Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 27 1991LITTLE ROCK PLANNING HEARING AUGUST 27,1991 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being eleven in number. II.Approval of the July 16,1991 Minutes III.Members present:Fred Perkins Walter Riddick Ramsay Ball John McDaniel Diane Chachere Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Rose CollinsBillPutnam Joe Selz Brad Walker Members absent:None City Attorney Stephen Giles present: August 27,1991 ITEM NAME:Miss Selma's —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5471) LOCATION:7818 "T"Street OWNER APPLICANT:Michael B.and Robin R.Smith PROPOSAL:Development of a Childcare Facility ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS 1.Site Location There are fenced residential lots to the west.Tworesidentiallotsaretotheeast.The other lots to the east provide parking and facilities for a coin operated car wash. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The proposed use is very compatible with the neighborhood.There are at least five other structures belonging to the applicant which serve as childcarefacilitiesinthisblockof"T"Street. 3.On-Site Drives and Parkin The applicant plans to use the existing circular drive and parking that is located on the site across from the proposed site."T"Street dead-ends to the west where the current parking is taking place. 4.Screenin and Buffers The applicant plans to utilize the existing mature trees and foliage for screening and buffers.If moreisneeded,then the applicant will comply. 5.C't En ineerin Comments The Engineering Department has recommended to the applicants that they file for a right-of-way abandonment for "T"Street which abuts the applicant's property. 1 August 27,1991 ITEM NO.:A Cont. 6.Staff Anal sis The intent of the applicant is to remodel a single family home into a childcare facility.There will be no modification of the exterior of the structure.The interior will be remodeled to accommodate four classrooms with a capacity of 8 to 10 students and one teacher per classroom.There will be removable playground equipment on the front lawn. Access to the building will be by foot from "T"Street up to the existing driveway.Traffic will move down"T"Street which dead-ends west of the proposed use. The children then will be taken by a teacher from the delivery vehicle to the building..The vehicle will then move through an existing circular drive in front of the proposed site. The entire block (Lots 2 through 6)adjacent and to the south has been operated as a school for grades K through 6th,and childcare facility for a long period of time.The building will be operated as a childcare facility for children ages 2 through 4 years old. Hours of operation will be from 7:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the applicant filing for the right-of-way abandonment and its approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 18,1991) The applicants were in attendance.Staff gave an overview of what the applicant was requesting.Jerry Gardner of the Engineering Division stated that it would be to the advantage of the applicant to abandon that portion of"T"Street that fronts all the structures.The applicant's stated that although they do not own all of the lots,there should not be a problem.Staff also advised the applicants to submit a master plan showing the structures the school already occupies. There being no additional discussion on this item,the item was forwarded to the full Commission for action. 2 August 27,1991 ITEM NO.:A Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 13,1991) The applicant was not in attendance.There were no objectors present.There was some discussion about whether the item should be heard in the absence of the applicant. A motion was then made to defer this item until the next meeting for the Planning Commission on September 10,1991. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. ENGINEERING COMMENTS TE:(AUGUST 22,1991) As stated in the Subdivision Committee's Action,there was some concerns about the applicant needing to abandon a portion of "T"Street that fronts all of the structures.It has now been determined by the engineering staff that there is no longer a need for the abandonment.Staff has also been informed that the circulation pattern meets the traffic engineering staff's approval. At the request of the Engineering staff and agreed upon by the Planning Commission chairman,this request will be heard at the August 27,1991 Planning Commission public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 27,1991) The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that at their last meeting it was determined this item should have been deferred until the September 10,1991 meeting.As a result of more review by the Engineering staff,it has now been determined that a portion of the right-of-way of "T"Street could not be accomplished because the applicant does not own the two lots which abuts the street.Also,the circulation was reviewed and determined to be acquired. Staff was then asked if landscaping and buffers would be met.Staff stated that Bob Brown had not mentioned anything about landscaping.Then it was asked if the applicant was willing to meet the landscaping requirements.The applicant indicated to staff that they would meet any requirement of the landscape ordinance. A commissioner then asked the reason for the mobile playground equipment.Mr.Mike Smith stated that there was no particular reason.The equipment would be made of heavy plastic and used by the two,three and four year old children. 