Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 28 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 28,1984 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 9 in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:Jerilyn NicholsonBillRector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie William Ketcher Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones James Summerlin Members Absent:John Schelereth Ida Boles City Attorney:Phyllis Carter August 28,1984 Item No.A —Z-4081-A Owner:Jeffrey H.Jenkins Applicant:Same Location:9215 Asher Avenue Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family and "C-3"General Commercial to"C-4"Open Display Purpose:Wrecker Service Size:2.63 acres + Existing Use:Service Station and Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Zoned "C-3" South —Vacant and Commercial,Zoned "R-2" East —Single Family and Commercial,Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The proposal is to utilize some of the property for a wrecker service and storage of vehicles.This activityistooccuronthesouthernportionofthetractonahillside.The Asher Avenue frontage is a servicestationcurrentlyinoperation.A service station use on Asher Avenue is appropriate because of the development pattern associated with Asher Avenue.The storage activity of inoperable vehicles is not compatible with the immediate vicinity and would create some adverse impacts for the area. 2.The street frontage is occupied by the service station which is at grade with Asher Avenue.Immediately behind the building the lot rises steeply for approximately 400'.It appears that only the north 150to200'djacent to Asher is usable for commercial space. 3.State Highway 45 (Asher Avenue and Stagecoach Road)isclassifiedasaprincipalarterialandtherecommendedright-of-way is 100'.The existing right-of-way isdeficientonbothstreetssodedicationofadditionalright-of-way will be necessary. August 28,1984 Item No.A —Continued 4.Engineering staff has indicated that street improvements will be required on State Highway 45. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite.In September 1983,the applicant requestedrezoningto"C-4"on the same piece of land.The proposed use was a used car lot and the request was aresultofanenforcementaction.At that time,staff recommended that only a 200-foot depth off Asher berezoned.The Planning Commission recommended approvalof"the north 200'nly along the Asher Ave'nue frontage and the balance of the tract including the Stagecoach Road frontage remain "R-2"Single Family."The BoardofDirectorshasyettoactontheapplicationbecausewiththepreviousrequest,the owner stated that he would not dedicate the needed right-of-way.The itemisnowbeforetheBoardofDirectorsbecausetheapplicanthasagreedtodedicatetheright-of-way alongtheAsherfrontage.The Board of Directors action is only to be on that portion of the tract recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 27,1983.It is the staff's understandingthatthenecessaryeasementdeedfortheright-of-wayhasnotbeensubmittedtotheCity.With this request,the applicant has agreed to dedicating additionalright-of-way.(This application is for the remainderoftheproperty.) 7.Staff's position on this request is the same as the previous case.Asher Avenue,an arterial,is anappropriatelocationfora"C-4"use,but staff cannot support the balance of the site being rezoned to "C-4." The storage of vehicles is an undesirable use,especially being on a hillside,and could cause problems for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed for thebalanceoftheproperty. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:July 24,1984 The applicant was not present.A motion was made to defertheitemtotheAugust28,1984,meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.A —Continued PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:August 28,1984 The applicant was not present.Because of the applicant'sfailuretoappearattwopublichearings,staff recommendedthattheitembewithdrawnfromtheagenda.A motion wasmadetowithdrawtherequest.The motion passed by a voteof9ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.1 —Z-1808-A Owner:C.M.T.W.Company Applicant:Boyd Montgomery Location:Mabelvale Pike at Grace Street East Side of the Road Request:Rezone from "R-5"and "C-3"to nR 5ss Purpose:Construct Multifamily Units Size:2.8 acres Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-2" South —Residential,Zoned "R-2" East —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" West —Residential,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is a single platted lot which has beenclassifiedformanyyearsas"C-3"on the eastern two-thirds and "R-5"on the west one-third.This segment of Mabelvale Pike between West 65th Street and Forbing Road has been aprotectedcorridorsincetheearly1960's.Past Planning Commission and Board of Directors actions have retained the single family character and zoning within this neighborhood primarily along the west side of Mabelvale Pike while at the same time indicating that multifamily on the east side of the pike would provide a proper transition from the South University commercial strip.The application at hand will not only add to the multifamily zoning in place but will reduce the commercial depth along the South University frontage.The development of this site will probably involve a site plan with any zoning classification applied inasmuch as several buildings will be constructed. Right-of-way of Mabelvale Pike is a collector street required at 60 feet minimum width.The plat of record creating this lot dedicated the east one-half or 30 feet when the plat was recorded in 1966.No additional right-of-way is required. August 28,1984 Item No.1 —Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff view of this site and multifamily usage changed somewhat after a visit to the property.The staff is convinced that the site can be developed multfamily andserveasatransitionzone.However,this neighborhood isstableandgenerallywellmaintainedinlargelots.This suggests that the subject site should not be developed withthedensitiesaffordedby"R-5"zoning nor the free form permit process permitted if developed as a single building.Staff feels that the best approach would be a short form Planned Unit Development if densities are to exceed 12 pergrossacre.If rezoned,suggest that "MF-12"overall should be the maximum density district authorized. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present but was represented by TerrySouthall.There were approximately five objectors present. Mr.Southall addressed the Commission.He stated that there was a sale pending for the property which required at least"MF-24"density.He stated that the proposed project would have 68 units.Joan Adcock,a resident on Mabelvale Pike, objected to the rezoning and read a statement.She saidthattheneighborhoodwasconcernedwithlanduse,traffic and the upkeep of the property,and that they were opposedtothe"R-5"rezoning.After a lengthy discussion,a motion was made to defer the item to the October 9,1984,meeting and that the request be filed as a short form "PRD."The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.2 —Z-2578-A Owner:Marilyn B.Weinstein Applicant:Same Location:1003 East Roosevelt Road Request:Rezone from "C-3"General Commercial to "I-2"LightIndustrial Purpose:Used Car Lot Size:0.324 acres + Existing Use:Restaurant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Mann High School,Zoned "R-4" South —Vacant Land,Zoned "I-2" East —Vacant Land,Zoned "R-3" West —Vacant Land,Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is a remnant of a block of land between what was 25th and 26th Streets.The construction of East Roosevelt Road allowed the retention of this narrow strip bythethenowner.The site was vacant until a couple of years ago when a small fast food restaurant was constructed.Thatbusinesshasfailed,and the site is now proposed for a usedcarlot.The site configuration is such that ideally it should be joined with the lot behind to create a better building site.However,we do not see that happening,plus,the site contains a building that is well suited for a usedcarlot.The present parking lot will permit 26+cars to be displayed in a single file.Access to the site from Roosevelt Road is acceptable.The neighborhood south of Roosevelt from Interstate 30 on the west to SpringerBlvd./Confederate Blvd.on the east was blanket rezoned some 10 to 12 years ago.The rezoning was to "I-2"as the resultofastudyandplanpreparedbythePlanningstaffand adopted by the Commission.This site and two similar smallsitesontheeastaretheonlyparcelsthatwerenotreclassifiedatthattime.A rezoning of this lot to "I-2" is appropriate.There are no right-of-way issues associated with this case. August 28,1984 Item No.2 —Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as filed. 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 application as filed.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.3 —Z-3931-C Owner:E.A.and Jean McCracken Applicant:E.A.McCracken Location:Chicot Road at Bunch Road Southwest Corner Request:Rezone from "R-2,""MF-12"andII(2 II to IIMF 24 II Purpose:Multifamily Units Size:8.6 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2" South —Outside City East —Vacant,Zoned "C-2" West —Vacant and Former Golf Course,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property has a history of platting and rezoning requests over the past several years.The thrust of each plan has been to develop a mixed use project on a former golf course.At this writing,there have been no improvements placed on any of the residential lots and only a small amount of street work completed in the western portion of the plat.Improvements are approximatelyone-quarter mile west of this rezoning.The applicant attempted to better tne development potential on the "C-2" zoning along Chicot Road with a recent request which was approved.The initial "C-2"along Chicot Road had been limited to 200 feet in depth.Present "C-2"zoning enlargedthatsitebyalmostfiveacres.That enlargement actionwillbereversedbythisrequestifapprovedandwillretain only a narrow strip of commercial along Chicot.The present request for "MF-24"is all that staff will address in our comments.We will not suggest another overall review ofthisdevelopmentareainasmuchastheownerhassuggestedthatadditionalplanchangesmayfollow.The plan changeswillinmostinstancesrequirethefilingofpreliminaryplatmodification.The staff view of the request presented here much as expressed on previous filings which is,we feel "MF-24"is not a proper density for a site that is well August 28,1984 Item No.3 —Continued removed from the heavily built up urban area.The "MF-12" density presently on this site is acceptable.However,wefeelitistimetodealwithrealprojectsonthispropertyinsteadofcontinuallyreconfiguringthezoneboundaries. The staff feels that no action should be taken on thesubjectareauntilaPUDapproachwithaspecific development can be produced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: We suggest a withdrawal by the applicant of this applicationuntilaPDDapproachcanbedeveloped. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and requested a withdrawal of theitem.A motion was made to withdraw the request withoutprejudice.