring this structure uptoastandardacceptabletothechurch.The church feelsthatitwouldbemoreeconomicaltoreplacethisunitthantorepairit. The new mobile home will be a 1989 Sunshine doublewide unit, measuring 28 feet by 48 feet.It is the desire of the church to move the new mobile home,approximately 100 feet westward from the existing location.By moving the home,the grounds and maintenance person which will use thisstructureastheirdwellingwillhaveabetterviewof the main structures on the site.Currently,the view of the main structure is blocked by the church bus garage. 8.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application subject to complying with the City Engineer's comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(SEPTEMBER 3,1992) The applicant was present.Staff presented the case and some background on the proposal.In a brief discussion,the Committee determined that there were no significant issues attendant tothisapplication.However,the applicant was advised that provision should be made to comply with the comments above concerning access to sewer or a septic system.The applicantindicatedthathedesiredtoconnectthenewunittotheolderseptictanksystemandwouldtaketheappropriatestepstocertifyapprovaltodoso. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission forfinalresolution. 2 October 6,1992 N 'Continued FILE NO.:Z-5554 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 22,1992) Steve Tedder was present representing Heritage Baptist Temple. There were no objectors present.Richard Wood of the Planning staff explained that the notice requirement has not been met. Mr.Tedder stated that the notices were only sent 3 to 4 days ago.As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was deferred to the October 6,1992 commission meeting.The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicant was not present.Richard Wood of the Planning staff told the Commission that the applicant had not properly complied with the notice requirement. After a short discussion,Commissioner Putnam made a motion that this item be deferred until the November 3,1992 Planning Commission meeting.Commissioner Putnam stated as part of his motion that this be the final time this matter is to be deferred. A vote was then taken on the motion to defer.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. Staff was directed by the Commission to notify the applicant of the deferral and to inform him that this is the last time that it will be deferred. 3 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-2984-A NAME:Graves —Daycare Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:1721 North Mississippi Avenue OWNER APPLICANT:Barbara L.Graves PROPOSAL:A request for a conditional use permit at this address for the expansion the existing daycare facility which occupies the residences at 1701 and 1723 North Mississippi Avenue. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location The site for this activity is the middle house of the three residential structures facing upon Mississippi,immediately south of the Tanglewood Apartment complex. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The use on these lots as a daycare is consistent with the occupancy of the surrounding areas to the southeast and north.Churches,condominiums,and apartments abut.The west side of Mississippi Avenue is occupied by single family dwellings for a block or so in either direction. 3.On-Site Drives and Parkin Currently,each of these former residential structures have a driveway from the public street abutting.Also,there are four headin spaces on the southend of the block off Indiana which serves as the primary drop-off and pickup point for persons delivering their children by car.This point servesallthreestructures. 4.Screenin and Buffers Currently,there are fences and landscape efforts on adjacent properties providing a good visual separation between the residential areas to the east and these three structures. 5.Cit En ineer Comments Additional information should be filed concerning the right-of-way on the three adjacent streets relative to dedication to City Ordinance standards. 1 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2984-A 6.Utilit Comments There are none to be reported. 7.A~1 The Planning staff view of this proposal is that with the addition of a third structure to this business activity it is time to provide the types of client services,usually provided and required by the Planning Commission.These include a proper drop-off and pickup site where parents will not have to back their vehicles into a public thoroughfare in order to exit the property.A proper drive-thru for vans or business vehicles as well as parking for employees.Itisstaff's understanding that these buildings collectively are occupied by over 60 children with an activity span from early morning to late evening. Part of the problem associated with complying with conventional development standards on these lots is the widening of Mississippi Avenue in the 1960's to a four lanearterial.This widening eliminated most of the front yard area for the residential structures which were constructed quite close to the street.The lots,of course,are platted facing north and south,leaving the narrow dimension for the rear yard of the lots.This also decreases potential for vehicle access and service. These several properties have a long history which has