Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 19 1990LITTLE ROCK PLANN1NG COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORO JUNE 19,1990 1:00 p.m. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A guorum was present being nine in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the May 8,1990 meeting were approved asmailed.(Kathleen Oleson obstained from voting on theminutes.) III.Members present:Martha Miller Steven Leek Jerily Nicholson Fred Perkins Kathleen Oleson Brad Walker Rose Collins Connie Whitfield Zohn McDaniel Members Absent:Walter Reddick III Zoe Selz City Attorney:Stephen Giles REZONING HEARING JUNE 19,I 990 DEFERRED ITEMS A.Z-5317 5924 Baseline Rd.R-2 to C-3 8.Z-5333 503 E,21st C-3 to PCD REZONING ITEMS 1.Z-3442-A Baseline Rd.at I-30 I-2 to C-3 2,Z-3751-A Mabel vale West Rd.I-2 to 0-3 IL C-3 3.Z-5335 8302 Asher Ave.R-3 t.o C-3 OTHER MATTERS 4.Z-4518 5310 Baseline Rd.5 8711 Shelly Dr. 5.An Ordinance Establishing an Overlay District for Highway 10 June 19 1990 Owner:The Buffalo Company,Inc. Applicant,:The Buffalo Company,Inc. Location:5924 Baseline Road Request.:Rezone from "R-2"to "C-3" Puxpose:Convenience store Size:0.415 acres Fxisting Use:Convenience store (nonconforming) SURROUNDING D USE AND ZONING: Nox'th —Commercial.,zoned "C-3" South —Auto sexvice,zoned "R-2" East —Commexcial.zoned "C-3" West —Commexcial,zoned "C-3" T FF AN ISIS: On this agenda,there axe three rezonings that involve propex'ties located at the intersect,ion of Baseline Road and Geyer Springs Road.Al.l three sites ax'e still zoned "R-2" because the area was annexed to the City a number of years ago and the thxee pax.cele were never rezoned.The xeguest.for 5924 Baseline Road is to xeclassify the property to "C-3"for existing convenience store. The Geyex'pxings Road and Baseline Road intersection is zoned either "C-3"ox'C-4"with the exception of the site under considexation and the southeast cox'ner.At.thenortheastcornex,the convenience store is zoned "R-2"andtheadjacentlandiszoned"C-3"fox a shopping centex.Theexistingzoninginthegenexalareais"'R-2""O-3""C-3" and "C-4"with the commercial zoning extending fox somedistancefxomtheintexsect.ion along both stxeets.In the immediate vicinity,the uses are primarily a mixture ofvariouscommex'cial establishments.Away from theintersection,the land use becomes more diverse with single family,multifamily,office,and a mobile home park.Further to the south,on Geyer Springs Road,there is a large church and NcClellan High School. 1 June 19,1990 Item No.A Contin e The Geyer Springs East Distxict Plan identifies the northeast and southeast cox'ners of the intersection for commercial use/development.Therefore,the pxoposed "C-3" conforms to the adopted plan.There are no outstanding land use issues and staff suppoxts the commercialreclasslficatlon, GINEERI 6 O ENTS: Applicant.should dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of- way on both Baseline and Geyer Springs frontages,close the driveways closest to the cornex'n each fxontage,and provide a 5 foot,landscape strip on each frontage. STAFF R CO END ON: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"x.ezoning as requested CONNISS O ACT H:(Nay 8,1990) The applicant.,Sonny Peaxson,was present.There were noobjectors.Prior to Nr.Peaxson presenting his case, Commissionex Brad Walker spoke and made some comments about adding conditions to rezoning requests and his desire for consistency in development. Nr.Peaxson then spoke and said there were no plans to make any changes to the existing development.He went on to saythatitwouldbedifficulttooperatethebusinessifseveralofthedxiveweayswereclosedandafivefootright- of-way dedication was required.Nr.Peax'son then told the Commission that he needed to talk to the company's Bored ofDirectoxsbefoxehecouldagreetotheright-of-waydedicationorclosingthedriveways.He concluded by sayingthatclosingthedrivewayswouldprobablycutthebusiness by one half, After some additional comments,a motion was made to defertheitemtotheNay22,1990 meeting.A motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent. 2 June 19,1990 te No.A Co t'nu G N (Nay 22,1990) Staff reported that,the owner reguested another deferral totheJune5,1990 meeting.A motion was made to defer the rezoning item to June 5,1990.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. PLANNIN CONN SS N CTION;(June 5,1990) Staff reported that,the owner submitted a written reguest,for a deferral to the June 19,1990 meeting.A motion was made to defer the item to the June 19,1990 hearing and to waive the five day written notice reguirement.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. LANNING CO IS ION (June 19,1990) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the owner requested by written notice that,the issue be withdrawn without,prejudice.A motion was made to withdraw the "C-3" rezoning without.prejudice.The motion was approved by avoteof9ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 3 tune 19,1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NG.:8 FILE NO.:2-5333 NAME:Paint and body shop —Short Form "PCD" LOCATION:SE Corner of Commerce and 21st Streets ~DEVELOP ~EERIE ER: Amex Abdin Mc6etrick Engineexing 3009 Lorna Dri~eLittleRock,AR 72204 Little Rock„AR 72221 375-3624 AREA:0.25 acres NUMBER GF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:"C-3" PROPOS D USES:"PCD"auto related services PLANNING DISTRI :Central City ~CN llE TRRDT:E V IANCES RE UESTED: 1.None TATEMENT G RGPGSAL: The development proposal is a one usex'„one building,one owner,permanent stx'ucture to be utilized as an auto paint and body shop.The building area is appxoximately 3000 square feet.The site will contain an entrance on 21stStreetandagraveldrivewayfromCommerceStreet.The Developer would like to install a fence with 2 gates on the back for security purposes.All sexvices will be doneinsidetheexistingstructure. A.PRGPG UEST: The Developer proposes to use 3000 square feet of theexistingbuilding,zoned "C-3"for an auto paint and body shop. 1 June 19&1990 @~VISION EN NO Con B.EX STING COND ONS: The site is curx'ent.ly occupied by one large structure. The building is in a state of disxepair with parts ofcarslayingax'ound the building.The adjacent.streetsaredevelopedtoCitystandards. C.GINE O TS: The proposed access fram Commerce appears to cross adjacent.property not included in this application. Ownership of the access strip by the applicant,or permanent easement.should be documented. D.ISSUES GAL T CHH CAL D SIGN: The several issues to be intxoduced here axe asfollows: 1.The principal concern of the Staff is the adopted plan use fax this neighborhood which provides for maintaining "C-3"'ses along East.21st,Street. 