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.4 —Z-4181-A Owner:Trinity Assembly of God Church Applicant:Raymond Branton Location:State Highway 10/Cantrell Road West of the Rodney Parham Intersection Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "OS" Open Space Purpose:Provide Permanent Open Space Size:2.5 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant Land,Zoned "R-2" South —Church Site,Zoned "R-2" East —Residential,Zoned "R-2" West —Vacant and Residential,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This request was filed at the direction of the Planning Commission in order to provide for maintenance of the heavytimberandundergrowthasabuffertotheWaltonHeightsandadjacentresidentialarea.The requirement was attached to a conditional use permit for the church which is under construction to the south of this tract.The staff has been informed by several persons involved in the Walton Heights Property Owners'ssociation as well as the City Manager'Office that a Master Street Plan issue has been raised bytheWaltonHeightsneighborhood.That issue is theextensionofSouthridgeRoadfromthecurveatthe northwestcornerofthissitetoStateHighway10.This streetextensionwouldrunthroughorpossiblyaroundtheperimeterofthechurchsite.An end product of such a review would be the addition to the Master Street Plan of a 60-footright-of-way alignment attaching Southridge directly to theintersectionatRodneyParhamandHighway10.The PlanningstaffhasbeenrequestedtoaskthatthismatterbedeferredtotheSeptember11thPlanningCommissionmeetinginordertopermitthevariouspartiestodeveloptheMasterStreet Plan amendment/alignment issue. August 28,1984 Item No.4 —Continued PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present.Staff recommended that theitembedeferredtotheSeptember11,1984,meeting andindicatedthattheapplicantwasinagreementwiththedeferral.A motion to defer the request to theSeptember11thmeetingpassedbyavoteof8ayes,0 noesand3absent. August 28,1984 Item No.5 —Z-4283~/ Owner:Albert R.Sparks Applicant:Same Location:7825 1/2 Stagecoach Road (atSibleyHoleIntersection) Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "C-3" Purpose:Retail Use Size:1.0 acres + Existing Use:Residence and Vacant Commercial Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-2" South —Vacant Land,Zoned "C-2" East —Abandoned Building,Zoned "R-2" West —Residential/Business,Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This application was filed for purposes of regaining use ofthesiteascommercial.The property has been used in thepastasacandystoreandmanufacturingoperation.A useforthepropertyisnotexpressedinthefilingexceptthatretailisproposed.Subject site is outside the floodwayareaexperiencedbytheowneronpropertytothesouthandeast.The property is occupied by a residential building and a commercial building both of which are usablestructuresforsmallretailfunctions.Staff view of theareahaschangedsomewhatsincetheadoptionoftheSuburbanPlan.That plan reflects a residential and open space usageofalllandsontheeastsideoftheinterchange.In recentmonths,the actions of staff,Planning Commission and CityBoardhaveresultedinareappraisaloftheusepotential oftheseproperties.These actions reclassified five acres oflandsouthofthissiteas"C-2"Shopping Center and approval of a conditional use permit for a day-care centerimmediatelyacrossStagecoachRoad.These actions supportcommercialzoningonthesubjectsite.However,the "C-2"is too heavy a zone for a one acre site.We would recommendthat"C-1"zoning be substituted as being more compatiblewiththedevelopingpattern.At this writing,we have not Augus't 28 ~1984 Item No.5 —Continued received comment from the City Engineer.However,someright-of-way dedication may be needed on Stagecoach Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of "C-3"General Commercial,approval of "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,Albert Sparks,was present.There were noobjectorspresent.Mr.Sparks spoke and described the proposed use for the property.He then agreed to amendingtherequestto"C-l."A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.6 —Z-4284 Owner:Pathfinder Investment Club,Inc. Applicant:Roosevelt Coleman Location:1209 West 16th Street at theIntersectionofCross Request:Rezone from "R-4"Duplex to"C-3"General Commercial Purpose:Upholstery Shop Size:7,000 square feet Existing Use:Single Family Residence and Abandoned Commercial Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-4" South —Residential,Zoned "R-4" East —Elementary School,Zoned "R-4" West —Residential,Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This applicant proposes to operate an upholstery shop onthesepremises.It is our observation that the use willprobablybelocatedinanaccessorybuildingfacingWest16thStreet.Staff does not have knowledge of priorusageofthisbuilding,but it appears to have been a small neighborhood store last occupied many years ago.Theneighborhoodisastableresidentialareawhichbecame suchaftertheHousingAuthorityeliminatedlargenumbersofblightinginfluencessuchasspotzoning,nonconforming uses and substandard structures.The lot at issue contains a good residential structure which should be enjoyed by itsoccupantsformanyyears.The proposal at hand couldrestrictthattothattimeneededforacommercialconversion.The action proposed would be a spot zone whichalthoughnotuncommoninthisareaisinappropriate.Wefeelthatsuchanactionwouldbeareturntothekindofzoningactionsthatcausedtheoriginaldeteriorationinthisneighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request. August 28,1984 Item No.6 —Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,Roosevelt Coleman,was present.There