3 August 27,1991 ITEM NO.:A Cont. As discussion continued,a commissioner wanted to know if the hours of operation would be the same.Staff indicated that the hours,from 7:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,would remain the same.The commissioner directed staff to make those hours apart of the minute record. A motion was then made to approve staff's amended recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit as filed.The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent. 4 August 27,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 TITLE:Amendment to Highway 10 Plan LOCATION:13,300 to 13,500 Block of Cantrell REQUEST:To change the Plan from Single Family to Commercial SOURCE:Willard Proctor,Attorney for Property Owners STAFF REPORT: The City has received a request to amend the Highway 10 Land Use Plan in Pankey to allow commercial uses on the Highway 10 frontage.The property in question runs from 13,300 to 13,500 Cantrell Road and is zoned R-2.After the Staff requested more detailed information from the applicant,the existing land use in the area was reviewed.Generally speaking,the area is platted into small residential parcels and is either vacant or single family occupied.In addition,the topography along and south of Cantrell in this location,drops off quickly and substantially.The existing conditions do not lend themselves to converting the land to commercial properties due to the size, layout and physical constraints.Moreover,new development more than likely could not meet the Highway 10 overlay standards (lot size,setback,landscaping or curb cut)without changing the physical and political character of the area. Finally,it should be noted that historically the City has taken the position that Pankey should be preserved as a residential area.To this end the City's plans have shown the area for residential and funds have been directed into the area to upgrade the infrastructure.Since Pankey only extends a couple of blocks from Cantrell Road,connecting the frontage along Cantrell could cause Pankey to cease to exist. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To protect the integrity of Pankey and to not adversely affect Cantrell Road,staff recommends the plan not be amended as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 16,1991) The Planning staff informed the Commission that the proponent had requested a deferral,and staff supported the deferral. 1 August 27,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. Chairman Perkins asked about the process:who could file for a plan change;the cost-fees;if the City had previously had such requests. Mr.Lawson,Planning Director,responded that there is no fee. Anyone could ask for a plan change and that only a few requests had ever been made.Mr.Lawson went on to state that the City should not forbid individuals from asking for changes to the Plan.In the past,staff has discouraged amendments that the City could not support before the Commission and City Board. Chairman Perkins expressed concerns about use of staff time, and the use of a plan amendment to get a straw vote on a rezoning.The Commission asked Mr.Proctor the reason for his deferral request. Mr.Proctor,attorney for several Pankey property owners,stated that there was continuing discussion in the Pankey Community about the request and the possibility of additional properties joining the request.As for the reason for the change,the area is changing (new commercial uses such as Kroger and Harvest Foods Stores),and the owners want to be involved in the change.In response to questions from the Commission,Mr.Proctor indicated that they could meet the plan standards.Currently,his group is meeting with Mrs.Douglas'roup,reviewing their plans.Since both the proponent and staff agree to a deferral,Commissioner McDaniel moved to defer the issue to August 27.By unanimous voice vote,the issue was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 27,1991) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reviewed a map showing existing land use and zoning in the Pankey area.Over the last ten years three zoning requests have been denied in Pankey and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)program has invested almost a million dollars for infrastructure improvements such as roads,water,sewer and drainage.The City's policy has been that Pankey is residential and the City has taken steps to maintain the residential area.Mr.Newman then directed the Commissioners to a petition,in their folders,expressing opposition to the plan amendment.He closed by repeating the staff recommendation of denial. There were some questions about the CDBG breakdown sheet and the size of the area under consideration. Willard Proctor stated that he represented a corporation called Ascomb which consists of existing and former Pankey residents and property owners.Mr.Proctor stated that his clients were 2 August 27,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO 'Cont requesting to change the land use plan from residential to commercial in Pankey in an area bounded by Highway 10 on the north,Pankey Avenue on the south,Crockett Street on the east. and Black Street on the west,from the existing commercial area west of Black,east to an existing transition zoned area.The owners recommended a C-1 neighborhood commercial use restriction be placed on the property.Mr.Proctor stated that the ownersrealizethatPankeyisnotdeep(south of Cantrell Road)andthattheywanttoprotectthePankeyneighborhood.A laundromat and other neighborhood commercial uses would be the type of development allowed.Mr.Proctor reminded the Commission that the request was from Pankey residents and not from people outside of the community.The overlay requirements on curbcuts, setbacks,lot size and landscape,in excess of C-1 requirements, would help protect the residential neighborhood. Mr.Proctor presented a drawing for a possible development showing an existing nonresidential building which is unusable under current regulations.The overlay standards would force the development to be designed to reduce noise,etc.These proposals would assure that property will be developed and Pankey would be protected. Mr.Proctor further stated that most of the opposition among Pankey residents is to a large corporation coming in and changing Pankey.Because of the existing residential,Pankey will not belost.They will protect it.The City should allow small scale developments using a PUB rather than large developments.Other concerns are that people would be required to sell