been extensively outlined by the applicant in their cover letter. The business was originally established in 1974 and has continually operated since in one or more of the structures. The applicant indicates that they have occupied the building at issue for eight or nine years without being notified they were in violation of the Ordinance.The southern most structure was approved for a conditional use permit and authorized to utilize off-street parking for a certain number of spaces on the church parking lot to the south and east.The northern most of the three structures was expanded and approved as a conditional use permit for this owner without the addition of required parking spaces. Staff does not have specific knowledge of when the owner occupied the middle structure;however,the owner was apparently unaware when they moved to that structure that they should have expanded their privilege license and received a review by the enforcement section to determine applicable zoning requirements. 2 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2984-A The last thought on this subject is that absent obtaining on-site drives or additional specific parking to serve this business.There are no future opportunities to do so sinceallexpansionislimitedtotheexistingpropertyboundary. 8.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application unless provisions can be made for some expansion for employee parking facility and a safe approach to delivery and pickup of the many children which utilize this facility.Staff is not opposed to the idea of long term commitments from adjacent commercial or apartment uses or even church properties so long as they there is some type of real commitment to provide the parking.This real commitment is typically a lease of some substantial period,normally a minimum of five years.We feel that a one way through drive between Ohio and Indiana could work. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 22,1992) The applicant was present and represented by Bruce Murphy.There were no objectors present.Several persons were present in support of the application.Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented the item and voiced staff concern about the lack of adequate parking and about the lack of an adequate drop-off area on-site.Jim Lawson,Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning,added his concerns about these items and reminded the commissioners that past proposals for daycare centers in Little Rock have been denied by the Planning Commission for a lack of parking and drop-off areas on-site. Staff presented a proposal showing a one way drive running along the back of these properties from Ohio Street to Indiana Street. Mr.Wood then told the Commission that staff's proposal was just that,a proposal and that staff would be willing to work with the applicant to develop an alternate proposal.Mr.Wood then stated that up to this point,the applicant had been unwilling to make any proposal other than to leave the site as it is. Mr.Bruce Murphy,representing the applicant,then addressed the Commission.He presented a history of the daycare operation anditsexpansionfromonebuildingtothreebuildings.Mr.Murphy outlined the nature of the operation and explained that the daycare has 11 full-time and 3 part-time employees.Mr.Murphy explained that the daycare has four on-site parking spaces off of Indiana Street and has agreements with the church across Indiana 3 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2984-A Street to the south and with the apartment complex across Ohio Street to the north to use their parking lots for employee parking as well as for parking for the delivery of children. Mr.Murphy then explained in detail the daycare's impact on the local economy.He then spoke in opposition to the staff proposal of putting a driveway between Ohio and Indiana Streets to provide for on-site drop-off and pickup. Mr.Lawson addressed the Commission and stated that the staff was not in opposition to the conditional use permit for a daycare, but was in opposition to the approval of a daycare without any provisions for a drop-off area. Deborah Newsum and Rick Nation,both parents of children at the daycare,then addressed the Commission in support of the conditional use permit,but in opposition to the staff proposal of a driveway on the site. Frances Finley,President of Stoneleigh Court Property Owner's Association,and Rev.Johnny Jackson,past pastor of Forest Highland Baptist Church,then addressed the Commission in favor of the conditional use permit,but in opposition to the staff proposal of a driveway. Mr.Wood reminded the Commission that the staff proposal was in lieu of the fact that the applicant offered none of her own. After further discussion by commission members,Mr.Wood reminded the Commission that this matter was before them as a result of enforcement action.A complaint was originally turned in to the Traffic Engineer's office because a client of the daycare center had trouble seeing to back out of one of the parking spaces off of Indiana Street.This matter was then forwarded to Zoning Enforcement. Hazel Persinger of 7515 Ohio Street spoke in favor of the conditional use permit and in opposition to any proposed driveway that might run adjacent to her property. Barbara Graves,owner of the daycare,then addressed the Commission.She told the Commission