werethreepersonsobjectingtotherezoningalsoinattendance.Mr.Coleman stated that the Pathfinder Investment Clubpurchasedsubstandardpropertiesandthenupgradesthem.Hethenwentontodescribetheproposeduseforthepropertyinquestion.An accessory building would be utilized as aupholsteryshopforrepairpurposesonlyandthatthebuildingwouldberentedtoanindividual.Ms.NadineWilliamsspokeinoppositiontotherequestandpresented apetition.She also stated that other persons had beenpresentwhoobjectedtotherezoningbuthadtoleave.Ms.Williams discussed the history of the area and indicatedthatupgradinghadtakenplaceandwasconcernedthatgrantingthe"C-3"request would be harmful to theneighborhood.After additional discussion,a motion was made to recommend approval of the request.The motionfailedforlackofaffirmativevote.The vote:0 ayes,9noesand2absent.The request was denied. August 28,1984 Item No.7 —Z-4290 Owner:Sol Alman Company Applicant:Sol Alman Location:1200 East 9th Street at the Corner of College Street Request:Rezone from "R-4"Two Family to"I-2"Light Industrial Purpose:Parking and Storage Size:0.52 acres + Existing Use:Vacant Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residence,Zoned "R-4" South —Residence,Zoned "R-4" East —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" West —Residential,Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The issues involved in this request are significant andinvolvetheentireneighborhood's future as a viableresidentialarea.They are: 1.Breaching the terrain break between College and MillerStreetbyintroducingindustrialusesontopofthehill. 2.Introducing truck traffic to a narrow residential sidestreet. 3.Introducing outside storage of metal salvage to view ofseveralresidences. 4.Surrounding at least two dwellings in the block withactivitiesthatwouldbeoffensivetoanyresidentialuserintheCity.These activities would be noise,dust,lights and excessive traffic by heavy trucks. 5.Continued industrial intrusion into the residentialareawithoutbenefitofaneighborhoodplan. There are no right-of-way issues attendant to this zoningrequest.The staff analysis of the issue suggests August 28,1984 Item No.7 —Continued to us that the application is inappropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(Items No.7 and 8,Z-4290 andZ-4291,were discussed at the same time by the PlanningCommission.) The applicant,Sol Alman,was present.There were fourobjectorspresent.Mr.Alman presented photos of the areaanddiscussedthepropertyinquestion.He said that theexistinglimitedparkingwascausingproblemsandthathis company had a real need for additional parking.Mr.Almanindicatedthatthesiteswouldbeusedforparkingandsomestorage.He then went on to discuss the staff's planningconsiderationsandfeltthatsomeofthestatementswereincorrect.He said that there would be no heavy industrialusesonthepropertyandthatoneofthesiteswouldbeloweredsothevisualimpactwouldbereduced.He also saidthattherewouldbenoadditionaltrucktrafficonCollege,so traffic patterns should not be disrupted and no scrapironwouldbestoredontheproperty.Ms.Bessie Maleyspokeagainsttherezoninganddescribedexistingconditionsintheneighborhood.She said that there would be problemswiththeproposeduses.Ms.Emma Schlereth objected to therequestandpresentedapetitiontotheCommission.Shefeltthatthepropertyvalueswouldbeaffectedandthat thecirculationintheareawouldbeimpacted.Miss Schlerethsaidthattheneighborhoodhadresidentialpotentialandthatitwasbeingmaintained.Mr.Alman spoke again andstatedthatsomepropertyownerswereinfavoroftherezoning.After a long discussion,a motion was made to recommend approval of the request.The motion failed forlackofaffirmativevote.The vote:0 ayes,9 noes and 2absent.The request was denied. August 28,1984 Item No.8 —Z-4291 Owner:Sol Alman Company Applicant:Sol Alman Location:College Street between East 8thStreetandEast9thStreet Request:Rezone from "R-4"Two Family to"I-2"Light Industrial District Purpose:Parking and Storage Size:8,700 square feet Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" South —Residential,Zoned "R-4" East —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" West —Residential,Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The issues involved in this request are,we feel,significant and involve the entire neighborhood's future as a viable residential area.They are: 1.Breaching the terrain break between College and MillerStreetbyintroducingindustrialusesontopofthehill. 2.Introducing truck traffic to a narrow residential sidestreet. 3.Introducing outside storage of metal salvage to view of several residences. 4.Surrounding at least two dwellings in the block withactivitiesthatwouldbeoffensivetoanyresidential user in the City.These activities would be noise, dust,lights and excessive traffic by heavy trucks. 5.Continued industrial intrusion into the residential area without benefit of a planned conversion. There are no right-of-way issues attendant to this zoningrequest.The staff analysis of the issue as filed suggests August 28,1984 Item No.8 —Continued to us that the application is inappropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(Item No.8,8-4291,wasdiscussedwithItemNo.7,Z-4290.) The applicant,Sol Alman,was present.There were someobjectorsalsopresent.No additional comments were made. A motion was made to approve the application as filed.Themotionfailedbyavoteof0ayes,9 noes and 2 absent.Therequestwasdenied. August 28,1984 Item No.9 —Z-4294 Owner:George A.Sisco Applicant:Same Location:712 Beechwood Street Request:Rezone from "R-5"to II 0 3II Purpose:Office Size:8,208 square feet Existing Use:Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Nultifamily,Zoned "R-5" South —Multifamily,Zoned "0-3" East —Residence,Zoned "R-5" West —Residence,Zoned "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The issues in this case are few but we feel significant. They are: l.Expansion of the business area boundary of Hillcrest Center which has basically been intact since theoriginalzoningadoptionin1938. 