their property.Mr.Proctor closed by stating that since the requestiscomingfromPankeyandthatpropertywillbedevelopedthat will take care of an eye sore,the Commission should approve it. Commissioner Oleson asked how many of Mr.Proctor's clients actually lived in Pankey.Mr.Proctor responded that one currently lives in Pankey,but that the others formerly lived in Pankey. Commissioner Collins asked how many existing residences are located within the proposed C-1 area.Mr.Proctor stated that atotalofsixteensinglefamilyunits,nine vacant lots,and three commercial nonconforming uses were in the area.Of those,three residents responded to a survey,by Mr.Proctor,that they were willing to sell their property.He further stated that he spoke on the phone to others who were in agreement with the request. Commissioner Nicholson asked how many lots were in Mr.Proctor's request.He responded that there were originally two lots,but the request had been expanded.Commissioner Nicholson then asked how many lots do the clients own?Mr.Proctor stated that his clients own four of the lots. 3 August 27,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning,stated that if this request were approved,there would be no Pankey.There would only be about a half dozen houses left on the south side of Highway 10. Commissioner Putnam stated that he felt the request had insufficient information.He did not know the number of lots, the depth,acreage,frontage along Cantrell,or exactly who was representing whom.Mr.Proctor stated that he understood the concerns about the lack of specifics. Commissioner Perkins asked how the C-1 was derived.He stated that the relative size of the area to the remaining Pankey is too large.He questioned how Pankey would be saved given the relationship between the commercial and residential uses. Commissioner Perkins also expressed concerns of expanding the area of the request. Barbara Douglas,President of Pankey Community Improvement Association,stated that the Association wanted Pankey zoned residential.Ms.Douglas asked that the City not change Pankey unless the community comes in mass to ask for a change.She stated that the request is coming from one family with threelotsandthatthecommunityneedstoworkontheproposal.She further stated that she had not seen Mr.Proctor since the last Planning Commission Hearing (he had not met with the neighborhood). Chairman Perkins asked Ms.Douglas the area that made up Pankey. Ms.Douglas responded that the Pankey Community is bounded by Black Street on the west,Crockett on the east,Douglas on the south and Dunbar on the north. Commissioner Oleson asked if Ms.Douglas was asking the Commission to wait until her group had a proposal for a change to the plan.Ms.Douglas responded that the community should come as a unit for any change.She further stated that if an individual has ten lots,the community must be sensitive to them and allow them to develop.She stated that it would be fine to change just the three lots of Mr.Proctor's clients,as long asitdoesnotjeopardizetheexistingresidents. Commissioner Nicholson asked if Ms.Douglas still believed the area should remain residential forever.Ms.Douglas stated it was not necessary to stay residential if the neighborhood voted to change.She further stated that if a person owned 10 lots, they should be able to develop those lots.Commissioner Perkins stated that Ms.Douglas still supported residential,but reserved the right to change in the future. 4 August 27,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. Ms.Selma Douglas,a resident,stated that most low income people do not want the area rezoned to commercial.She stated that she hopes and prays that Pankey will stay residential. She explained to the Commissioners that for four to five generations,Pankey has existed and she hoped that it would continue.Ms.Selma Douglas directed the Commission to a petition,with 40 signatures,against the request.After reading the petition she thanked the Commission. Ms.Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,asked the Commission to continue to support Pankey because the community is unique.She reminded the Commission that others (business and developers)have stated that neighborhood commercial cannot be supported without non-neighborhood traffic. Commissioner Walker stated that this is a difficult issue when dealing with the perimeter of a neighborhood,the conversion from single family and how that affects the remaining area. Speaking for himself,he could look favorably at any practical proposal for nonresdential.He stated that it is unreasonable not to allow any change,but it should be a coordinated development. In response,Mr.Proctor stated that he could not acccept some of the statements made by some speakers —in particular that he had lied.He stated that he is receptive to comments made by the Commission and wants all parties to know of his clients commitment to Pankey. Commissioner McDaniel called the question.There was a discussion as to whether the vote should address just 13300 to 13500 blocks of Cantrell or the larger area (Black to Crockett, Cantrell to Pankey).The Commission voted 0 ayes,11 nays nottoapprovetherequestedchange(Black to Crockett,Cantrell to Pankey from single family to commercial). 5 ~~0 ~ 1 r 4a 5%55 RRRRRRRRRRRRWQTRRRRRRLRRRRSeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWHRRRRRRRRRRRRRHLRRHRRRRRRQHRRHWURRTRRRTRRRRRR:.":.".."aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRRURRRRRRRRRRRRReaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHHRRRHRRRRHRRRRHHRRHRRRRRHRRRR ~RDR%%%%%%RRRHRR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%HQHRRRRHRRHRRRRKSRLRSRRERRERERRHRHRRRLTLRTRRQQ1IEII5$$$1$5$$$........aaaarrraaaaaaaaaRRRRRRRKRRRHRRLHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRLERSLRRRQRLRHRRHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHRRRRRRIHRHRHERRRRRRRRR I August 27,1991 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission,the Planning Commission adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Date:~6-Z-'E l I 1rman S cretary