Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 19 1998I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 19, 1998 4:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Craig Berry Herb Hawn Bill Putnam Judith Faust Rohn Muse Hugh Earnest Larry Lichty Obray Nunnley, Jr. Pam Adcock Mizan Rahman Richard Downing None Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING AND PLANNING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 19, 1998 I. DEFERRED ITEM• A. Z -4933-F One Source Rezoning Requirements II. REZONING ITEMS: 1. Z-6439 2. Z-6440 3. Z-6457 4. Z-6458 5. Z -4373-C III. PLAN ISSUES: Southwest corner of Kanis and Edswood Roads 8212, 8214, 8300 and 8306 Stagecoach Road North end of State Street north of North Street 1701 S. University 1518-1520 Wright Avenue R-2 to C-3 R-2 to C-3 R-5, 0-1 and O-3 to R-5 C-3 to C-4 O-1 to C-3 6. LU98-12-01 Land Use Plan Amendment - 65th Street West District - west side of Shackleford Road, approximately 1/2 mile north of Stagecoach Road 7. LU98-14-03 Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs East District - 9823 Hilaro Springs Road 8. LU98-18-01 Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain District - 14703 Kanis Road IV. OTHER MATTERS: 9. Amendment to River Market District Design Guidelines 10. Briefing on Neighborhood Plan Process 11. Briefing on Downtown Plan 12. Proposed Bylaw Amendments Oo 3HId /�0) � W w w w Y o a w w N \ 'y Nw_11 d770y K � a �' � w rn m w Y U K Z N n ONO c 9 Y W U SIL W OO LO o o LL mob, w x o NS�N k \RO 4a r o 0 '? o � 1�1 o NOlIIWVH 003 _z > SON�ba S rn O� 0 co4 co W O � U co N r NRId3 3A30 O U G�7 m �y� �y Til m V Y w H - g w �r 111 F h WW 7 K boy o U z � OR8 w o U 0b1S V a00 2 co Q p� A ' pa' � � � RySt 2 IPPR u o U u 5 \MW dO�o ' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -4933-F Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Eugene M. Pfeifer, III James E. Hathaway, Jr. 15701 Chenal Parkway Rezone from PCD to C-3 Future retail development 1.09± acres vacant, wooded tract SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Chenal Parkway Right -of -Way and undeveloped/ wooded tracts zoned 0-3 and C-2 South - One Source Warehouse and Lumber yard, zoned PCD East - Construction office and contractor's storage yard, zoned R-2 West - One Source Warehouse and Lumber Yard, zoned PCD PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Below is the result of discussion with the developer and Board of Directors action: 1. Ordinance 17,009 gives the developer permission to install a drive onto the new north -south arterial and establishes a procedure for when this drive would need to be removed. 2. The Board of Directors determined that the $20,000 requested for contribution towards construction of the intersection of the arterial with Chenal was not an appropriate request. To our knowledge there was not formal waiver but a determination that this request was not appropriate. 3. That Public Works and the developer's engineer agreed to an area of additional right-of-way at the northeast corner of the lot for purposes of construction of a right -turn lane at a future date. This right-of-way is shown on a plat of the amended PCD prepared by White- Daters dated 1-16-96. 4. That One Source agreed to an in -lieu for the construction of a right -turn lane on Chenal Estimated cost is $25 to $30 thousand dollars. 5. That the developer agreed to construct 1/2 of the length of the arterial on the east side of the property, but that the cost would not exceed 1/2 of the cost of 1/2 of February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F the width for the total boundary length. 6. That the Board of Directors denied the request for a waiver of 1/2 commercial street improvements to Kanis Road on the frontage of the property. Additional requirements: 7. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of Kanis including a 20 feet radial dedication at the northeast and southeast corner of property. 8. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline of the new arterial to the east. 9. With development construct half street improvements including sidewalks, for Kanis Road to collector standards. Provide design of streets in accordance with Master Street Plan prepared by Professional Civil Engineer. 10. Construct 5 feet wide sidewalk including access ramps, on the back of right-of-way of Chenal Parkway, and the new arterial. 11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 12. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is not located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus Route. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends Commercial use. There is no land use plan issue. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.09± acre tract from "PCD" Planned Commercial Development to "C- 3" General Commercial. The property is currently undeveloped and wooded. The applicant proposes unspecific future retail development for the site once it is rezoned. The parcel is part of the larger One Source Home Center PCD. On December 26, 1990, Mechanics Lumber Company PCD was approved for the 8.8± acre tract located at the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. The PCD established a 3 lot development with a hardware store/lumber yard to be built on the larger of the 3 lots (Lot 1). No uses or site plans were approved for the two smaller lots at that time, including this subject property which was identified as Lot 3. On December 20, 1994, Worthen Bank 2 ' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F Branch amended PCD was approved for Lot 2, at the corner of Chenal and Kanis, with a bank listed as the only approved use. On November 21, 1995, One Source Home Center amended PCD was approved which combined the subject Lot 3 with the larger Lot 1 to allow for expansion of the hardware store/lumber yard and all permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 district. On September 16, 1997, the Worthen Bank Branch amended PCD was revoked for Lot 2 and that lot was zoned C-3. The applicant is now requesting that this lot (Lot 3) also be zoned C-3. This technically means the One Source Home Center PCD will be amended to remove this 1.09± acre tract from the PCD. This action will have the effect of leaving the One Source Home Center on Lot 1, as it is now. This subject property, Lot 3, can then be developed for C-3 uses. Staff believes the C-3 zoning request is reasonable for this site. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for this site and the properties abutting to the east, west and south. The Plan recommends Commercial and Office for properties across Chenal Parkway, to the north. The PCD zoned property to the west and south is occupied by the One Source Home Center and Lumber Yard. A construction company/contractor's storage yard is located to the east. The large tracts of 0-3 and C-2 zoned properties across Chenal Parkway are currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The PCD which currently covers this lot allows for all permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 district. Rezoning the site to C-3 will eliminate the conditional uses as "by -right." Development of the site will have to comply with the Chenal/Financial Centre Design Overlay District guidelines regarding signage, lighting and utilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning as conforming to the Land Use Plan and being compatible with uses and zoning in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 13, 1997) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 3 ' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: z -4933-F STAFF UPDATE• A disagreement has arisen between the developer and Public Works regarding the Public Works requirements related to the rezoning. These issues have been brought back to the Planning Commission for resolution. Revised Public works Comments as of January 27, 1998. Below is the result of discussion with the developer and Board of Directors action: 1. Ordinance 17,009 gives the developer permission to install a drive onto the new north -south arterial and establishes a procedure for when this drive would need to be removed. 2. The Board of Directors determined that the $20,000.00 requested for contribution towards construction of the intersection of the arterial with Chenal was not an appropriate request. To our knowledge there was not a formal waiver but a determination that this request was not appropriate. 3. That Public Works and the developers engineer agreed to an area of additional right-of-way at the northeast corner of the lot for purposes of construction of a right -turn lane at a future date. This right-of-way is shown on a plat of the amended PCD prepared by White- Daters dated January 16, 1996. 4. That One Source agreed to an in -lieu for the construction of a right -turn lane on Chenal Estimated cost is $25 to $30 thousand dollars or developer may construct lane. 5. That the developer agreed to construct half of the length of the arterial on the east side of the property, but that the cost would not exceed half of the cost of half of the width for the total boundary length. With development construct half street improvements including sidewalks for the arterial or construct full width improvements half the length of the arterial. 6. That the Board of Directors denied the request for a waiver of half collector street improvements to Kanis Road on the frontage of the property. 4 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F Additional requirements: 7. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of Kanis including a 20 feet radial dedication at the northeast and southeast corner of property. 8. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline of the new arterial to the east. 9. with development construct half street improvements including sidewalks, for Kanis Road to collector standards. Provide design of streets in accordance with Master Street Plan prepared by Professional Civil Engineer. 10. Construct 5 feet wide sidewalk including access ramps, on the back of right-of-way of Chenal Parkway, and the new arterial, 11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 12. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 1998) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested a deferral to the February 19, 1998 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and the deferral was approved by a vote of it ayes and 0 noes. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Staff gave a brief introduction of the item and turned the issue over to Public works for further explanation. David Scherer, of Public works, gave a detailed history of the property development, including Lots 1-3 of the One Source Addition. He described the Public works issues associated with the property. He referred to items numbered 1-12 in the agenda write-up. Mr. Scherer also reviewed the various agreements (concerning street improvements) reached during the rezoning actions associated with this property since 1990. Jim Hathaway, representing the property owner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hathaway stated that the street improvements that Mr. Scherer refers to were requirements associated with a proposed expanded PCD for Lot 1 and 3 in 1995. He stated that the applicant never agreed to the 5 ` February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4933-F street improvements and that the proposed expanded PCD application was withdrawn. Mr. Hathaway also discussed the history of the property, Lots 1-3. Mr. Hathaway stated that he is requesting a waiver of the street improvements to Kanis Road based on the most recent Public Works requirements. He stated that he has a problem with only two (2) of the twelve Public Works comments. He stated that he has a problem with comments #6 and #9. He stated that these two comments related to Kanis Road improvements for Lot 1 and not Lot 3. Mr. Hathaway gave reasons for requesting the waiver of the improvements. Commissioner Hawn asked if a platting issue was involved with this issue. Mr. Scherer stated that Lots 1 and 2 had been final platted, but Lot 3 had not. There was a very detailed and lengthy discussion relating to the boundary street improvements to Kanis Road and the history of the property. The Commission instructed both Mr. Scherer and Mr. Hathaway to provide briefs to the Commission detailing their individual views and opinions of the issues at hand along with details regarding the history of the property and past Planning Commission and Board of Directors actions pertaining to the property and Kanis Road issues. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 2, 1998 Planning Commission agenda. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 6 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-6439 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Edward G. & Patricia A. Matthews J. Gardner Lile Southwest corner of Kanis Road and Edswood Road Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Future commercial development 5.5 acres Undeveloped, wooded SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Undeveloped, zoned R-2 and MF -24; Single Family, zoned R-2; Restaurant and Paint and Body Shop, zoned C-3 South - Undeveloped, zoned R-2 East - Undeveloped, zoned C-3 West - Undeveloped, zoned AF PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. Dedicate 55 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Edswood Road (West Loop). 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection. 3. Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 45 feet from centerline. 4. One-half street improvements are required with any planned development for Kanis.Road and Edswood Road per the Master Street plan or provide in -lieu contribution of 15% of development costs at time of construction. Depending on type of development a right turn lane and additional right-of-way dedication may be required prior to construction. 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6439 10. Kanis Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 5900 vehicles. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. LAND USE ELEMENT The site, located in the Ellis Mountain District, is shown as commercial on the Land Use Plan. The request is in conformance with the Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this undeveloped, 5.5 acre tract from R-2 Single Family to C-3 General Commercial. The property is located at the southwest corner of Kanis Road and Edswood Road. The site is outside of the corporate city limits but is within the City's Planning and Zoning Boundary. The area is very rural in nature with the primary land uses being large tracts of undeveloped woodlands and single family homes on larger tracts of property. There are several nonresidential uses scattered along Kanis Road, some of which are nonconforming. Immediately adjacent to this site are several nonresidential uses and nonresidentially zoned properties. The vacant tract across Edswood Road to the east is zoned C-3. Across Kanis Road, to the north, is a large, undeveloped tract which is zoned MF -24, an R-2 zoned residential property and a C-3 zoned tract containing a restaurant and an auto paint and body shop. An undeveloped, AF zoned tract is adjacent to the west. The R-2 zoned property, to the south, is for the most part undeveloped and wooded. It is important to note that this tract is located within the commercial node established by the Land Use Plan for the intersection of Kanis Road and the West Loop. Kanis Road is designated as a minor arterial street by the Master Street Plan. The West Loop is a principal arterial street which extends from Chenal Parkway on the north to Interstate 30 the south. On the north, the West Loop ties into Rahling Road which extends on to Cantrell Road. The West Loop is shown by the Master Street Plan to follow the alignment of Edswood Road and past Land Use Plan and zoning decisions have been based on the assumption that the Kanis/Edswood intersection will be the intersection of a major arterial and minor arterial streets. 2 on February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6439 Staff believes the requested C-3 zoning conforms to the Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan which shows a commercial node at this intersection. The C-3 zoning request is also compatible with established uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) The applicant was present. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. J. Gardner Lile addressed the Commission in behalf of his application. He described the site's conformance with the land use plan. Mr. Lile also discussed the commercial mode which would be established by the intersection of Kanis Road and the West Loop. Lloyd Munsey, an area property owner, spoke against the proposal. He stated that he did not object to the site being developed for offices but was concerned about the potential uses permitted in C-3. Raylene Smith, an area property owner, spoke against the proposal. She stated that commercial zoning would be more acceptable if it did not extend so far down Edswood Road. Stewart Scholl, of 611 Edswood, spoke against the rezoning. He also stated that he would not be opposed to office zoning but was concerned about the uses permitted in C-3. John Bailey, of 424 Longway Dr., also stated that he was not opposed to the site being developed for an office use but he was opposed to C-3 zoning. Anne Childs, of 18211 Kanis Road, stated that she was opposed to the rezoning request. In response to a request from the Planning staff, David Scherer of the Public Works Department described what the Master Street Plan proposed for the intersection of Kanis Road and Edswood Road (West Loop). He stated that the intersection design would be comparable to the existing intersection of West Markham Street and N. University Avenue. Mr. Scherer also stated that there was a county project in the works to improve Kanis Road. 3 ' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6439 Various commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed alignment of the west Loop, the City's excavation ordinance and the sight distance at the intersection of Kanis and Edswood Roads. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the zoning request conformed to the adopted Land Use Plan. He stated that previous zoning actions in the area had been influenced by the Plan. Other commissioners voiced concern about following the Plan. Mr. Lile stated that the proposed use was a small office. Commissioner Adcock asked why 0-3 General Office zoning was not requested. Mr. Lile stated that the proposed use was more correctly described as an office warehouse. During a break in the proceedings, staff met with the applicant and the neighbors to determine if an agreement could be reached. After the hearing resumed, Mr. Lile offered to zone the southern half of the tract 0-3 and the northern half C-3. Several neighbors stated that C-3 was unacceptable. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 2, 1998 Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to meet with the neighbors. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 ' 11 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-6440 Owner: Oley Rooker Applicant: Oley Rooker Location: 8212, 8214, 8300 and 8306 Stagecoach Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose: Future commercial development Size: 2± acres Existing Use: 3 Single Family residences and 1 residential structure now occupied by a gift/flower shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Undeveloped, zoned R-2 and Patton Wrecking Company, zoned R-2 South - Single Family, zoned R-2 East - Tire Shop, Salvage Yard and Single Family, zoned R-2 West - Auto repair shop, zoned C-4; Church, zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. Stagecoach Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial, dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 2. One-half street improvements including 5 foot sidewalk for Stagecoach Road per the Master Street Plan are required with any planned development. Depending on type of development a right turn lane and additional right-of-way dedication may be required prior to construction. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Floodplain on all lots except 8306 Stagecoach. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 8. Stagecoach Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 7700 vehicles. 9. Provide striping and signage plans for the development, February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6440 for Traffic Engineering approval. 10. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec. 31- 403. 11. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-of-way. 12. Any construction within proposed or existing right-of- way shall comply with Article IV and V of section 30 of the Little Rock Code. Permits to be obtained from Public works, Traffic Engineering. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. LAND USE ELEMENT The site, located in the Crystal Valley District, is shown as commercial on the Land Use Plan. The request is in conformance with the Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone these 3 adjacent tracts, totaling 2± acres, from R-2 Single Family to C-3 General Commercial. The eastern tract, 8212-8214 Stagecoach, contains 2 small, frame residential structures. The center tract, 8300 Stagecoach, contains a stone, residential structure which is occupied by a gift/florist shop. The western tract, 8306 Stagecoach, is occupied by a brick, residential structure. The properties are located on the north side of Stagecoach Road, about midway between 1- 430 and Crystal Valley Road. Uses and zoning in the immediate area are varied, although most of the properties on Stagecoach, between I-430 and Crystal Valley are nonresidential. The R-2 zoned properties to the east, between this site and I-430, are occupied by a variety of uses including a tire company, a former night club, a salvage yard and a heavy equipment operation. The C-4 zoned property to the west is occupied by an auto repair business. A church is located beyond that and an auto sales lot is located further west. Uses across Stagecoach Road to the south are primarily residential, although some of the properties are zoned C-3. The R-2 zoned properties to the north are occupied by 1 or 2 single family homes, a wrecking company equipment yard or are undeveloped. The Crystal Valley District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for properties on the north side of Stagecoach Road, between I-430 and Crystal Valley Road. The depth of commercial uses is limited to approximately 300 feet from 2 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6440 Stagecoach Road. The Plan recommends Single Family beyond that. The biggest portion of the subject properties falls within the area designated Commercial by the Plan. The western tract, 8306 Stagecoach, is just over 1,000 feet deep. The Land Use Plan does not support extending commercial use that far off of Stagecoach. The zoning Pattern established by the C-4 property to the west and the C-3 zoned property at Crystal Valley is consistent with the Plan. Staff believes it is important to keep commercial uses to the area recommended by the Plan. Staff questions whether it is even viable to consider a commercial use for the long, narrow portion of the western tract which extends farther to the north. Staff does support C-3 for that portion of the 3 tracts which lies within 300± feet of Stagecoach Road. Such zoning is in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan and is compatible with established uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity. Insomuch