2.Introduction of an office zone between two apartmentbuildings. 3.Zoning a residential structure for an office use withlimitedpotentialforoff-street parking possibly alleyaccessonly. The block involved has experienced a number of changes overthelast20yearscreatedbyfiresandbusinessclosings. However,each of those changes has remained within the commercial and "NF"boundary lines long established in thisneighborhood.In one instance the apartment south of thesubjectsite,the owner opted for multifamily use even though the lot was zoned for office use.We feel that commitment to multifamily and placement of a structure tiedtotheexistenceofamultifamilystructureonthenorth suggests the present "R-5"is appropriate and should bemaintained.At this writing,there are no right-of-wayissuesreported. August 28,1984 Item No.9 —Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of "0-3"as filed.Suggest retention of the "R-5" zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,George Sisco,was present.There were noobjectorspresent.Mr.Sisco spoke in support of therequestandfeltthatanofficeusewasappropriatefor thelocation.After some additional discussion by theCommission,a motion was made to recommend approval of theapplicationasfiled.The motion failed for lack ofaffirmativevote.The vote:0 ayes,7 noes,3 absent and1abstention(Bill Rector).The request was denied. August 28„1984 Item No.10 —Z-4295 Owner:Gladys S.White Applicant:Texaco,Inc. By:R.J.Kendrick Location:700 East Roosevelt Road Request:Rezone from "I-2"Light Industrialto"C-4"Open Display District Purpose:Self-Serve Retail Gas Outlet with Food Mart Size:1.0 acre + Existing Use:Retail Gas Outlet SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Zoned "I-2" South —Abandoned Commercial Buildings,Zoned "I-2" East —Industrial,Zoned "I-2" West —Right-of-Way of I-30,Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The issue involved in this case is that the owner desires toconvertthepresentTexacoStationtoaconveniencestore with gas pumps.That use is not permitted within the "I-2" zoning classification.The "C-4"zone will not only affordtheownertheconversionrightbutwillbeamorecompatible zoning with this location.There are no right-of-way issuesattendanttothisrequest. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as filed. 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.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.11 —Z-4296 Owner:Allen W.and Carol Trammell Applicant:Allen W.Trammell Location:7009 Geyer Springs Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"C-3"General Commercial Purpose:Real Estate Office Size:13,950 square feet Existing Use:Single Family Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Residential,Zoned "R-2" South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3" East —Residential,Zoned "R-2" West —Residential and Vacant,Zoned "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: There are no issues of significance in this case.The lotinvolvedisoneofsevenremainingresidentiallotswith Geyer Springs frontage area between West 65th Street andInterstate30.Geyer Springs Road in this area with theexceptionoftheselotsandacoupleof"I-2"lots has beenbuiltupcommercial.Requested rezoning is compatible withtheneighborhoodandpastactionsoftheCityinthisarea.There are no right-of-way issues attendant to this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.There were no objectorspresent.The Commission discussed the case briefly.Amotionwasmadetorecommendapprovaloftherezoning.Themotionpassedbyavoteof8ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.12 —Z-4297 Owner:Winrock Development Co. Applicant:Winrock Development Co. By:Ron Tyne Location:Bowman Road South of Proposed Ridgewood Addition Request:Rezone Unclassified Land to"NF-12"and "NF-18"Nultifamily Purpose:Nultifamily Units Size:26.92 acres + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Outside City Limits South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2" East —Vacant and Residential,Zoned "R-2" West —Vacant and Residential,Outside City Limits PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Issues involved in this request are: 1.The subject site contains significant floodplain andfloodwaywhichactsinsupportofadesignedapproachasopposedtoplattedsinglefamilylotting. 2.Difficult street construction and alignment along Bowman Road. 3.Construction of a collector street through the siteservingasaneighborhoodaccesstotheeast. 4.The Interstate 430 plan does not indicate multifamilyusageatthislocationnordoestheSuburban Development Plan. 5.The requested rezoning is in the judgment of thePlanningstaffanacceptableapproachtodevelopment oflandwithdifficultiessuchasfoundhere. In meetings with the owner,we have indicated thedevelopmentplanfortheoverallRidgewoodplatis basicallygoodlanduse.Final configuration of the various "NF"sites should be tied to specific building siting and access August 28,1984 Item No.12 —Continued plans.The 27+acres does not entirely abut residential noradverselyeffecthomesthatareinplace.However,certainelementswillbeviewedasincreasingtrafficflowseasttotheShackleford/Interstate 430 interchange.We feel theelementslyingalongRidgewoodDriveextendedwouldbebetterreceivedbyallinvolvediftheyweredividedintoseveralsmallscalePUD's (short form)whereby commitmentstodesign,density,access and orientation could be made. The larger site proposed for "NF-18"could be structured inafashionwhichwouldpermitaccessonlyontoBowmanRoad which if accomplished would eliminate the need for PUD ontheentire27acres.In any event,the large site shouldreceivesometypeofsiteplanreview.Prior to a commitment to rezone any of the larger tracts,the PlanningCommissionshouldassessthemeritsofintroducingthismuch"NF zoning along Bowman Road when the area is indicated ontheI-430 Land Use Plan as being single family. STAFF RECONMENDATION: 1.Staff suggests a refiling of the narrow tracts along Ridgewood Road as short form PUD projects. 