2,The site plan is only partially dimensioned thereby leaving too many elements to guestion.3.The access to the parking lot from the rearisundexstoodtobethroughadjacent pxoperties not included in this "PCD".4.The Bill of Assurance should be filed.5.The building structure has to pass the Fire Department inspect,ion. Z.A~ÃL 8XB: The Planning Staff's view of this proposal is that itisentirelyinappropriategiventhelanduseplanforthisarea.The Staff feels that approval of the "PCD" would only add to existing problems along East 21stStreet.We feel there is sufficient "C-4"'oning Eastofthisareathatwouldaccommodatethisuse.Suchareasare.Ice~ted at the intersection of 21st andInterstateI-30 as well as the area of Roosevelt.Road and Interstate I-30. There are several additional items concerning the site plan that reguire additional work on the part of the Developer.The plan reguires complete dimensioning. 2 June 19,1990 ~SXUISXON I EN NO 8 Contin e The landscaping should be indicated on the drawing. There is also an access pxoblem on this property which has to be resolved before "PCW'an be appxoved. F.STAF ECO DATIO Tjhe Staff recommends denial of this application.Wefeelthattheadoptedplanfortheareashouldbe maintained for "C-3"uses SUBDIVISION CGNNIT CONN S:(Nay 24,1990) The applicant.was present.A brief general discussion washelddealingwithtjhelandusequestion.Nr.Flower responded to several guestions from the Committee concerning whether or not it could be distinguished as a continuationofnonconformingautorepairbusiness. Commissionex Perkins advised the applicant to seax'ch therecordsforapx'ivilege license from the previous businesstopx'ovide proof of nonconforming use.He stated that this would allow the applicant to continue nonconforming use under the existing auto repaix business.The applicant agreed to search the records and bring to the Planning Commission meeting. The matter was forwarded to the full Commission for finalresolution. PLANN NG CONN S 0 C IGN:(June 5,1990) Nr.Flower,the applicant„was not present and was not represented.The Planning Staff repoxted that it had not. received contact.with Nx.Flowex since the Subdivision Committee meeting.After a brief discussion,the Commission determined it was appropriate to defer this item for 2 weeks.The motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 eyes,0 noes,1 absent. 3 June 19,1990 ~UUID ~VGN t m Nc.on i ue PLANN NG CGNN SS G CTIGN:(June 19,1990) Applicant was not present.The Planning Staff recommended withdx'awal.After a brief discussion,the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda fax withdrawal without prejudice.The motion was made and passed by a mote of 9 eyes„0 noes,2 absent. 4 June 19,1990 Ite No.1 ——442- owner:Billy Jane Bussa Applicant Rick Ashley Location Baseline Line Road at I-3O Reguest:Rezone from "I-2"to "C-3" Purpose:Retail development, Size:18.22 acx'es Existing Use:Vacant GUND NG D ZG Nc'orth—Vacant,zoned "C-3" South —Vacant.,zoned "R-2"and "'I-2" East —Sxngle Pamily,zoned "R-2" Hest —Vacant zoned 'C-3" A,YS The xeguest is to rezone 18 acres from "I-2"to "C-3"fox future commercial development..If "C-3"reclassification is granted,the px'oposal is to combine this tract.with the 23acx'es to the north and develop a shopping center.The property is situated south of Baseline Road and just east.of where Baseline Road intexsects 1-38.The land is wooded and vacant.. Land use in the general vicinity is single family, mult.ifamily,commercial and industrial.The single family and multifamily uses are found in a well-established neighborhood that is located directly to the east,and extends from Baseline Road to the railx'oad tracks.The multifamily units are situated on lots adjacent.to Baseline Road and around Stratford Couxt,a cul-de-sac.At.this time,the propert.ies to the south and west axe undeveloped. Gn the north side of Baseline Road,there is a combination of commercial and industrial uses.The zoning pattern is mixed and includes "R-2","C-3"and "I-2". Gn Geyex Spx'ings 'Nest District Plan,the propexty under consideration is shown as paxt of a large office/commercialarea.Therefore,the proposed "C-3"reclassification conforms to the adopted plan and Staff supports the 1 June 19„1990 Item No.1 —Z-3442-A 'ontinu d rezoning„except for the existing 50 fooit GS area along theeastsideofthesite.Staff's position is that the GSbufferisneededandshouldnotbealtexedthroughthis rezoning request.50 feet is the minimum width fox an GSareainthezoningordinance. NSINEERING COMMENTS: None reported. S APE RECOHH ND TION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"xezoning,except fox'heexisting50footGSareaadjacenttotheeast,propertyline. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 19,1990) The applicant was represented by Stuax't.Hankins,anattorney.There were five interested residents inattendance.Hr.Hankins spoke briefly and said theapplicanthadnopxoblemswiththeStaff's recommendation ofmaintainingtheexisting50'0-S"strip adjacent to theeastpropertyline. Ann Summex'ville,a x'esident.on Yorkton Drive,then addressed,the Commission.Hs.Summex'ville asked questions about.thefutuxedevelopmentofthepropertyandmadestatements about the need to pxotect residential property values in thearea.She said the residents wanted a six foot.brick wall along the pxopexty line and',the development would hurt.theresidentialneighborhood.She also said that a wood fence would not work and expressed concerns about crime incx.easing due to the commercial uses. Stuart.Hankins said there wexe no firm development plansotherthanthesitebeingutilizedfox"C-3"use.Hx'. Hankins told the Commission that,there was no fence on theexisting"C-3"to the north.He then indicated that there would be no problem with requiring site plan review prior to a building permit being issued. There was some discussion about various issues including the need to xe-notify the neighborhood when a site plan wasfiledwiththeCity. 