Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 27 1984r LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD MARCH 27, 1984 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: John Schlereth Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie William Ketcher Betty Sipes David Jones James Summerlin Ida Boles John Clayton Carolyn Witherspoon March 27, 1984 Item No. A - Z -4168 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: B.R. McGinty Louis Wimbley 4601 West 12th (West 12th at Adams, southwest corner) Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to "C -4" Open Display Auto Repair Garage 14,400 square feet + Existing Use: Vacant Service Station SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "I -2" South - Church, Zoned "C -3" East - Multifamily, Zoned "R -4" West - Church, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to convert an existing service station to an auto repair garage. The station has been used as a car wash and detail shop. It has not been used for a service station for a number of years. The site is located in a "C -3" strip on the south side of West 12th that extends approximately four blocks to the east. The area has a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. This location is the west end of the "C -3" zoning. The north side of West 12th has a similar development pattern with a mix of commercial uses. The proposed use appears to be appropriate for West 12th which is classified as a principal arterial, but the requirement for "C -4" zoning is a concern. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a vacant service station. A majority of the property is paved except approximately the west 45 feet. This section is the location of a creek and separated from the remainder of the site by a retaining wall. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. West 12th Street is four lane, and all necessary improvements are in place. 7 t , 1 I March 27, 1984 Item No. A - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues other than establishing an "C -4" spot zone. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position relative to this site. The property has been zoned "C -3" for a number of years. 7. The staff is not necessarily opposed to the proposed use, an auto repair garage, but it cannot support the "C -4" rezoning at this location. There are a number of uses permitted under the "C -4" classification that would be undesirable for West 12th Street and the rezoning would be establishing a spot zone. Precedent would be set if this zoning is granted that could create some undesirable land use patterns along West 12th. A "C -3" zoning pattern is more appropriate for West 12th Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84) The applicant was not present. for 30 days was approved by a v 1 absent. (The staff was asked the applicant and inform him of a conditional use permit if the amended.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion to defer the item ote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and by the Commission to contact the possibility of utilizing Zoning Ordinance is (3- 2 -7 -84) The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the item for 30 days was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. i March 27, 1984 Item No. B - Z -4174 Owner: Smith Property Partnership Applicant: Tom Rystrom Location: Napa Valley at Mara Lynn (west side) Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Development Size: 10.1 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned 'IMF-18" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The 10 -acre site in question abuts another 10 -acre tract zoned "MF -18," and the proposal is to combine the two parcels if the rezoning from "R -2" to "MF -18" is completed and develop the entire 20 -acre site for multifamily use. This property has no access to a dedicated public street, so for development to occur, the site must be incorporated into a project that has proper access. The site is located in part of Little Rock where substantial multifamily development has taken place or is under construction. There is also a number of areas zoned for multifamily that have yet to be developed. The primary issue is how much of the 10 acres can be utilized for multifamily development because of the terrain and the western portion of the property being adjacent to a detached single family neighborhood and approximately 1200 feet from Napa Valley Road. 2. The site is heavily wooded with some of the property having slopes in the range of 15 percent to 30 percent. The high point is located on the eastern portion of the site. The southern boundary of the property appears to be unsuitable for development because of the steep slopes. March 27, 1984 Item No. B - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. The residents of St. Charles have expressed some concern over the proposed density and the type of development. 7. The staff supports multifamily use on a portion of the 10 acres if a portion of the western one -third of the tract is left undeveloped and zoned "OS." The density for the "OS" area could be transferred to the developable land. A specific land combining the two tracts has not been submitted. A development concept should be undertaken for the total acreage to establish an overall density level and define the open space /buffer area. Because of these concerns, it is recommended that no action be taken on the rezoning until the plan is submitted and reviewed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a 30 -day deferral to allow the applicant to submit a development plan for purposes of reviewing the proposed density and the amount of developed land versus undeveloped land. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the request. Mr. Hathaway spoke in support of multifamily development on the site and offered a new zoning proposal. The amended request was for a "MF -12" reclassification for seven acres and "OS" for the western three acres adjacent to the St. Charles Subdivision. He also stated that the maximum density on seven acres would be 80 units and the developer would fence the open space area. Kent Brewster of the St. Charles Property Owners Association spoke in opposition to the multifamily development. He expressed concern over the remaining "R -2" parcel to the north and how its future would probably be determined by what occurred on the property in question. He then requested a 30 -day deferral because the property owners had not had an opportunity to view Mr. Hathaway's proposal. Jane Barron and Don Moore spoke against the rezoning of the "R -2" tract and were very concerned over traffic. Mr. Moore felt that March 27, 1984 Item No. B - Continued there were more than enough multifamily units in the area already. Jim Rhodes also spoke in opposition to the request and offered some conditions if the property was developed. He suggested that a "PRD" be used for the seven acres; restrict the density to eight units per acre; that the units, 56 total, be for sale; limit the height of the buildings; and deed the western three acres to the St. Charles property group. He also requested a 30 -day deferral. Mr. Hathaway then responded to the preceding remarks. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended to rezone seven acres to "MF -12" and three acres to "OS." The motion was not seconded. A second motion was made to defer the item for 30 days. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention ( David Jones). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 27 -84) The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). March 27, 1984 -`` Item No. 1 - Z- 3269 -C Owner: Acme Development Company Applicant: Joe White Location: South of Painted Turtle Cove Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "OS" Open Space Purpose: Open Space Size: 1.25 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South Vacant, Zoned "OS" East - Vacant, Zoned "PUD" West - Church, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The rezoning of this site is the result of a previous Planning Commission action on the property to the south. At the time of the rezoning approval to "MF -18" and "OS on the southern tract, it was requested that the parcel of land in question be rezoned to "OS" and the title be transferred to the Turtle Creek Property Owners Association. There are no outstanding issues. CrPA VO MVrnlu MWXTnnmTnwr. Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNTmr. rOMMTGgTnN ArrPTnM- The applicant was present. After a brief discussion by the Commission, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z- 3419 -A Owner: David Wood Applicant: Same Location: Beverly Hills Drive at Shackleford Road NW Corner Request: Rezone from "0 -3" General Office to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial Purpose: Beauty Shop Size: 1.5 acres + Existing Use: Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office, Zoned "0 -3" South - Vacant, Zoned "0 -3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There is currently one structure on the property that is being used for offices. The proposal is to rezone the property to permit a beauty shop. At this time, it is uncertain whether the entire building or only a portion will be used for the beauty shop. The property was rezoned from "R -2" to 190 -3" in January 1980. The general feeling at that time was that the "0 -3" zoning would act as a buffer between the residential uses to the west and the more intensely zoned property to the east. This section of Shackleford from Beverly Hills to Mara Lynn is zoned for office use and has created a buffer for the residential neighborhood to the west. The proposed zoning would break the existing zoning pattern and establish a commercial location on the west side of Shackleford. Currently, the commercial zoning is restricted to the east side of Shackleford north of Beverly Hills. The office zoning is working and should remain the most intense classification at this location. Allowing a commercial rezoning is inappropriate and not compatible with the west side of Shackleford. March 27, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued 2. The site is relatively flat with one building and paved areas for parking. There are no unique physical characteristics associated with the site. 3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan requirements. Shackleford Road has been upgraded to the proper standards. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The site was rezoned from "R -2" to "0-3" in January 1980, and there were no objectors present according to the Planning Commission's record for that meeting. It appears that there will be some opposition to the "C -1" rezoning. 7. The staff does not support this request and recommends that the existing zoning remain as is. The office use appears to be compatible with the residential neighborhood and has had a minimal effect on the area. Office uses should continue to be the most intense nonresidential land use on the west side of Shackleford and act as a buffer for the residential neighborhood as was the intent when the property was rezoned to "0-3." Certain uses permitted under the "C -1" classification could create undesirable impacts for the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present but was represented by Delbert Spears. There were no objectors present. Mr. Spears spoke in support of the request and suggested that the beauty shop was a less intense use than two of the uses in the existing office zoning. He presented petitions from some of the residents stating that they were not opposed to the beauty shop. The Commission discussed the case at length. The discussion centered around a possible Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow a beauty or barber shop as a conditional use permit in the "0-3" district. The Commission instructed the staff to include this item in the current Zoning Ordinance amendment package. A motion was made to defer the item to the next appropriate meeting, May 15th, to permit the applicant to file a conditional use permit. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z- 3638 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Gary Dean Financial Centre Parkway at Shackleford Road NW Corner Rezone from "C -3" General Commercial to "0-2" Office and Institutional District Office 4.59 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Office, Zoned "C -3" East - Interstate, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2," 110-3" and "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to construct a single office building not to exceed 120' in height and one parking deck. The 120' limit is the maximum height in the "0-2" District. There will be additional surface parking. The site is located in an area that is rapidly developing as a major office center for west Little Rock. There is substantial office development directly to the south and to the north and northeast. This area is commonly referred to as the I -430 office corridor, and the proposed project is compatible with that land use pattern. The property has good access for high volumes of traffic and needed commercial services are also provided in the area. (The "0-2" District requires a site plan review by the Planning Commission. The site plan has been filed for the Commission's April 12 meeting.) 2. The site is vacant with wooded areas. The property has some slope to it with the east side, the Shackleford frontage, being at 380' and increases in elevation to 410' at the southwest corner. The grade is fairly gradual and should not present any problems. March 27, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The site was rezoned from "0-3" to "C -3" as conversion adjustment. That action was accomplished in February 1981. At that time, the proposed use was a hotel. The neighborhood's position relative to mid -rise office buildings in the area is well documented. (The proposed height is permitted in the "0-2" District.) Staff has not received any comments from the neighborhood regarding this rezoning request at this writing. 7. The staff supports the request and views the rezoning as being appropriate for the location, the intersection of an arterial and an interstate. The Shackleford frontage from Kanis to Markham is zoned for nonresidential uses, except an "R -2" piece directly north of this tract. The proposed use is compatible with the area and the existing land use patterns which includes a major office corridor to the south and a commercial strip to the north. Because of what is occurring along Shackleford, it appears that the long -term viability of the residential lots on Birchwood within 200' of Shackleford is questionable. The continue residential use at this location will probably have to be reevaluated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present but had requested a 30 -day deferral. Staff supported the request because the applicant also did not notify all the property owners within the required 200 feet. A motion to defer the item passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z- 3995 -A Owner: Dante and Rosalyn Jacuzzi Applicant: Robert C. Slay Location: West of 1024 N. University Avenue Request: Rezone from "MF -6" to "OS" Open Space District Purpose: Open Space Size: 1.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Parking, Zoned "MF -6" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Office, Zoned "0-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: This request is the result of action that the Board of Adjustment took on the property. A variance was requested to permit parking on a residential zone, "MF -6" in this instance, to serve an office use. The Board of Adjustment approved the variance with the requirement that a portion of the property be down zoned to "OS." Some of the eastern one -third of the property will be used for parking. There are no outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z- 4123 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Allan and G.G. Thalheimer W.F. Rector Jr. 10101 Rodney Parham Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office Of f ice .57 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND TISF. AND ZONTNr North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Park, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The site in question appears to have severe limitations for development because of Grassy Flat Creek and its floodway. Grassy Flat Creek is identified as a priority one stream for floodway /open space acquisition in the adopted Master Parks Plan. The minimum acquisition width recommended in the plan is 2751. Because of the creek and the property's relationship to Butler Park, a more appropriate use for the land would be expansion of the park. The property would best serve the immediate area as open space, and this type of land use should not add to the reoccurring problem of flooding that has been experienced by some of the residents. The property with its flooding and drainage concerns is not suited for any intensive development and should be made a part of the City's open space system. Any development of this tract will require site modification which will probably have some impact on the flooding problem. The property does not provide adequate developable land area for a project that will not have impacts on the residential property owners. March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued 2. The property is vacant and slopes down from Rodney Parham to the Creek. It is the only remaining parcel between Breckenridge Drive and Butler Park that does not have any type of construction on it. The floodplain includes a little more than one -half of the site and the floodway bisects the southern one - fourth of it. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. This is the location of the proposed Process One PCD which was denied by both the Planning Commission and Board of Directors over the last two months. The neighborhood's position is well documented relative to any zoning change or development on the property. From the previous attempt to develop the site, it is quite obvious that the neighborhood is strongly opposed to any development of this property. 7. The staff's position is that the site is unsuitable for any development and that the City should take every step necessary to acquire the land. The potential impacts on nearby residences from developing the property are still a concern, and the staff cannot support the rezoning. The existing 110 -3" zoning to the west should be the extent of the office zoning east of Breckenridge Drive. The site would be ideal for expansion of Butler Park and be made a part of the floodway /oven space corridor. This part of Little Rock would benefit greatly from certain lands being left undeveloped. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is opposed to any development on the site and recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Bill Hastings, was present. There were also several objectors in attendance. Staff modified their recommendation and recommended deferral to allow the City to address the issue of acquiring the property. Al Jansen, a March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued property owner in the area, spoke in support of acquiring the property for open space or park use and the deferral. Cliff Jackson, the adjacent property owner to the west, also supported the acquisition of the property. He stated that he had been in contact with the owner's agent to initiate preliminary discussions about acquiring the property. Mr. Jackson also informed the Commission that he would be willing to match the City's offer for acquiring the land if that solution was pursued. The issue was discussed at length by the Commission. Several Commission members felt that the issue before them was one of land use and that the City Board of Directors would have to address the acquisition concept and not the Planning Commission. It was pointed out by various Commissioners that the property could be developed without severely impacting the flooding situation. This was based on the engineering data that was submitted to the Commission for the initial PCD application. That engineering data reported that a project on this property would have a minimal effect on the creek. Mr. Hastings was asked about the use of the property. He said that it would be a small office but offered no other specifics. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). March 27, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z -4182 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Randy Henard Anna Street at Asher and West 33rd Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial to "I -3" Heavy Industrial Auto Salvage 1.0 acres + Auto Salvage (Nonconforming Use) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property for an auto salvage operation. The site is currently occupied by a nonconforming auto salvage yard. This rezoning request is in response to a zoning enforcement notice informing the applicant that the existing "I -2" zoning does not permit an auto salvage yard. The "I -2" zoning in the area is working and has produced some desirable industrial uses for Asher Avenue. Long -range plans for the area envision a light industrial warehousing district. There currently is a mix of zoning and land uses, but an "I -3" use is not compatible with the area. Certain sections of Asher Avenue have been upgraded and an auto salvage yard fronting on Asher would not be aiding that trend. There also has been some new construction in the immediate vicinity. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a structure and a number of dilapidated automobiles. March 27, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued 3. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the existing right -of -way is deficient. Asher Avenue is classified as a principle arterial on the Master Street Plan and is a state highway. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The general area has been zoned "I -2" for a number of years. There is no neighborhood position relative to the site. 7. The staff position is that the "I -2" zoning is working and should continue to be the most intensive zoning classification in the area. Uses permitted under "I -3" are uncompatible with the area and could create adverse impacts for the neighborhood. The existing residential uses have been affected by the industrial and commercial zoning, and the area will continue to lose its desirability as a residential neighborhood. An auto salvage yard or any other "I -3" use is inappropriate for property with frontage on Asher Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant had submitted a letter requesting a 30 -day deferral to allow him to notify the property owners within the required time. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z -4183 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jonathan Hudson Franklin J. Daley West 22nd at Nichols Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "R -4" Two Family Duplex 1.34 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to construct two duplexes, four units total, on eight lots. This would be the same number of units that could be constructed on the lots if the property remained "R -2." The area was outside the City until 1982 so the development pattern is very mixed. The neighborhood's land uses includes single family residences, mobile homes, churches and some commercial structures. A majority of the lots are vacant and this type of a project could encourage further new construction in the area which would benefit the entire neighborhood. The "R -4" zoning or use should not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. There is some grade to the land, but it should not create any problems for the proposed development. 