2.Recommend approval of rezoning on the larger tractsalongthecreekwithacommitmenttoBowmanRoadaccessonlybyplacementofan"OS"strip between the "NF-18" and the Ridgewood Road tracts. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant,Ron Tyne,was present.There wereapproximately40to50personsinattendanceobjecting totherezoning.Nr.Tyne spoke and described the proposed Ridgewood Subdivision and the rezoning request formultifamilywiththebalanceofthepropertybeing dedicatedtotheCityforopenspace.He then went on to state thattheoriginalproposalhadbeenmodifiedbyreducingthe"MF-18"Tract and changing the "NF-12"to "NF-6."Therequested"NF-18"would be reduced from 16 acres to 10acres,and the remaining portion of the property would berezonedto"OS."Nr.Tyne said that the land was not suitedforsinglefamilydevelopmentbecauseoftheterrainandfloodway.He also indicated that there was a need foradditionalmultifamilylandintheareaandthatthe"MF-18"area would only access Bowman Road.Nr.Tyne discussed thestatusofRidgewoodDriveandsaidthatonly69unitswouldutilizeRidgewoodDrive.At this point,Nr.Tyne amendedtheapplicationtoreducethe"MF-18"area to 10 acres,change the "NF-12"to "MF-6"and rezone 5.5 acres to "OS." There was some additional discussion about Ridgewood Drive August 28,1984 Item No.12 —Continued in the Naster Street Plan.Nr.Tyne stated that WinrockcouldpossiblysupportamodificationtoRidgewoodDrive. He also addressed the sewer question and said that he had aletterfromJerryGardneroftheWastewaterUtilitystatingthattheexistingsewercouldaccommodatetheproposeddensity.Nr.Tyne then distributed copies of the letter tothePlanningCommission.Bob Lane of the City's EngineeringStaffthendiscussedtheMasterStreetPlanforthearea.Dr.Robert Wright,representing the Homeowners of theSandpiperSubdivision,then spoke.He said that theresidentswereveryconcernedwithRidgewoodDrivebecominganopencollector,and the impact the multifamily rezoningwouldhaveontheirpropertyvalues.Dr.Wright indicatedthattheproposedrezoningwasspeculativebecauseahighpercentageofexistingmultifamilylandintheareawasvacantandthattherewerealreadytoomanymultifamilyunitsinplace.He then submitted petitions from theSandpiperresidentsopposingtherequestforrezoning.Dr.Wright then continued his presentation by discussingtrafficandcirculationconcerns;drainage and floodingproblems;safety problems because of children playing in thestreets;the exiting sewer system was only for single familydevelopmentandthattwolanduseplansfortheareashowedonlysinglefamilyuse.Dr.Wright presented some photos ofthesevariousissues.Tom Clemon discussed the trafficproblemsandshowedslides.Tom Stringfellow talked abouttheimpactthemultifamilyusewouldhaveonpropertyvaluesandhestatedthattheywoulddecline.He also was concerned that the proposed buffer was inadequate.LindaTinsleydiscussedthepotentialimpactsontheexistingsinglefamilydevelopmentandaddingadditionaltraffictotheareastreets.Dr.Wright spoke about zoning and theprotectionofsinglefamilyneighborhoods.Mr.Tyne thenaddressedtheCommissionagainanddiscussedtheissueofrezoningtheland.There were additional comments about theNasterStreetPlanandcirculation.It was mentioned thattochangetheMasterStreetPlan,a public hearing would benecessary.Robert Shults,Attorney for Winrock,thenrequestedthattheitembedeferred.A motion was made todefertherequestfor60daystotheOctober30,1984,meeting.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.(Staff was directed to address the Master StreetplanandtheI-430 Land Use Plan and make a presentation oftheOctober30thmeeting.) August 28,1984 Item No.13 —Z-4298 Owner:Dwight Harshaw Applicant:Same Location:4309 and 4315 John Barrow Road Request:Rezone from "R-3"and "0-3" "C-3"General Commercial Purpose:Retail Size:.61 acre + Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant,Zoned "0-3" South —Residential,Zoned "R-3" East —Vacant,Zoned "R-3" West —Vacant and Residential,Zoned "R-3"a "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Issues in this case are: 1.Subject site was zoned "0-3"for an office use which no longer occupies the building.That use was viewed as supportive and compatible with the neighborhood inasmuch as the building was occupied by a federal agency. 2.The "C-3"in place to the west has been zoned for a number of years and except for a billboard,the site remains vacant.Plus,the subject "C-3"is in the blocktothenorthanddoesnotshareadirectrelationship with this site.The "C-3"site in place also contains some five lots which we believe would be sufficient to provide neighborhood commercial needs. 