as no specific use is proposed for the tracts, other than the gift/florist shop on the center tract, staff does not believe there is any justification to extend the commercial zoning beyond that area recommended by the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning for the eastern 2 tracts, 8212, 8214, 8300 Stagecoach Road. Staff recommends approval of C-3 zoning for only the southern 300 feet of the western tract, 8306 Stagecoach Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial as filed. Staff also informed the Commission that the applicant did not want to dedicate the required right-of-way for Stagecoach Road. Oley Rooker, the applicant, addressed the Commission in support of his request. He described the commercial uses in the area and stated that the Arkansas Highway Department had already acquired the right-of-way for the widening of Stagecoach Road. Mr. Rooker stated that a dentist was considering locating an office directly to the west of his property. Mr. Rooker discussed past city zoning actions in the area and concluded by stating that he had no respect for City Planning. He noted several nonconforming uses in the area and questioned why those properties weren't zoned at 3 February 19, 1998 I_TEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6440 the time they were annexed by the City. Mr. Rooker concluded by stating he felt it would be unfair not to give him the zoning as requested. Commissioner Downing made a motion to approve the rezoning request as recommended by staff. Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles stated that the applicant had not amended the application and it must be voted on as submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the request, as filed. The motion was seconded. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, staff explained why they could not support commercial zoning for the full depth of the western tract. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, staff explained that the nonconforming industrial use located to the north-east of Mr. Rooker's property was outside of the area recommended by the Plan for commercial zoning. There was then a discussion of amending the application and of the procedure required to appeal to the Board of Directors. Chairman Lichty outlined the options to Mr. Rooker; request a vote on the application as filed or amend the application and request a vote on an amended application. Mr. Rooker stated that he wanted a vote on the item as filed. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, staff stated that the last comprehensive review of the Land Use Plan in the area was 10 years ago. She suggested that the Plan be reviewed again. The question was called to vote on the item as filed. During the ensuing discussion, the applicant again stated that he wanted a vote on the item as filed. A vote was taken on the item as filed. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Adcock). 4 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-6457 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Sandy and Allison McMath Melanie Gibson North end of State Street, north of North Street Rezone from R-5, 0-1 and 0-3 to R-5 Future multi -family development .79 acres Vacant land SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Arkansas River South - Bank, zoned 0-3; Law Firm Office, zoned I-2 East - Undeveloped, zoned 0-3 West - Vacant lot, zoned R-5 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. Dedication of right-of-way is required for turnaround on State Street and a 20 ft. radial dedication at the southeast corner prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. One-half street improvements are required for North Street with any planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 6. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 7. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 8. Any construction within proposed or existing right-of- way shall comply with barricade, excavation and street cut ordinances. Permits to be obtained from Public Works, Traffic Engineering. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Bus route extends down LaHarpe/Cantrell Road, one block to the south. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6457 LAND USE ELEMENT The site, located in the Downtown District, is shown as Mixed on the Land Use Plan. Mixed provides for office, commercial and residential development. The request is in conformance with the Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone three adjacent tracts, totaling .79 acres, from R-5 Urban Residence, 0-1 Quiet Office and 0-3 General Office to R-5 Urban Residence. All three tracts are now vacant, with some vestiges of past development. Once rezoned, these tracts will be combined with an adjacent, larger area of R-5 zoned properties for development of a new multifamily project. The property is located at the north end of State Street. Previous Hoard of Directors action abandoned the State Street right-of-way at this point and one of the tracts proposed for rezoning includes the former right-of-way. The property is located on a bluff overlooking the Arkansas River. A railroad right-of-way is located at the base of the bluff, between the property and the river bank. An undeveloped tract of 0-3 zoned property is adjacent to the east and an I-2 zoned Entergy Substation is located east of that. A new, large bank building has been constructed on the 0-3 zoned property to the south, on the west side of State Street and a large law firm office is located on the I-2 zoned property to the south, on the east side of State Street. A vacant, R-5 zoned tract is adjacent to the west. This tract and the one further to the west are included in the area proposed for redevelopment by the applicant. The Downtown District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Use for this area, between LaHarpe and the River. Mixed use provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. The proposed R-5 zoning and Multifamily development conforms to the adopted Plan. Staff is encouraged by this proposal to develop new residential uses in downtown and is supportive of the requested rezoning. The R-5 request is compatible with development in the area and conforms to the adopted Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested R-5 rezoning. E February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6457 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. q February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-6458 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ken Lightfoot Rollin Caristianos 1701 S. University Avenue Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Automobile sales lot .29 acres Vacant lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant lots, zoned C-3 South - Restaurant, zoned C-3 East - Single Family and vacant lots, zoned R-2 West - Various commercial uses, zoned C-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. Applicant states that the structure was existing during the time the initial and current FIRM maps were developed, and would not result in any increase in base flood elevations (provided the dimensions of the original floodplain footprint are not increased). The applicant must provide evidence to substantiate the existence of the structure during the Corps work (i.e., letter of confirmation from the Corps of Engineers). A permit can then be issued for improvements within the original floodplain footprint of the structure. No extensions or additions are allowed without further engineering analysis. 2. The structure's lowest reference floor elevation will be required to be built at least one foot above the base flood elevation, on a foundation designed to withstand the hydraulic forces anticipated within this floodplain zone. Cantilever construction or on pilings is prohibited. 3. The applicant will need to request a waiver to have parking in the floodway area. 4. University Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial, dedication of right-of-way 55 feet from centerline will be required. 5. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of the alley. 6. One-half street improvements are required with any planned development or provide 15 percent in -lieu February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6458 contribution. 7. Combine the two entrances into one with construction to be in compliance with City Ordinance. 8. Approximately 75 percent of property is in the floodway. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. 9. Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged during or prior to construction with construction. 10. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. 11. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 12. University Avenue has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 36,000 vehicles. 13. Any construction within proposed or existing right-of- way shall comply with barricade, excavation and street cut ordinance. Permits to be obtained from Public Works, Traffic Engineering. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is located on a CATA Bus Route. LAND USE ELEMENT The site, located in the I-630 District, is shown as Commercial and Park/Open Space on the Land Use Plan. Due to the existing creek and floodway staff recommends maintaining Park/Open Space on the Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this .29 acre tract from C-3 General Commercial to C-4 Open Display District. The site was formerly occupied by a bar/lounge. The building was removed several years ago and all that remains is an asphalt parking lot and remnants of the buildings footing. The applicant proposes to place a new building on the site and to operate a vehicle sales lot. The property is located on the east side of University Avenue, between University and Coleman Creek. All of the properties fronting onto University Avenue, between West 12th Street and West 20th Street are zoned C-3. This narrow, 8 block long strip of C-3 zoned properties contains a variety of uses including medical clinics, convenience stores, restaurants, retail sales outlets and auto related uses such as a tire store, a windshield installation business, a car wash and a stereo installation business. Single Family homes are located across the creek, to the east. 2 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6458 Staff does have concerns about the proposed C-4 zoning. Traditionally, C-4 uses have been relegated to that portion of University Avenue south of Asher Avenue. Commercial properties along University Avenue north of Asher Avenue are for the most part zoned C-3. One property at the southeast corner of 12th and University and four properties between Broadmoor and Asher are zoned C-4. Introducing C-4 Open Display zoning in this area establishes a precedent that staff is unwilling to support. Additionally, staff does not support this C-4 zoning directly adjacent to single family. There is no depth to the property to allow for even a minimum 50 foot buffer. The City's Floodplain Administrator has indicated that approximately 75 percent of the property is in the floodway. The only part out of the floodway is a narrow frontage strip adjacent to University Avenue. A right-of-way dedication of 10 feet is required for University Avenue to conform to Master Street Plan standards. No open display of any kind whatsoever is allowed in the first 20 feet of the required front yard setback. The right-of-way dedication combined with the setback requirement has the effect of pushing the vehicle display area farther back into the floodway. The floodplain administrator has stated that although it may be possible to rebuild a structure on the footprint of the previous building, parking of vehicles is prohibited in the floodway area without a waiver from the Board of