2 June 19,1990 Item No 1 —Z-3442-A Continued A motion was then offex'ed to condition the rezoning approval on a site plan xeview.The motion failed to receive asecond. J.D.Ashley said there could be a potential hardship placed on the pxopex'ty by adding the site plan review and xe-notification requirements. Ruth Bell made comments about.notifying the property owners. stuart,Hankins spoke again and said the applicant had some problems with the site plan review and indicated that.achainlinkfencewouldbeput.up on the interiox of the SG'G-S"buffer. Ann Summerville asked that the item be deferred for a pexiodoftimetoallowformoreneighborhoodinvolvement.ShealsoremindedtheCommissionthatpropertyvalueshavedecreasedinthearea. Nr.Rankins made some final statements and said that a fence on the intexior of the "O-S"axea would make maintenancenexttoimpossible. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning subject tc maintaining the fifty foot "O-S"area ontheeast.side of the px'operty with a six foot chain linkerectedontheeastexnboundaryofthefiftyfoot"O-S"strip.The vote was;3 eyes„4 nays,4 absent and 1abstention(Martha Miller}.The item was automaticallydeferredtotheJuly17,1990 hearing. Comments wexe offered by Commissioner Collins after the vote was taken 3 June 19,1996 Item No.—-375 -A Owner:Kanis/Otter Creek Properties Limited Partnership Applican't'alph Bozeman Location:Mabelvale West Road (East of Mabelvale School) Request:Rezone from III 2 lilt to I'IQ 3ht IIC 3 Il Purpose:Offi.ce andI commercial Size:27.4 acres Existing Use:Vacant S Q INC D USE AN ZONING: Noxth —Vacant and post office,zoned "R-2"and "'O-3" South -Vacant,zoned "I-2" East —Vacant,zoned "R-2" West,—Vacant,school and post.office,zoned "R-2"andltI2ll FF ANALYSIS: The land in question is zoned "I-2",and the proposal is to rezone 13.3 acres to "C-3"and 14 acres to "Q-3".8.5 acresadjacenttotherailroadtrackswillxemain"I-2"if the request is approved as filed.Cux'rently,the entire site is vacant,and wooded.Along the east side of the pxopexty,thexe is some floodway involved and with a substantialfloodplainareaextendingtothewest. Zoning in the area includes "R-2","Q-2","Q-3","C-3","I-2"'nd "I-3",with the pxoperty abutting "R-2"and "I-2" ln the immediate vici.nity,the primary land use is singlefamily.Qthex'ses found along Mabelvale West.are two chuxches,a hospital and medical offi.ces,a post officefacility,a fix'e station,public school,commercial and,i.ndustrial.A pexcentage of land is still vacant,including a majority of the "6-3","C-3"and "I-2"tracts.At. px'esent,most of the developed land,commercial and industx'i.al,i.s si.tuated between Bowen Road,and I-36,Qn the noxth side of Mabelvale West Road at I-36,there is a large mixed use project,zoned "C-2",that has a Holiday Inn and othex'ommercial establishments and office uses. 1 June 19,1999 Item Na.2 —Z-3751-A Cant.inued In 1986,an application was filed far approximately 25 acresacrossNabelvaleWest.Road fram the site in question.The request includedi "Np-24m eG-3","C-3"and "I-2"with the yx'oposed "NP-24""9-3"and "C-3"tracts fxanting INabelvale West.Afiter sevezal.hearings,the Planming Commission recommended "9-3"far the entire acxeage except for the right-of-way fox the yraposed South Laap slang the west sideaftheproper'ty.The land was rezamed to "O-3"by the BoazdafDirectorswith'the South Loop alignment remainimg "R-2". Staff supyoxted "9-3"for the property based an the Otter Creek Distx'i.ct Plan. The alignment fox the proposed South Laap eisa impacts the property being considered through this xezaning request.Gnthewestsideoftheland,the survey shows a proposedright-of-way of 299 to 399 feet fox'he South Leap;theright.-of-way incxeases to 399 feet at.the railxaad tracks ta allaw for the cx'ossing.The right-af-way extends the full length of the property along the western boumdary for a distance of 1,498 feet. On the Ottex creek Distriat.Plan,the emtire site,38 acres,is identified for i.ndustrial use.The Plan shows the southsideofMabelva,le West is for imdustrial development,exceptfortheschoolsiite.On the nazth side,the recommended land use pattern is more mixed with office,cammexcial,andpublic/institutional designatiams.The commercial area,a community sexvice center,is adjacent ta I-39 and encompasses existing "9-2e and "C-2"lamd. With this rezoning,Staff feels that the "C-3"portian af the xequest is inappxopriate and recommends "0-3"for the 27sexes,except fox the floodiway.It is the Staff's positionthat"0-3"is more in keeping with the general direction of the Plan,which is to concentrate the commex'cial at.onelocation,and not encourage a strip pattexn along Nabelvale West.Also,thexe is exi.sting commercially zoned tracts to the west.that.are undeveloped.Therefoxe,it.is questianable whether'dding commercial acreage can bejustifiedatthistime.Andi finally,by nat endox'sing the pxoposed "C-3",Staff is being consistent.with its recommendation fox'he land directly ta the nozth. SIN ERIN' The proposed South loop Expxessway right-of-way should be exempted from any zezoning,and reserved far future purchase by the publ.ic agency who will ultimately buildthisroad.The appl,leant will not be required to dedicate right-of-way fox the South Loop Expressway at 2 June 19,1990 Item No.2 —-3751-A Conti.nue this time„but should be advised that the City xeservestherighttaprohibitanyaccessfromthispzopextyontotheSouthLaapExpressway. 