3.The Barrow Road project to the north is improving alargenumberofcommerciallotsbyinstalling underground drainage and widening of Barrow Road tofourlanes.This construction has promoted interest in developing the lots which have been zoned commercialsincethemiddle1960's.The Boyle Park Land Use PlanforthisareaproposesWest36thStreetatBarrowRoadasthecommercialcentertothenorthofthis application and suggests the next commercial corner beatAsherAvenueandBarrowRoadonthesouth. August 28,1984 Item No.13 —Continued 4.The pattern of zoning between 41st Street and 44thStreetwasplacedtoprovidesupportiveusesgenerallyassociatedwiththelargenursinghomewhichwasin place at the time. 5.The Boyle Park Land Use Plan indicates a medium densityresidentialusesonthissite. The applicant has indicated that retail use is proposed andwithoutspecificsthatindicatesaspectulativefilingtogainamoresellablesite.We submit that Barrow Road hassufficientcommercialzoningundevelopedinplaceatthis time,and additional is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present,but had requested a deferral. A motion to defer the item to the September 25,1984, meeting passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. August 28,1984 Item No 14 -Z-4299 Owner:Paul AD Birnbach,Sr.and Paul A.Birnbach,Jr. Applicant:Little Rock Quarry Company By:Ike Carter Location:North of Kellett Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "I-3" Heavy Industrial Purpose:Load Barges Size:1.0 acres + Existing Use:Agriculture SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Arkansas River,Outside City South —Vacant and Agricultural,Zoned "R-2"(River Zoning)East —Vacant and Agricultural,Zoned "R-2"(River Zoning) West —Vacant and Agricultural,Zoned "R-2"(River Zoning) PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The issues in this case are: l.An industrial use surrounded by agricultural andresidentialuses. 2.Heavy truck hauling on substandard streets. 3.Proposal does not conform to the East River Island Zoning and Land Use Plan. This proposal was filed as a result of enforcement action bytheCityofLittleRock.Specific comments relative to thatarenotavailabletousatthistime.We will forward them when available.There has been much concern expressed bybothneighbors,City Board and staff about the effects ofthisuseintheneighborhood.A visit to the site suggestsrecentoccupancyandnoestablishedindustrialactivitybase.However,the staff is pursuing a check of records todetermineifthereisanypossibleofsomepriornonconformity.The site having been used in some fashion August 28,1984 Item No.14 —Continued prior to the creation of the East River Zoning Plan ispossible.If this was the case,then certain activities maybecontinuedasnonconforming. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning under anycircumstances. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Judson Kidd,Attorney.There were no objectors present.Kenny Scott oftheCity's Enforcement Office discussed the issue of nonconformity and stated that his office determined the rockloadingfacilitytobeanewoperation.Jim Lawson of thePlanningstaffdiscussedtheEastRiverIslandPlananditshistory.Judson Kidd then spoke and said that the loadingofbargesstartedinOctober1983,and should be allowed tocontinueasanonconformingusebecauseitwasinexistencepriortotheApril1984,adoption of the East River IslandPlan.The Commission stated that they did not have the power to rule on a nonconforming use.Mr.Kidd then requested a withdrawal of the item.A motion was made to withdraw the request from the agenda.The motion passed byavoteof9ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.15 —Z-4303 Owner:Charles D.Davidson Applicant:Charles Ward Location:900 West 4th Street Request:Rezone from "C-4"to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose:Office Size:7,500 square feet Existing Use:Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Office,Zoned "C-4" South —Office,Zoned "C-4" East —Residential,Zoned "C-4" West —Residential,Zoned "C-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The primary consideration in this case as in many nearbycasesrecentlyfiledis: l.1980 conversion of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinancedistrictschangedtheformer"G-1"to "C-4"in thepresentordinance.That change eliminated offices as ausebyrightcreatingmanynonconforminguses.Thatconversionalsocreatedmoreseveresetbacksthanpreviouslyrequiredinthe"G-1"district. 2.This owner has plans to expand the building which areunderreviewbytheBoardofAdjustmentforvariance.However,those variances will be of little value if thesiteisnotrezonedtoaconformingdistrict.The Cityhasrezonedatleastfourcircumstancesoflikekindinthepastcoupleofyearswithinone-quarter mile ofthissite. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present.There were no objectorspresent.A motion was made to recommend approval of therequestasfiled.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. August 28,1984 Item No.16 —Public Hearin on Stormwater Mana ement andDrainageOrdinance This item has been advertised for a public hearing on this agenda and for purposes of hearing a special report and comments of invited guests relative to their experience inothercommunities. At the December 16th Planning Commission retreat,the Planning staff presented the proposed Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance.Since that time,the ordinance has been redrafted twice after extensive discussions with localengineers,developers and other interested persons in anefforttoimprovetheordinanceandtoworkoutspecific problems and concerns which have been identified.Staffbelievestheordinanceisnowreadytobepresentedtothe Commission for a possible recommendation to the Board ofDirectors.However,in line with recent discussion at a Planning Commission meeting,the Commission will probably want to defer this matter an additional period of time inordertoreviewthematerialswhichwillbeprovidedatthispublichearingandtodigestcommentsandofferingsofoutsidesources. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Master Drainage Plan.Several persons addressed the Commission concerning the proposed drainage ordinance.The following is a list of the persons who spoke and their comments: 1.Bill Davies,Director of Public Works,made a generalstatementoutliningvariouseffortsoftheCityin combating flooding problems and urged the adoption oftheproposedpoliciesasanessentialpartofasix point comprehensive program. 2.Mr.Fred Chadsey,Chief Architect for Hardesty Company,Tulsa,Oklahoma,spoke concerning his experience withdetentionfacilitiesinvariouscitiesaroundthe country.He expressed that cost was not the majorissue,but maintenance liability and communityrelationswere.In his opinion,attention is needed most in the residential areas.Regional detentionbasins,the type being developed in Tulsa,are moreeffectiveinhisview. 3.Don McChesney,City Engineer,addressed certain issuesidentifiedbythePlanningCommissionasbecomingof current interest.Mr.McChesney reviewed current procedures for reviewing drainage designs associated with both subdivisions and building permits,and claiming that there was no major change in procedures August 28,1984 Item No.16 —Continued called for the ordinance,nor should there be any majordelays.Several slides were shown to illustratedetentionintermsofcost,land use,maintenance andaesthetics. 4.Sharon Priest,a local citizen,made a statement concerning flooding problems in southwest Little Rock and endorsing the proposed ordinance. 5.David Watts,speaking for the Joint AGA/AIA Committee on Construction,spoke in opposition to the ordinance and submitted a petition signed by members of theorganization.Nr.Watt objected to high costs and problems experienced in other cities and proposedcorrectionofataskforcedrawnfromtheEngineeingstaff,the Planning Commission and the Board ofDirectors.He also stated his concern about vagueness and complexity incorporated into the proposed ordinance and associated design manual. 6.Bill Hastings,a local developer,expressed his concern about costs particularly in the lost of land and single family residential development and his preference for aregionalin-lieu approach. 7.Joe White,a local engineer,summarized his findings of two pending single family subdivisions with respect tothelostofpossiblelandandtheconstructioncosts. 8.Finley Williams,a local engineer,expressed concern about potential delays and technical complexity of theordinance.Joe White expressed his opinion that forroutinedevelopmentprojects,these problems should not be of major concern. After the presentations by the persons attending the Planning Commission meeting,the meeting was adjourned. City Of Little ROCk Department of 70t West Marknam Public Works Little Rock,Arkansas 72201 371-4800 MEMORANDUM August 30,l984 TO:Richard Wood FROM:Don McChes SUB JECTt Public Hearing,Drainage Policies As requested,the following summarizes major items discussed in yesterdays public hearing on the proposed Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance: I.Bill Davies,Director of Public Works,made a general statement outlining various efforts of the City in combating flooding problems and urged the adoption of the proposed policies as an essential part of a six point comprehensive program. 2.Mr.Fred Chadsey,Chief Architect for Hardesty Company,4600 S. Garnett,Tulsa,Ok.,74146,(9Ig-663-3200)spoke concerning his experience with detention facilities in various cities around the country.Cost is not a major issue,but maintenance,liability and community relations are.In his opinion,detention is needed most in residential areas.Regional detention basins,of the type being developed in Tulsa,are more effective,in his view. 3.Don McChesney,City Engineer,addressed certain issues identified by the Planning Commission as becoming of current interest.Mr. McChesney reviewed current procedures for reviewing drainage design associated with both subdivisions and building permits,concluding that there was no major change in procedures called for by the ordinance, nor should there be any major delays.Several slides were shown to illustrate detention in terms of cost,land use,maintenance and aesthetics. 4.Sharon Priest,a local citizen,made a statement concerning flooding problems of Southwest Little Rock and endorsing the proposed ordinance. 5.David Watts,speaking for the Joint AGA/AIA Committee on Construction,spoke in opposition to the ordinance and submitted a petition signed by members of his organization.Mr.Watt objected to high costs and problems experienced in other cities,and proposed creation of a task force drawn from Engineering staff,the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors.He also stated his concern about vagueness and complexity incorporated into the proposed ordi- nance and associated design manual. 6.Bill Hastings,a local developer,expressed his concern about costs, particularly in the loss of land in singie f amily residential development,and his preference for a regional in-lieu approach. 7.3oe White,a local engineer,summarized his findings of two pending single family subdivisions with respect to loss of possible land and construction cost. S.Finley Williams,a local engineer,expressed concern about potential delays and technical complexity of the ordinance.3oe White expressed his opinion that for routine development projects,these problems should not be of concern. Let me know Richard,if you need additional information. dm/nw File I(c a U C %4 ttl A 4 c„X cn x m tytlfD(D v.v.Ql h3m~~c v rr n n m080rtV8U1 NogrtX000t"fbrtID0 R D ~+ 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 %~0 ~0 0 ~W ~~z e 1 ~~~oe oC 0 t Egl ~~ Pa 00Pap H U M w u ~3&p August 28,1984 There being no further business before the Commission,thechairpersonadjournedthemeetingat5:45 p.m. Date ecretary Cha n