3. Nichols Street has only 40' of right -of -way so additional dedication is necessary to increase the right -of -way to 50' for a residential street. West 22nd Street has a 50 -foot right -of -way. March 27, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse reviewing agencies at this the area so septic systems staff's understanding that the necessary approvals for 5. There are no legal issues. comments received from the time. There is no sewer in will be used, and it is the the applicant has received using septic tanks. 6. The property was annexed into the City in October 1982. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The staff supports the request and the proposed development scheme. The duplex use should not create any problems for the neighborhood and the new construction should be viewed as a positive step for the area. It is recommended that the existing alley be abandoned and a replat of the lots be accomplished. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Franklin Daley, was present. There were four objectors also in attendance. Sherry Anhalt expressed concerns over additional septic systems in the neighborhood, an inadequate street system and the lack of City improvements since being annexed. Cindy Spiller reinforced Ms. Anhalt's comments and asked that the City make improvements to the area before allowing more people. A third person voiced concern over addtional septic systems in the area. Bob Lane of the City Engineering staff addressed the improvement issue and said that the City could only improve the street surfaces. Also, no off -site improvements would be required with this project. Mr. Daley addressed the septic system issue and stated that he had received all the necessary approvals. He said that there would be one septic system for each duplex. Mr. Daley understood that he would have to file a replat. A motion was made to recommend approval subject to a replat being filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. NOTE: This item will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until a replat is filed. March 27, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z -4189 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Henry Coleman Same 1801 East 6th Street Rezone from "R -4" Two Family to "I -2" Light Industrial Auto Parts - Retail 7,000 square feet + Auto Parts (Nonconforming Use) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Public, Zoned "R -4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -4" East - Single Family, Zoned "I -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone one lot to "I -2" to allow an auto parts store. The lot to the east is zoned "I -2" and the proposal is to utilize the two lots for one building and a parking area. The lot in question is occupied by a structure housing the existing auto parts store and the other lot has a single family residence on it. If the rezoning is accomplished, both of the structure will be removed and the new building will be constructed. The new structure will be an improvement over the two existing ones. The rezoning of the lot to "I -2" should not create any additional problems for the neighborhood because the existing industrial zoning and the mix of land uses in the immediate area. The existing zoning and land use patterns have already impacted the livability of this area south of East 6th, and it appears that the predominant use will be industrial or some other type of nonresidential use. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a nonresidential structure on it. March 27, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position relative to the site. The property has been zoned "R -4" for a number of years. 7. The staff position is the proposed building will upgrade an existing use that appears to be fairly compatible with the area and supports the request. Two marginal structures will be removed if the rezoning is approved and a new building will be placed on the property. This type of investment in an area should be encouraged and may be the needed the catalyst to initiate other improvements in the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z -4190 Owner: Superior Federal Bank Applicant: Same By: Ernie Mackin Jr. Location: 11900 Chicot Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "C -4" Open Display District Purpose: Auto Repair Size: 0.65 acres + Existing Use: Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use of the site is an auto repair garage. There is a large building on the property that has been used as a repair garage, but that building is now vacant. The property and building do not have any residential possibility so some nonresidential classification appears to be appropriate. This section of Chicot Road has a number of different land uses, including vacant land. Establishing a "C -4" spot at this location is not desirable and a less intensive commercial zoning is more appropriate. The rezoning of this property could set precedent for a "C -4" strip which is not compatible with the area. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single structure. There are no unique physical characteristics featured on the property. 3. Chicot Road is identified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. A minor arterial requires 80' of right -of -way so additional dedication will be required because the existing right -of -way is deficient. March 27, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The site was annexed to the City in 1979 as "R -2." There is no documented neighborhood position on the property. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies Chicot Road from Hillsboro Road to north of the property in question for neighborhood commercial development. That type of land use pattern requires "C -1" zoning which is more compatible with the area. Uses associated with the neighborhood commercial center are more desirable and provide needed services for the neighborhood. A neighborhood commercial use or "C -1" zoning should have less of an impact on the neighborhood than a "C -4" reclassification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request and approval of a "C -1" reclassification. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Ernie Mackin. There was one objector present. Mr. Mackin spoke in support of the commercial zoning at this location. He stated that a party interested in the property probably did not need "C -4" zoning and amended the application to request "C -3." Mr. Carroll Sissor spoke in opposition to the request. He and his neighbors did not support any commercial rezoning in the area. They felt that commercial zoning would disrupt the neighborhood. The Commission discussed the case at length. The motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). March 27, 1984 Item No. 10 - Z -4195 Owner: Vickie Tucker Applicant: Same Location: 7702 Mabelvale Cutoff Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to 110 -1" Quiet Office District Purpose: Office Size: 15,000 square feet + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted describing how the property is to be used if the zoning is granted. The owner has indicated that the property is no longer viable for residential use because of being located on Mabelvale Cutoff which has a heavy traffic flow. The owner plans to dispose of the property, but feels that cannot be accomplished being zoned for residential use. The owner's perception of the location is that it could be used for a small office or day -care center. 2. The site is a long narrow tract with one single family residence on it. 3. Some improvements have been made to Mabelvale Cutoff west of the intersection with Chicot. The improvements terminate at a point east of this property. The existing right -of -way is deficient for a minor arterial so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. FL March 27, 1984 Item No. 10 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position. The property was annexed to the City as part of the South Central Island. 7. The Suburban Development Plan does not identify this location for nonresidential uses. Commercial or office zoning should be restricted to the Chicot / Mabevale Cutoff intersection with the existing "C -3" line being the extent of nonresidential zoning west of the intersection. This land use pattern is recommended by the plan for the area. Allowing a nonresidential rezoning beyond this point would lead to the stripping out of Mabelvale Cutoff and be difficult to establish a zoning line if this request is granted. The "R -2" zoning does not restrict the property entirely to single family use because a day -care center is permitted as a conditional use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O -1" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There were several objectors present. William Harrison spoke against the request and asked that the property remain residential. He was very concerned that the lot could not accommodate the needed parking for a nonresidential use. After some discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote - 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. March 27, 1984 Item No. 11 - Z -4199 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Kris Muradian Edco Construction By: Barry Young 8000 Baseline Road Rezone from 11R -2" to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial Office 1.1 acres + Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" South - Industrial, Zoned "R -2" East - Mobile Home Park, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use is office, and in the future, some multifamily development. The property is currently occupied by a nonconforming office use, and it is the owner's plan to continue that as the site's primary use. Baseline Road west of Chicot Road is best identified as having as a mix land use pattern in the immediate vicinity of this property and the land uses are single family, mobile home park, commercial, office and industrial. The existing zoning pattern is similar. Office use is appropriate for this location, but long -term residential use is questionable. Long -range plans for the area envision industrial and warehousing as primary uses north of Baseline Road. 2. The property is flat and occupied by a single structure. There are no unique physical characteristics featured on the property. 3. Baseline is shown as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the existing right -of -way is deficient. March 27, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed to the City in 1979 as part of the large southwest /I -30 annexation. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies a large area west of the railroad tracks and north of Baseline for industrial uses. The commercial development is shown to be east of the railroad tracks to Chicot Road. The industrial uses and zoning in the area are working and that type of development pattern should be continued. The "I -2" District permits office uses and that is the zoning that staff supports on this location. The "C -1" classification was requested because it permits both office and multifamily uses. If the owner wishes to pursue some "MF" use for the property, that can be addressed at a later time once more definite plans have been made. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends "I -2" as being more appropriate for the property in question. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present, but the owner, Kris Muradian, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Mr. Muradian spoke in support of the request. He stated that he no longer had plans for multifamily development but would construct a building for office and retail uses. Mr. Muradian said that the "C -1" reclassification would permit both of the proposed uses and the "I -2" district would not. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (James Summerlin). March 27, 1984 Item No. 12 - Z -4200 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Rose Brown Turner /Dyer Inc. Brack Avenue at Anna Street Rezone from "R -3" Single Family to 'IMF-24" Multifamily District Multifamily Units 1.4 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Industrial, Zoned "R -3" and "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal for the property is to construct multifamily units at a density'of 24 units per acre. No specific plans have been submitted, but before a building permit can be issued, additional view by the Planning Commission will be required. The site is in a pocket north of Asher Avenue that has diverse mix of uses including commercial, industrial and single family. There is also substantial amounts of vacant land that offer the potential for some quality infill development. Multifamily development appears to be appropriate for the site if the street system is upgraded to accommodate additional traffic. The demand for additional housing units is present because of UALR being located in the area. Because of the high percentage of vacant land, an overall concept plan addressing circulation, density and development patterns for the area would be an asset in the review of future rezoning requests. There has been some discussion about other multifamily projects in the general neighborhood. If properly developed, impacts on a multifamily use should be minimal except for the increase in traffic. s" March 27, 1984 Item No. 12 - Continued 2. The site is vacant and flat. 3. All the boundary streets appear to be deficient in right -of -way for residential street standards. The required right -of -way for a residential street is 501. As of this writing, the owner has not submitted a signed copy of the right -of -way agreement which is required with every rezoning application. This item should be deferred until a signed copy of the agreement is returned and made a part of the rezoning file. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history. 7. Multifamily use is supported by the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan which this area is a part of. The major drawback to this location is the existing street system, and major improvements will have to be made for multifamily to work. An overall study of the street network should be undertaken to determine what would be the best circulation flow and if any streets could be closed. Getting traffic in and out of this area is critical, especially if additional units are being proposed. A carefully designed project could initiate other new development in the area which is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request provided the signed right -of -way agreement is on file at the time of the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff reported that the owner had submitted the signed right -of -way agreement and it was now part of the file. The Commission discussed the case briefly. A motion was made tc recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 27, 1984 Item No. 13 - Z -4201 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Dawlin C. Ellis Same 10311 West Markham Rezone from "R -2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office Office 1.5 acres + Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "0-3" South - Vacant, Zoned "0-2" East - Office, Zoned "0-3" West - Office, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. No specific plans have been submitted, but the proposed use is some type of office. This section of Markham east of I -430 has become a substantial office strip. The site is one of the few remaining parcels in the area with Markham frontage that is still zoned "R -2." To the south and southwest are areas zoned for office park type development and to the northwest there is a commercial development under construction. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the area. 2. The property is wooded with one single family residence on it. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. March 27, 1984 Item No. 13 - Continued 6. There is no documented history of the site. 7. The request is supported by the I -430 District Plan which identifies the area for Suburban Office Development. The zoning is in keeping with the land use pattern that has developed over the last few years in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by C.J. Cropper. Dorothy Straton spoke not against the.request but expressed her concern over the removal of vegetation in the area. She cited a paragraph in the I -430 plan and said that it was being ignored by the developers in the area. She hoped that something could be done to avoid future denuding of sites. The Commission said that zoning could not control that but would look into the matter. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. r March 27, 1984 Item No. 13A - Street Closures Name: Gasland & West Second Streets Location: Lying South of West Markham Street One Block West of Corporate Hill Drive Request: To abandon 20 -foot strip of Gaslin Avenue 282' in length running north and south and the remaining 20 -foot strip of West 2nd Street 230' in length running east and west. The abandoned right -of -way will be joined with adjacant properties under consideration for rezoning. STAFF ANALYSIS: The subject right -of -way is not now in use and the abandonment is supported by the utility companies. All other alleys and streets lying in the adjacent Arkansas Heights Addition have been abandoned for purposes of replatting. Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The Commission discussed the closure briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of the closure subject to adequate utility easements being provided. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. I w March 27, 1984 Item No. 14 - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance The staff has drafted a package of Zoning Ordinance amendments dealing with service stations, auto repair garages in "C -3" as well as other use additions. Several items have been defined to help clarify some past confusions. One such confusion has been over the right to have gas pumps with a convenience food store. The Zoning Committee has been mailed the proposed amendments for their review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jim Lawson explained that the Plans and Zoning Committee had met to discuss the proposed amendments. He stated that the Committee had some concerns with the amendments as written and felt that they should be refined. Jim felt that a 30 -day deferral would meet with the wishes of the Zoning Committee. The Planning Commission voted (10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent) to defer the amendment for 30 days. t 4 ; March 27, 1984 Item No. 15 - Master Street Plan Amendment Some property owners of property located south of Fourche Dam Pike and north of I -440 have requested the addition of a collector street system. The collectors would connect Fourche Dam Pike to Lindsey Road. The street plan change is a part of a major industrial development plan for the area. The property owner located on the east end of the proposed collector system has expressed his objection to the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jim Lawson briefly explained the proposed collector street addition to the Master Street Plan. Joe White and Jim Lasley spoke in support of the street addition stating that it was necessary to properly serve land to the west. Joe Swaffer representing Mr. Pate, a landowner in the area, objected to the amendment. He stated that he had filed a plat showing a cul -de -sac on his property and not a through access. He explained that his client does not want the additional traffic through his development. He felt that the traffic generated by his development would require only a 30 -foot street instead of the 35 -foot collector standard. The Planning Commission discussed the amendment and then voted to recommend the approval of the proposed Master Street Plan amendment (Resolution No. 55). The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. March 27, 1984 Item No. 16 - East River Island Plan and Rezoninq to "R -2" This item has been deferred several times. The last deferral was done to resolve the Master Street Plan question, which is Item No. 15 on this agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 1983) Jim Lawson discussed the East River Island Land Use Plan. He explained that this was an island which is in litigation over annexation. He further explained that a rock quarry facility was being proposed at Fourche Dam Pike that prompted the Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission discussed the plan and the proposed rezoning to "R -2." After some discussion, the Planning Commission voted 11 ayes and 0 noes to defer the rezoning and Land Use Plan to the December 13, 1983, to give the Plans Committee a chance to review the issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 14, 1984) Joe White made a presentation concerning the southern portion of the East River Island Plan. He has been in contact with several large landowners who desire industrial land uses north of I -440. They also want the inclusion of two streets on the Master Street Plan. After some discussion, the Planning Commission voted to defer the issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 28 -84) Jim Lawson gave a brief review of the past discussion of the plan and rezoning. He explained that a decision needed to be made concerning Joe White's Master Street Plan and Land Use Plan amendments. After some discussion, the Planning Commission decided to advertise the proposed Master Street Plan amendment at the March 27, 1984, meeting. The Land Use Plan will also be reviewed at that time. The Planning Commission had no objections to the Land Use Plan but wanted to resolve the Master Street Plan question before approving the Land Use Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jim Lawson gave a brief discussion of the item. He explained that there were two resolutions to be adopted. One resolution was to recommend the rezoning of the island to "R -2" and the other resolution was the adoption of the Land Use Plan. He also stated that the plan included the overlay representing "LI" and "RB" north of I -440. March 27, 1984 Item No. 16 - Continued After some dsicussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the "R -2" rezoning (Resolution No. 56) and the plan adoption (Resolution No. 57). Both motions carried - 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. l P L A N N I N G C O M M IS S I O N DATE /)W# z? /Q V O T E R E C O R D 7 ITEM NUMBERS ZONING MUMT NIT CTr)NI 1 _ VAYE 49 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN i noun mm MOM MEE J -SLIMMU-ItL-71 00 ME MENEM no R. Massie MENEM �_ 2 013 00 MW J. Nicholso � o�o�o v o i ■ W. Ketcher m Emmmo or oWMEMEM e n VAYE 49 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN i March 27, 1984 : r There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. �" i