2.The Nester Street Plan classifi.es Nabelvale West,Road as a minor arterial,with a required mi.ni.mum right.-of- way 90 feet„or 45 feet fxom centerline.Thi.s dedication should be required an the Nabelvale West Road frontage of this tract. 3.The floodvay shawn on this txact should also be dedicated ~ STAFF RECGNNENDATION: Staff recommends approval af "0-3"for the 27 acxes underconsideratian„except fox'he land area designated as the South Laop right.-of-way on the west.side af the pxaperty. The floodway needs ta be zoned "GS"and ded.icated ta theCity. PLANNING CONNISSION A O (June 19,1990) Ralph Bozeman was present and indicated that.he was representing the applicant.There vex'e na objectors inattendance.Nr.Bozeman di.scussed the site and said the px'oposed South Laop wauld change the ax'ea.He said the South Loop and Nabelvale West.intezsect.ion would be a commercial lacation in the future and commexcial zoning wasappropriateforapoxtionofthesiteunderconsiderat.ion. Nx.Bozeman also indicated that he had no problems with meeting floodvay reguirements of rezoning it.to "G-S"anddedicatingtheflaadwaytotheCity. Jerxy Gardnex,of the City's Engineering Staff,discussed the flaadway issues. Nr.Bozeman made some comments about,the area and said the px'opexty was a lagical site far commexcial development.. Cammissianer NcDaniel suggested "0-3"for the entire aareage and that the City purchase the South Lacp right.-of-way within one year. Commissioner Perkins asked whether the owners vould agree ta rezaning the right,-of-way land to "R-2".Nr.Bczeman said 3 June 19,1990 Item No —Z-375 C 't ued he had problems with the xight.-of-way being zoned "R-2"and then went,on to discuss the pxoposed site plan. Jexxy Gardner provided some background on the South Loop andsaidtheentireright-Qf-way was on Nx'.Bozeman s px'oper'ty. Nx.Gax'dnex'aid the right-of-way for the South Loop was 200feet.and increased to 300 feet to allow for the railroadcrossover.He went on to say the South Loop would be a limited access facility and no dedicat.ion was beingrequestedbecausethex'e was no benefit.to the property owner.Nr.Gardnex'lso said the Arkansas Highway and Transpox'tation Department.has indicated that.the South Loop should have an Environmental Impact Statement.and has x'ecommended that no additional.right.-of-way be purchaseduntiltheEnvix'onmental Impact tatement was completed. Commission NCDaniel said that some of the South Loop right.— of-way to the north had been purchased several years ago. Thexe were other comments made by various Commissioner's and Jex'x'y Gardner ~ Ralph Bozeman presented some hi.story on the area and said the rezoning request was reasonable.Nr.Bozeman then asked 'that.the item be deferred fox a period of time. A motion was made to defer the issue to the July 17,1990 hearing,The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 4 June aS,aSSG Item o 3 —-5335 Gwner:Danny Brown Applicant:Danny Brown Location:8302 Asher Avenue Request:Rezone from "R-3"to "C-3" Purpose Commercial Saze:0.14 acres Existing Use:Vacant D LAND USE AND GNING: North —Single Family,zoned "R-3" South —Vacant,zoned "C-3" East —Single Family zoned "R-3" West —Vacant,zoned "C-3" STAFF ANA YSIS: The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone a 56footlot.on Asher Avenue from "R-3n to nC-3a The proposalistocombinethesiteinquestionwiththelot.direct.ly tothewest,zoned "C-3",and construct a small retail establishment with the necessary parking.Both lots are vacant.at.this time.Gne unique feature of this case isthatoneindividualownsthelottothewestandport.ions of two lots to the north on which there is a single familyresidence.If the rezoning is granted,the entire tractwillbesoldtothesameperson. Land use along this segment of Asher is single family,a mobile home park and commercial with the property abutting asinglefamilyresidenceontheeastside.Gther uses foundinthegeneralareaareafirestationandachurch.Someofthelandisundevelopedandseveraloftheexistingnon-residential buildings are unoccupied.Zoning is verysimilartotheexistinglanduseandincludes"R-3""R-4" aG-3a «C-3a,sC 4s and aI 2n ~ The Bayle park District.plan shows the lot to be part of a commercial strip on the north side of Asher Avenue that, extends from Malker Street to Ludwig Street on the west.. (Ludwig is located one block west of John Barrow Road.) 1 June 19,1990 te .3 ——5 Contin "C-3"is the appxopriate zoning district for the suggested land use pattern.Therefore,there is no plan issue andStaffsupportsthexeguestedcommercialrezoning. N NE XNG GMMKNTS: Ashex'venue is classified as a principe.l arterial,which has a xight.-of-way standard of 116 feet,or 55 feet from the centex line.Dedication of additional right-of-way will be xeguixed because the existing right-of-way is 60 feet. TAFP CGMMEND GN: Staff recommends appx'oval of the aC-3a x'ezoning as requested. P I CGMM SS GN A G (June 19,1996) The applicant,was px'esent..There were no oh]actors and the rezoning was placed on the consent,agenda.A mot.ion was made to recommend appxoval of the "C-3"request.The motion passed by a vote of 9 eyes,G nays and 2 absent.. 2 June 19,1990 tern o —8-5 8 Qthex Nat.e owner:First National Bank of Fayetteville Applicant:Qlan Asbuxy Location:5316 Baseline Road and 8711 Shelley Drive Request.:To review previous Planning Commission action Puxpose:Commercial and mini-storage Size:1.7 acres Existing Use:Commercial and mini-storage (nonconforming) SURRQUNDINC LAND US AND ZQ NG: Noxth —Single family and multifamily zoned "R-2"and ~0 PRD II South —Single family,office and commercial,zoned "R- 2e and eC 3 East —Commercial,zoned "R-2" Nest,—Single family,commexcial,zoned eR-2e and ~iC- Jw S AFF 8 8: In 1985,a rezoning applicati.on was filed for the properties on Baseline Road and Shell.ey Drive.The request.was fox'C-4"'nd the rezoning was supported by both the Staff and the Planning Commission.The item was forwarded to the Board of Directors,but never acted on by the Board because of a right-of-way issue.