that she had been in operation in this particular building for nearly nine years,with no problem with parking and drop-off. Commissioner Oleson then asked Ms.Graves how many children areateachbuildingdaily.Ms.Graves responded by saying approximately 20 children are at 1723;18 to 22 children at 1721; and approximately 18 to 19 children at 1701 North Mississippi. Commissioner Chachere then asked if additional children came outafterschool.Ms.Graves responded that 8 children came after school.They are picked up at school by a daycare van. 4 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2984-A Commissioner Putnam then stated that he had been to the site and observed no problems with the lack of on-site parking or a drop-off area. After further discussion,Commissioner Ball made a motion to approve the conditional use permit application subject to the applicant securing additional parking and providing proof in the form of a written lease agreement,and subject to this conditional use permit for 1721 North Mississippi being tied to this applicant's continued ownership and operation of the daycare located on the three properties of 1701,1721 and 1723 North Mississippi.The motion further stated that should the parking agreements expire,this item must come back before the Commission. A vote was then taken.The vote was 5 eyes,4 nays and 2 absent. The item was automatically deferred to the October 6,1992 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicant was present and represented by Ben McMinn.There were no objectors present.Several persons were present in support of the application.Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented the item. Ben McMinn,counsel for the applicant,then addressed the Commission.He presented a letter from the Highlands Church allowing the employees of the After School Service to use the church's parking lot.Mr.McMinn then urged the Commission not to require an on-site drop-off area as it would disrupt the daycare center's playground. Commissioner Oleson then questioned whether a parking agreement had been obtained from the apartment complex,across Ohio Street to the north.Mr.McMinn stated that it had not. Commissioner VonTungeln then asked if the daycare was proposingtoprovideanyon-site drop-off area.Mr.McMinn responded that the four parking spaces off of Indiana Street had served the purpose for many years. Chairman McDaniel then asked if staff had revised their position on the issue of an on-site drop-off area.Mr.Wood stated that staff has always held to the Ordinance requirement that a proper drop-off area and on-site parking be provided. Jean Barrett,an employee of the daycare center for fourteen years,then addressed the Commission.She stated that she had never observed a problem with parking and was in opposition to the required drop-off area. 5 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2984-A Teresa Murphy,a parent of two children enrolled at the daycare center,then addressed the Commission in support of the conditional use permit,but in opposition to any required drop-off area. Commissioner Putnam then stated that he understood staff's position regarding ordinance requirements,but he was in opposition to requiring a drop-off area or additional on-site parking in this instance.He said his position was based on the daycare center's history at this site,and on the fact that all of the neighbors who addressed the Commission did so in opposition to any drop-off area or additional on-site parking. Mr.Wood reminded the Commission that the parking issue had come up every time this daycare had come before them as it has grown from one building with 17 children to three buildings with 60 children. In response to a question from Chairman McDaniel,Rev.Johnny Johnson informed the Commission that the church's agreement was to allow daycare employees to park on their lot and it was not intended that the lot be used as a drop-off area for customers of the daycare center. Chairman McDaniel then called for a vote on the matter.The vote in favor of the conditional use permit was 7 ayes,3 noes and 1 absent.No on-site drop-off area or employee parking was required. 6 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-3237-A NAME:Hillsborough Preliminary Plat Phase II —D LOCATION:At the westernmost of Chelsea Road off Abinger Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: KELTON BROWN MCGETRICK ENGINEER 13700 Beckenham Road Little Rock,AR 72221LittleRock,AR 72212 AREA:3.37 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:7 FT.NEW STREET:200 ft. ZONING:R-2 Single Family PROPOSED USES:Single Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT:Chenal (19) CENSUS TRACT:42.06 VARIANCES RE UESTED:None A.PROPOSAL RE VEST: This applicant proposes a preliminary plat to complete the Hillsborough Subdivision.These seven lots were previously approved on a street which extended to the west into a plat identified as Pleasant Heights —Phase I.The developer of Pleasant Heights and many of the neighbors of Hillsborough objected to the extension of Chelsea Road into that subdivision.The Planning Commission authorized the refiling of the of the preliminary plat in a revised form at such time as Mr.Brown desired,creating a cul-de-sac to terminate thestreet. Although the applicant has not submitted a request,a varianceisrequiredononeofthelots.Lot 91 has a pipe-stem access with 20 feet of street frontage.This is specifically prohibited by ordinance. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area involved currently is under construction by Mr.Brown.He has cleared the right-of-way for the street, and at this writing has apparently begun installation of some of the utilities. 1 October 6,1992 ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO 2-3237-A C.ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Due to the late filing request by Mr.Brown and the additionofthisbytheSubdivisionCommittee,Public Works has notcompletedathoroughreviewoftheproposal.Water Works hassubmittedarequestforawatermainextensiontoservetheselots. D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The applicant's plat is a conventional single familysubdivisionplat,except the 50 foot wide strip of land alongtheeastofLot95whichheproposestoselltheownerofLot 74B to the east.A transaction of that nature would be aviolationofthesubdivisionordinanceoutsidetheplat,andinsidetheplatthistractcouldnotbeplattedlessthanthe minimum lot width of 60 feet.Therefore,staff has recommended that Mr.Brown include all of Lot 74B withinthisplatforpurposesofincorporatingthe50footstrip. E.ANALYSIS: The staff view of this preliminary plat is that it isappropriategiventhecircumstancesinthepreviousPlanning Commission action.The reconstruction of Lot 74B as pointedoutinItemDaboveshouldbeaccomplishedandarevisedplatsubmitted. F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary subject to theextensionofawaiveronLot91forapipe-stem lot in theredesigntoincorporatetheadjacentLot74B. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(SEPTEMBER 3,1992) Mr.Brown was present as well as his engineer.They made specificrequestsforadditiontothisagenda,even though they are somethreeweekslate.Apparently all materials are in place,filingfeeandotheritemshavebeenaccomplished.The only remainingitemforMr.Brown to complete is a notice to adjacent propertyowners.The notice to be accomplished is to all adjacent ownersoflotstouchingontheplatboundary. Mr.Brown was instructed to submit to the staff the revisedpreliminaryplatasdiscussed. 2 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-3237-A PLANNING COMM SSION CTION:(SEPTEMBER 22,1992) Mr.Kelton Brown was in attendance and represented his plat.There were no objectors.Staff reported there was one letter in the file from the property owners association expressing concerns about the Bill of Assurance on the Subdivision.These concerns did not directly effect the Planning Commission's authority to act on the matter.Richard Wood of staff reported that the notice on this application was improper because it had been mailed only a few days before this public hearing and Mr.Brown had been allowed to enter the agenda at the Subdivision Committee on September 3,which allowed sufficient time. Mr.Brown offered several comments in defense of his actions and the notice as provided.Staff pointed out that there no issues of significance on the plat,with the exception of the inclusion of a small lot left out on the southeast corner.Staff noted that it could be accomplished without problem.A discussion followed involving the City Attorney and various commissioners as to the appropriateness of accepting this notice delivered by Mr.Brown, approximately one week later than that required by the Bylaws. Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's office strongly cautioned the Commission against moving to freely and setting their Bylaws aside. Staff reported that this plat is actual a follow-up to a previously approved preliminary plat.All the adjacent properties are developed as single family and that is the development format for Mr.Brown's property. After additional conversation, the Commission voted on a motion to waive the Bylaw requirement pertaining to the 15 day notice.This motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes,5 nays and 2 absent.As a result of this action,the Commission acted on a motion to defer the application to October 6 Planning Commission meeting.This motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicant,Mr.Pat McGetrick,was present and represented Mr.Brown.Staff reported that there were no continuing issues and the plat was recommended for approval subject to the completion of the preliminary plat filing in a revised form.The Commission briefly discussed the proposal. A motion was then made to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 3 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:1 Z-5110-B Owner:Bryan L.and Jimmie N.Savells Applicant:Bryan L.Savells Location:Baseline Road and Dailey Drive Request:Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 Purpose:Office Size:0.653 acres Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Single-Family,zoned R-2 South —Mobile Home Park and Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family,zoned R-2 West —Vacant,zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS In May of this year,a PCD was filed for the property in question.During the Planning Commission hearing and after a very lengthy discussion,the applicant agreed to amend the request to C-1.The Planning Commission voted 10 ayes and 0 nays to recommend approval of the C-1 rezoning. The item was then forwarded on to the Board of Directors for final action.The C-1 request was denied by the Board.At the Board's meeting,it was suggested that the land use plan should be amended to show the southwest corner of Baseline and Dailey Drive for office use,and support for an officereclassificationwasvoicedbyseveralBoardmembers.This0-3 request is a follow-up to the comments made at the Board's hearing. Staff has initiated the plan amendment and it should be acted on by the Board of Directors by the Planning Commission's October 6 hearing.Because of the new office designation on the plan,an 0-3 rezoning is appropriate and should not have any impact on the nearby properties.The uses allowed in the 0-3 district are compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. 