(See copy of the 1985 Agenda page for additional information.) Since the filing of initial request,,the property has been sold,and the new owners wish to have the two sites rezoned and remove the nonconforming status."C-4"is still the requested reclassification because it a.llows the mini- warehouses and certain auto xelated uses by-right.The Baseline Road site is occupied by a commercial center withretailandautomotiveuses;the mini-stoxage units are on the Shelley Drive property. 1 June 19,1990 te 4--4 Qte tes ontinued Under normal cixcumstances,the issue would have been taken on to the Board of Directors without additional Planning Commission input.However,since almost five years have passed since any pub3.i,c review,Staff determined that the rezoning reguest needed to be brought.back to the Planning Commission fox'ndox'sement of the previous act.ion.The agent for the new ownex'as indicated that they axe willingtowoxkwiththeCityontheright-of-way issue. E ZNEE G CQNNE S: Although Baseline Road is classified by the Naster Street. Plan as a pxincipa3.arterial at this location„the CityEngineex'as px'eviously authorized recommendations of reduction to minox artexial right-of-way width fox Baseline Road fxom Geyex Spxings Road east to Arch Street. Accordingly,the Baseline Road fzontage of this tract.reguires a total z'ight-of-way of 90 feet.,or 45 feet fromcenterline. T F R CQNN AT Stafi's position is that nothing has changed since the application was first filed and still supports the "C-4" reguest. P 6 CQNNI XQN ACT Q (June 19,1990) The app3.icant was pxesent.There were nc objectors and theissuewasputontheconsent.agenda.A motion was made to recommend appx'ove of the "C-4"rezoning as reguested.The motion was appx'oved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2absent. 2 August 27,1985 MPH f4.+/'b.)$.4lg Item No.3.2 —Z-4518 Owner:Eagle Properties Applicant:Lawrence Jacimore Location:8366 Block of Shelley Drive and 5310 Baseline Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"C-4"Open Display Purpose:Nake Existing Uses Conform Si ze:1-7 acres + Existing Use:Retail and M,ini-Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Sing3.e Family and 34ultifamily,Zoned "R-2" South —Single Family and Commercial,Zoned "R-2" East —Nultifami3y and Commercial,Zoned,"R-2" West —Sing3.e Family and Commercial,Zoned "R—2" STAFF ANALySIS: The property under consideration is located on Baseliine Road,east of Geyer Springs,and came into the City in April 1985,by the State Supreme Court upholding the annexation of certain lands by referendum.The parcels are fully developed with nonconforming uses such as mini-storage units and an auto service center.It is possib3.e that several of the uses in the building fronting Baseline will require a conditional use permit to discontinue their nonconforming status because of certain retail uses in "C-4"being listed as conditiona3.uses.The proposed Geyer Springs EastDistrictPlanidentifiesthelocationforacontinued commercial development,The C-4 reclassif ication is appropriate for Baseline Road which was classified as a major arterial. STAFF RECGNNENDATIGN: Staff recommends approval of the "C—4"rezoning request asfiled. PLANNING CGNNISSIGN ACTION: The applicant was present.There were no objectors.The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as filed.The vote:9 eyes,9 noes and 2 absent. tune 19,1990 ZONING BEARING Item No.5 Title:Ordinance establishing an Overlay District for Highway 10 ~Rt:little Rock Board of Directozs STAFF REPORT: On,Octobex'7,1989,the Board of Directors adopted an interim overlay ordinance for Highway 10.The ordinance was drafted as an intexim ordinance to give the City a chance to thoroughly zeview the ordinance design standards with the property dimensions of the Highway 10 property.A preliminary report was presented to the commission april 10. At that meeting,the Commission was told that analysis indicated that,the proposed standazds would not create a large numbex'f "undevelopable'axcels.Staff did identify over a dozen paxcels which likely could not meet the letter of the oxdinance even by combining with adjacent.pax'cele. Gf the 215 paxcels fx'onting Bighway 10,ovez.150 could not. meet the letter of the oxdinance.(Note that,the ordinance has a PUD clause fox these parcels.)Howevex only approximately 45 of these pax'cele must comply with the regulations,since the xemaining parcels ax.e x.esidential (ontheplan).The vast majority could be combined and redeveloped to meet the suggested standards. On May 2nd the Overlay Committee heard reactions from the property owners.Many present.found the zegulations to be discriminatox'y to Highway 10 Properties.The second majox issue xaised was to incorporate flexibility into the regulat.ions (both in the standards and land use). The Gvexlay Committees xecommendations are attached. OV R y COBBITTEE BEETING MINUTES."(BAY 11,1990) The Overlay Committee had several concerns dealing with the overlay oxdinance and how it xelated to the Bighway 10 Plan and the allowedl land uses.They felt that the standards proposed in the overlay ordinance was suffi.cient.but,thatflexibilityshouldbeincludedforthosesmalltx'acts that can not meet some of the standards,such as,the 100 footsetback. 1 June 19,1990 The Committee did,however„feel that owners of smallertractsshouldbeencouragedtocombinetheirt.racts tocreatealargerdevelopmentwithfewercurbcuts,etc. The Committee feels that developers should have tbeflexibilitytouseotherparkinglotscreeningdevices thanjustberms.The Committee was not convinced that.only ber'ms should be used,but the developers should be able to usedenselandscaping,screening walls or'ther devices. Committee member Crane felt that Highway 10 would not look good if it bad a row of berms on either side the length oftheroadway. The Committee saw the need to use the PUB to dea3.with thedesignflexibilitythatisnecessarytocreategooddevelopment.Therefore,the Committee did not see a needfortheBoardofAdjustment,to be invo3.ved in the overlayprocess.They felt that the Pl.arming Commission could dealwiththeentiredevelopment„whereas,tbe Board of AH3ustment could only deal with the specific variance re'quested Committee member Nicholson fel.t that with the enhanceddesigncriteriainp3.ace„the rest.riction of commercial along Highway 10 was not that important.The parcels willbedevelopedwithbuffers,etc.and could be located next tootheruseswithoutthetypicalnegativeimpactsofstripcommercia3..Jim dawson discussed the importance of keepingthelanduseplansintact.to provide the base guidance for 3.and use decisions.If the plans automatically show commercial&then it will be difficult to get the enhancedstandardsthatyouwant.Also,without the land use plansitwouldbedifficulttomaintainthecommercialnodeconceptthatisimportanttotheHighway10Plan. The Committee felt that.some commercial shou3.d be al3.owed inthetransitionalzones,if the overlay standards were inplaceandifPUBsarearequired.The Committee went furthertosaythattheyfelttheHighway10Planshouldbeamendedto:(1)drop the PUB requirement on a3.1 transitional areas and (2)require PUBs only if commercial uses are proposed inthetransitionareasorifthepropertyissosmallthattheoverlaystandardscannotbemet. Committee member mitchell stressed the )mportance offlexiblesignstandards.He said the 10 foot tall signmightnotworkifthebusinesspropertyisbelowthegradeofthestreetforexamp3.e. 2 June 19„1990 ~It No.5 SUMMARY Gverl.ay Committee xecommends: For small txacts PUDs should be used to meet the intent of the standax'ds,if the standaxds can not.be met No PUD xeguirement for Parcels which can meet the standards and land use recommendations of the Highway 10 Plan To allow altexnatives to the berm which fulfil the original intent of screening*To allow developments with commercial uses in transition zone areas with a PUD*All variances,to the standards,should be made with using the PUD process Any cf the standards can be vax.ied with the PUD process (as long as the intent of'he standards is addressed) n in Comm'ss'on ct'."(Nay 22,1990) Jim Lawson,Planning Director,informed the Commission that, on June 19 an ordinance revision for the Highway 10 GverlayDistrictwouldbepresentedforconsidexation.As reguired by ordinance,Staff presented a progxess report in Apxil-after six months.The permanent oxdinance is to be befoxe the Hoard three months later.Mr.Lawson quickly reviewed what had been done since April and presented the Highway 10 Gvexlay Committee recommendations,Be,also,directed the Commission to pages 5 K 6 of the ordinance where suggested changes wexe made. The Committees recommendations as xelayed by Nr.Lawson for small tracks to use the PUD process to meet the intent.of the ordinance —No PUD requirement,if can meet.the overlay standards and land use requirements in Transition zone areas. —Allow altexnatives to berms,concern about.visual impact of harms Tf want.to vary the land use the PUD process must be followed —Use the PUD process to review case by case requeststowarythestandards The Committee for example thought the set back was good butthe100feetwasnotamagicnumber. 3 June 19,1990 Item No 5 Commissi.oner Nicholson asked Nr,Lawson to say more about the fourth recommendation.Nx.Lawson stated the Committee felt the City should a13.ow some commercial with the Puj3 process if the standards wex'e met.Staff could possibly suppoxt.a mixed proposal.Nx.Lawson agreed that the standards can make a difference but do not necessarily make land use a non-issue.He advocated sticking with the land use p3.ans ~ Commissioner Riddick stated the Committee felt with highex'tandardsthereshouldbemoxaflexibilityinlanduse. Commissioner Nicholson stated the Commission was going to get more and more requests and this change addressed the changing reality along Highvay 10.The District plan has evolved from straight land use (commercial,office xesidential)to transition zone (allow some mix of uses and add some design considerations)to the ovexlay district (design standards).It was hex contention that if designed we3.1,then who cares what the zone is.The solut.ion is quality design.From tbe public hearing„the indication was the standards required larger scale development forcing out smal3.locals in favor of large national firms. Thexe was some discussion about the node concept,and whether to allow any commercial in transit.ion zone areas defeatsthis.Commissioner Nicholson stressed,it.vas important how the City dealt with change. Nr.Lawson confirmed that to bang tough may freeze out locals on Highway 10. In response tc a question Commissioner Walker stated the existing plan and standards will prevent.small development on Highway 1G which is allowed in other locat.ions.An example was a recent subdivision at Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road where a small parce3.commercial subdivision was just approved.On Highway 10 individuals will have to assemble land to develop (This is happening now along Fair Park). Commissioner Ncoaniel stated it huxt that people who had been on Highway 10 a lifetime would miss out.on incx'eased values.It is the Realtors vho can put together properties, who are going to come out ahead.Now one has to pool property and come in with plans to benefit.the site and City. Commissioner Nicholson stated that.if one can meet.the standaxds maybe land use is not important. June 19„199G Item Mo 5 Commissioner Walker stated maybe the Commission should look favorably when a nonconforming commercial use comes in and less so when a residential use wants to convert to commercial. Commissioner Nicholson expressed concex'n that Real Estate/Developers can wait fox'Board or Commission to change,while the little guy often can not.there needs to be give and take in the process.Mr.Lawson stated the City needs to establish a base line to work fx'om.Commissioner Nicholson stated that to work that way appears to bow to the big guy. Mr.Iawson stated it is not possible to write an ordinancefox'very parcel and every use,but'f the City puts commercial,red„on the plan the question is only how much and how'ntense. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters stated it has always been a concern that with the overlay in-place it will be viewed as OK to zone the coxridox anything (do not know ifthatisOiKoxnot).The people in the area thought.they knew what,it would be zoned.It is important that the Commission be comfortable with any change and to stick with the plan as the Commission approves it.The Commission should be careful not to make a land use decision j~ust to give someone money. Commissionex McDaniel agx'eed that land use decisions should not look at the economics,but.at the community as a whole. Tom Cole,Cantrell Ioop Partnership„was next to speak.Hisfirst.concex'n was that he had not been notified of the propex'ty ownex.s meeting.Staff expanded how the list was compiled and asked Mx'.Cole to give them his addxessinformation.The second concern was his property was zoned"C3',then the overlay ox'dinance was put,i.n place.Thisincreasedthexestxictionsonhisproperty.Qf particular concex'n was the 100 foot setback„which he felt was economically unjust..The setback should be less for thoseareasshownfoxcommercialtobefairtothesites,His property is located in a node next to an existing development..This creates visibility problems which should be addressed.Third,Chenal Parkway does not have the overlay standards.Maybe to be faix,the design criteria should be added.to Chenal Parkway. There was some agxeement fx'om several Commissioners. 5 June 19,1990 (June 19,1990) Jim Lawson,Planning Director,reviewed the ordinance requirements for a prel.iminary report in si.x months and recommended final language in nine months for the Highway 10 Gverlay Standards.To conduct the review a committee of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members was appointed .This Committee reviewed the standards with staff using the city GIS system.Nr.Lawson stated some changeswillbeproposedbutingeneraltbeordinancewasingoodshape.At today's meeting only the revisions to the Gverlay Grdinance can be voted on but another issue —amending the Highway 10 plan will be di,scussed as well.(Since the review Committee felt they should be a package.)If theCityBoardfeelscomfortablewithtbeplanamend'ment,Publichearingswillbescheduledatalaterdate. Nr.Lawson next.reviewed changes to tbe Bigbway 10 plan.In genera).the changes are to make tbe two documents agree. Gne major change is to not limit commer'cial uses solely to the nodes.The city would consider mixed office/residential developments with ).imited commercial uses as long as tbe PUD process was used.The curb cut requirements would be madeconsistentbetweentheplanandoverlayordinanceaswould the setback and landscape requirements.Nr.Lawson displayed each of the changes on overhead projections. Commissioner Gleson requested additional information on the PUD requi.rement to allow limited commercial in transition zone areas.It was suggested that.this requirement berestatedinseveralplaces. Nr.Lawson then revi.ewed tbe changes to tbe Gverlay Grdinance.Tbe first change dealt with the berm requirement.There had been concern expressed that the berm could have negative impacts,thus alternative methods should be allowed.The wording would be changed to "organic or organic/manmade"features with the Plans Specialist checkingtoassureconformance(appeals would go to the Planning Commission) The curb cut requirement would be changed from two in 760feettoa300footspacingandatleast106feetfromanintersection.later in tbe ordinance clarifying changes would be made in the structures per acre requirements.For large sites a one building per five acre requirement woui.dalsobeadded S June 19,1990 In the exception section language would be added to clarifythataPUDshouldbeusedwhenaparcelcannotmeetthe standards'here was a question about limiting the number of bui3.dinge.It was explained this requirement originated from a desiretominimizeoutparcels.A second question about variances from the ordinance was asked,and Nr.Lawson stated the PUDprocesswasthereforthat,purpose. Nr.Wortsmith was first to speak.Be stated,he awned property on Highway 10 and was a small businessman.It was his opinion that.the ordinance was toa restrictive.Though he has no plans to redeve3op his property„he could not meet the ordinance restrictions for any expansion.Sma13. developers and businesses will be prevented from maving tothearea.(Be gave an examp3.e where ihe purchased an adjacent.lot for parking and the cost.to landscape it was more thanthecostfortheparking.)Nr.Lawson,in response statedthataPUDcou3dbeusedforanexpansion.Further„therearesomedeve3.opments in place that are not going to conformargoaway.For any of these as long as no changes occurtheordinancehasnoaffect,and tbe PUD process could be used to address the specific problems of each. Robert Sihultz,The Ranch„s'tated he was gener'ally supportive but tlhere was some clarificatian needed.He notedparticularlythedefinitionssectionandthesize of parcel requirements.Nr.Slhultz recommendled that the east boundaryoftheDistrictbeReservoirRoadsincethatiswherethescenicareastarts.Gr,at least,the District should startatI-430.The area from Rodney Parham to 1-430 is the first area one sees,the gateway,and the City sbauld require the same higih 3.evel of development.on this portion of Cantrell. Currently there is an office area in this location with proposed high st.andards but they could sell.The new owner may not cihoose to keep this high standard.It.is only fairthatthisdirectcompet.itor,on Highway 10,have the same regu3.ation as is placed on The Ranch. Nr.Shultz stated the 500 foot district boundary isexcessive.A more reasonable number would be 300 feet sincethatisthedistanceofanormalcityblock.There needs to be justification for the distance used so that the ordinance wi3.3.not be overturned and the rules change in the middle of the game. As for the minimum parcel size,three acres is totallyunreasonable.Nucb of the development in I ittle Rock needs on3.y 50,000 to 60,600 square feet.Thus,three acres is too 7 June 19,1996 large and should be reduced or deleted.