1 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:1 Z-5110-B Cont. STAFF RE TION Staff recommends approval of the 0-3 rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-3 as requested.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 2 October 6,1992 ITEM NO 'Z-5603 Owner:Emma E.Rhodes Applicant:Emma E.Rhodes Location:1408-1410 West 11th Street Request:Rezone from R-4 to 0-3 Purpose:Meeting place for nonprofitserviceorganization Size:0.17 acres Existing Use:Vacant Duplex SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Single-Family,zoned R-4 South —State Office,zoned C-3 East —Single-Family,zoned R-4 West —Single-Family,zoned R-4 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 1408-1410 West 11th,a duplex,is to rezone the location from R-4 to 0-3.If the property isreclassified,the proposal is to utilize the site for a meeting place for nonprofit service organization,asorority.Currently,there is a vacant structure on thelot. Zoning in the general vicinity is made up of R-4,R-6,0-3,C-3 and I-2.The property in question abuts R-4 on threesidesandthezoningacrossWest11thisC-3.Land use is amixtureofsinglefamily,multifamily,office,commercial and a large church complex.The Arkansas Children' Hospital campus is located several blocks to the west and one block to the north is 9th Street Park,the future siteofanewelementaryschool.There is a large state office on the C-3 parcel directly to the south.In the immediate neighborhood,the existing single family residences areprimarilylocatedtotheeastofthelotunderconsideration. An office reclassification of 1408 and 1410 West 11th appears to be a reasonable option of the property.TheCentralCityDistrictPlanidentifiesthelotaspartof alargemixedofficeandcommercialarea.The land use boundary between residential and nonresidential on a plan is 1 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:2 Z-5603 Cont. the eastern property line of the site under consideration. Because of the plan element and the lot's relationship to the single family residences to the east,staff feels that 0-1 is a more appropriate office district for the property.0-1 is designed for the orderly conversion of older structures to office uses located in established areas of the City and in close proximity to residential uses.Also,0-1 does permit the "establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organizations"which will not have an impact on the neighborhood.(This sorority will not have the traditional sleeping accommodations.) There is one minor concern associated with this request,and that is parking.At this time,there is a short driveway in place that can only accommodate two vehicles.It appears that providing some additional parking on-site will be somewhat difficult because of the lot's size,and 0-1 prohibits parking in the front yard area.The applicant needs to be aware of this potential problem and be prepared to show some parking on-site,or if necessary,file for a parking variance. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of 0-1,and not 0-3 as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicant,Emma Rhodes,was present.There were no objectors.Ms.Rhodes spoke and described the proposed use, a meeting place for a service oriented sorority.She said the organization would aid expectant mothers and provide information,educational programs,clothing,counseling and other needed services.Ms.Rhodes said that the clients would be referred to them by the Department of Human Services,which has an office directly across West 11th. Ms.Rhodes said that she has no problems with 0-1 and amended the request to 0-1. There was some discussion and additional comments made about several issues. A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-1 as amended.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:3 Z-5608 Owner:Various Owners Applicant:Stephen F.Smith Location:5720 West 65th Request:Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Purpose:Industrial Size:5.0 acres Existing Use:Single-Family and Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Industrial,zoned I-2 South —Office and Industrial,zoned R-2 and I-2 East —Vacant,zoned I-2 West —Mobile Home Park,zoned C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS 5720 West 65th Street is currently zoned R-2 and the requestistorezonethesitetoI-2.The proposal is to utilize the property for truck parking and diesel refueling for a food distribution company located to the north on Frozen Road.At this time,there are two small single family residences on the front of the property,with the balance of the acreage undeveloped.The parcel has 360 feet of frontage on West 65th Street and a depth of 608 feet.Thereisa50footArklaGaseasementthatrunsdiagonallyacross the property from the west side to the south property line. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-4,MF-6,C-3,C-4,I-2 and OS.The property in question abuts I-2 land on twosidesandthereissomeI-2 across West 65th.Land use includes single family,office,commercial,industrial,a lodge,a church and a mobile home park.On the south sideofWest.65th,both Southwestern Bell and AT&T have some major facilities that include office and storage functions. Throughout the area,there are undeveloped parcels and vacant buildings. The adopted land use plan,65th Street East,identifies thesiteformixedcommercial/industrial uses.Because of the plan and the existing zoning,staff feels that I-2 is appropriate for the site and will not impact the surroundingproperties.If there is a developing zoning pattern along 1 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:Z-5608 Cont. West 65th,it can best be characterized as a combination of C-3,C-4 and I-2,with no well-defined location for any of the three districts. ENGINEERING COMMENTS West 65th is classified as a minor arterial and the right-of-way standard is 45 feet from the centerline.The survey shows an existing right-of-way of 40 feet. Therefore,dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the I-2 rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicant,Steve Smith,was present.There were two objectors,Ruth Hartwick and Harry Lowder,in attendance. Ms.Hartwick spoke first and said she was opposed to the rezoning because of the increase in truck traffic and noise. Ms.Hartwick went on to describe the surrounding area and the lot that she lives on. Steve Smith,representing Sysco Foods, then spoke and said the 5 acres would be used as an additional truck parkinglot.Mr.Smith also described Sysco existing site and operation.He said the property in question would also have a diesel fuel island that would be the state of the art and meet all EPA requirements.Mr.Smith said that the new parking area would access West 65th Street in the middle of the property and has 363 feet of frontage on West 65th. Mr.Smith told the Commission that the use would not impact the residences. Bob Brown,Plans Specialist for the City,addressed the buffer issue.Mr.Brown said that a 30.4 foot buffer would be required on West 65th Street and 18 feet on the west side.He informed the Commission that no buffers would be required on the north and east sides. Steve Smith offered comments on the development of the property and future growth of the company. Harry Lowder discussed access to the property and traffic in the area. 2 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:3 Z-5608 Cont. Steve Smith said that traffic congestion should not be a problem and there should be better flow in the area.Mr. Smith went on to say that Frozen Road would be closed to truck traffic in the future and that would remove some trucktrafficfromGeyerSprings. Bob Brown discussed landscaping requirements for the site under consideration. Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,asked some questions about lighting.Steve Smith responded and said standard lighting would be used on the site. Ruth Hartwick spoke again and said that she was still opposed to the industrial rezoning. The question was called on the R-2 to I-2 request.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent to recommend approval ofI-2. 3 October 6,1992 ITEM NO.:4 Z-4423-B OTHER MATTER ~SUSJECT ESSE:Rock Creek Covenants Land Use and Architectural Review Committee LOCATION:Southwest corner of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway E~EUEST:That the Planning Commission approve a release of the land use covenant established by the Rock Creek Plan in as much as the Architectural Review Committee and attending process were never effective. HISTORY:The Planning Commission,staff and the Rock Creek developers created thesitecovenants,now of record that proposed an overview by an architec- tural committee of all planned area development. The committee was formed, held a meeting and disbanded shortly thereafter. The convenants provide for the Planning Commission releasing control of thespecificsiteuponrequest and for cause. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.This is the site recently approved by the Commission and Board ofDirectorsasa42acreshoppingcentersite.Several of the developed parcels along the Parkway have been released. 1 October 6,1992 IT 4 Z-4423-B Cont.OTHER NATTER PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 6,1992) The applicants were present.There were no objectors.After a brief discussion of the issue,the Planning Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval.A motion to this effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball). 2 &EEELELLLLLLELLLL I,~ &LEEELEEEEEEEEWEE%ELEELEEEEEEEELLE I ~IO ~ W JLEQWE LESSEEJOE JWELELERLELEWLLREJ%EEL%EREJESSEJ JJ ~~ WELLLEELEEEEEL EJ ~~~&JLLLEJLEELLLE LJ ~~I&LEEEEELELJEEELKKI-HLEEELEELE JEEELLJ&EEELLLLLEEELJEERRELELLLLEELLLLLLS ~ WLLLSQQSELLLLWWQ JWLEERRQQRREELEEQQSEWEEEQERHKlEEJEESQNNE I ~,~~~ WLEESQRSEE JEEQRRQEREEJQQOSIEEJJJ589JWLEESQRSEEEJERRYJ ~~ &LELSRSRSERJ JSEQQSR ~~~ &LELEQSQE EEEQRRQS ~iI WLQLmmg5QIQE JEJgggQJELJQQe@ggJELJQgggrgJ I ~ &LLLRRQDQLLEEER55lQEWEEESHUiQLEEEERQHHE I r ~~ I ~~e ~~~~ October 6,1992 There heing no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Date se e ary Ch r an