(For those parcels already zoned,it should be deleted).Nr.Shultz also recommended that office development not be placed under this requirement.The result would be office buildings in thecharacterofGneFinancialCenter,rather than small owner operated professional offices. At.this point the Commi.ssion recessed at the request of Commissioner NcDaniel and consent of Nr.Shultz.Upon theirreturnCommissionerLeeklefttbemeeting. Nr.Sbultz expressed concern about the sprinkler requirement,and how the Water Works would chargeindividuals.He suggested there should be further'eview and consultation on the ordinance requirements.The next.point dealt with the numbex'f buildings per acre whichreducesdesignoptionsanddevelopmentalternatives. The economic impact of the ordinance requirements should be considered (of those who al.ready have office or commex'cial zoning).Nr*Sbu3.tz stated he felt the ordinance was taking away rights he curxently had with his zoning and be should be compensated.If the reason for the regulatxons is not.to have another Rodney Parham,the setback and cuxb cuts requirements a3.one wou3.d do that.In conclusion,he recommended all challengeab3.e sections be removed. Commissioner Nicholson left at this point.. Tom Cole spoke next,he first,addressed tbe Land Use Plan amendment.The word 'some'hould be changed to 'most'n the second paragraph discussing difficulty in meet.ing design requirements.Also the term hardship should be better defined (from whose point-of-view).Tbe 6.2 FAR requirement should be dropped and incentives to development office included.The setback requirement.is totally unreasonable. Nr.Cole suggested the Commission review the minute recordofthetwoNaymeetingswhichclearlyshowevexyonefeels 166 feet is excessive.Finally,if the use is permitted onthep3.an,it should not be made nonconforming but.be able to rebui3.d in tbe current location (not.have to meet the designstandards). As for the overlay ordinance,Nr.Cole expressed concern about the identity of tbe landscape specialist and theirexpertises.This is a high cost item.The limitations on buxlding sites,page 7,is unrealistic.This creates an economic problem.Tbe regulations are such that only'nationale'ould meet.them.In Little Rock most of the growth is internal,not.companies moving bere.He concluded 8 June 19,1990 by stating that the visibility issue was real and shouild be addressed. Nr.Jones,Vogei Realty,stated he represented eight properties ranging from 0.8 to 50 acres and is a developer, thus he views the requirements from various perspectives. The main problem is that small individuals cannot develop along Highway 10.To date all we have been discussing is theory,we do not know how real developments will react to the requi rements.Nr.Jones stated the problem is that no one knows exactly what will be approved (office,multi family,etc.).He asked for assurance that a multi.family use which is allowed in Transition Zones will not.be challenged.Currently,the City is sending out signals which slow growth. Nr.Jones stated he had no problem,if the ordinance is a guideline.There should be room for compromise.wording to indicate flexibility should be pl.aced in the first paragraphs of the document..In addition,language should be included stating these are guidelines and the City will work with the site (developer).Nr.Jones stated he didi not know what the exact numbers should be but that there must beflexibility.In conclusion,be stated this was a step in the right direction. The real test according to Nr.Bones is tbe decision on anofficeprojectinaTransi.tion Zone with less than threeacreswhichwillbebeforetheCommissionsoon.It is important that the Commission interrupt the ordinance withflexibility.At this ti.me Nr.Jones felt the ordinance was alright,if flexibility were adided. Commissioner Gleson asked those present t.o discuss changing the east boundary of the district.Ther'e was some discussion about extending the boundary to the east.Nr. Shultz stated the ordinance ideas originated with The Ranch development.Several individu.als asked about.adding the requirements to Chenal Parkway. Commissioner Ncoaniel stated he was bias for realtor/developers but that the City does look 'anti'cannotdoithere).Everyone should be working together to see 'How can we do this'P','How can we help this happen7'. Now we are running off business because of all our requirements.Everyone needs to work together no be combative. Nrs.Predia Vogler asked to speak.She stated she had lived on Highway 10 since January 1962„and this was the first 9 June 19,1996 meeting notice she received.Everyone next to the area needs to be notified.Besides concern about.notice sbe expressed concern about the removal.of trees for gas/waterlinesandaskedifsomethingcouldnotbedonetopreservetreesintheright-of-way.The Commission asked Staff toinvestigatetheproblem. Commissioner Nil.ler stated there were requi.rements fornotice~ Commissioner Walker stated he would work toward placingtheserequirementsontheothermajorentryroutes. Commissioner Nill.er asked Staff what action was neededtoday.Nr.Nalone of the Planning Staff recommendeddeferringtheitemtoJuly3.7 and asked for some guidancefortheCommissiononpossiblechanges.There was some discussion on this topic.Nr.Lawson stated that the Commission could make specific changes and send comments to the Board on other issues.There was additional discussion. Several Commissioners stated they were not prepared to vote today. 10 I PLANNI NGCONFII SS ION VOTE RECORD OATS ITEN NUNBERS ZGNINO .SUBUIVISIGN HEHBER 8 W.Riddiek,III a..d V ™~~~~ J.McDaniel W V N,Mi.let J .Nicholson Selz,Joe S.Leek C.Whit.field K,Oleson W Q R Colli s ~ VC&vav', Perkins (3 +pyg Q ggyg 4 IIDSEtlf QIIBSTIIIN June 19,1999 There being no further business befor'e the Pianning Commission„the meeting mes adjourned st 4:30 p.m. DATE."7 3 ~ creter rman