Adjustment. The 1-630 District Land Use Plan reflects the influence of the floodway by recommending Park/Open Space for the bulk of this site. Staff recommends maintaining this land use designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had telephoned approximately one house prior to the meeting to request that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -4373-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Darrell and Donnie Canfield Darrell Canfield 1518-1520 Wright Avenue Rezone from 0-1 to C-3 Home furnishings rental store .26 acres Two story frame residential structure and vacant lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family and Two Family residential, zoned R-3 and R-4 South - Vacant lots and Single Family, zoned R-6 East - Produce store, zoned C-3 West - Duplex, zoned R-4 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the southwest corner of property. 2. Repair or replace broken sidewalk. 3. Improve corner curb radius to 31.5 feet radius with construction (existing corner radius is 21.5 feet) or request a waiver. 4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 6. Wright Avenue has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 9800 vehicles. 7. Any construction within proposed or existing right-of- way shall comply with Articles IV and V of section 30 of the Little Rock Code Permits to be obtained from Public Works Traffic Engineering. 8. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec. 31- 403. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is located on a CATA Bus Route. ' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C LAND USE ELEMENT The property is located in the Central City District. The adopted Plan recommends Mixed Use for the site. This category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. Development of properties designated Mixed Use in close proximity to residential uses should be sensitive to and compatible with those residential uses. Staff does not believe C-3 zoning is appropriate for this Mixed Use site. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone these two lots from 0-1 Quiet Office to C-3 General Commercial district. The corner lot is occupied by an older, two story frame residential structure. The second, adjacent lot is covered with gravel and appears to have been used as a parking lot. The applicant proposes to utilize the site for an equipment and home furnishings rental business. The applicant has stated that it is his desire to convert the existing structure into the business rather than removing the structure. The property is located at the northeast corner of Wright Avenue and Bishop Street. This area of Wright Avenue has a history of occupancy by a variety of commercial and other nonresidential uses. C-3 properties in the immediate vicinity contain such uses as a night club, liquor stores and a produce store. An asphalt parking lot and the produce store are located on the C-3 zoned properties to the east. Vacant lots and a single family residence are located on the R-6 zoned properties across Wright Avenue to the south. The R-4 zoned property across Bishop Street to the west is occupied by a duplex. The R-3 zoned properties to the north are occupied by single family and two family homes. Although the property does front onto Wright Avenue, any use of this site could have an influence on the residential properties to the north. Other than for the narrow strip of nonresidential uses on Wright Avenue, the biggest part of this neighborhood is zoned and occupied by a variety of residential uses. A recent initiative resulted in the rezoning of many properties directly north of this site from R-4 Two Family district to R-3 Single Family in an effort to preserve the single family quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood itself is best described as "fragile." Many of the nearby residences have been boarded and many others are in a state of disrepair. Staff is concerned that allowing further C-3 zoning at this entry point into the neighborhood could further erode the residential viability of the adjacent properties. E February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4373-C Staff believes that a more appropriate zoning for the site would be C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The C-1 district is designed to accommodate limited retail develop within or adjacent to neighborhood areas. This district may also be used in conjunction with existing commercial developments as an extension of an established commercial district, such as is the case with the Wright Avenue Commercial district. The C-1 district should generally be located at arterial or collector street intersections and within walking distance of residential areas. The Central City District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Use for the site. Staff believes that C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning is an appropriate zoning for this Mixed Use designated property. The applicant's proposed use, equipment and home furnishings rental (inside display only) is a permitted use in C-1. In addition to the applicant's immediate proposed use, the other uses in C-1 are generally more acceptable in close proximity to residential uses than many of the permitted uses in the C-3 district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 zoning. Staff recommends approval of C-1 zoning for the site as being more compatible with uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity and in conformance with the adopted land use plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Robert Allen and Kay Turner were present representing the applicant. There were several objectors present. Three letters of opposition had been presented to the Commission. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had amended the request to C-1. In response to neighborhood concerns, the applicant had also offered, as a condition of the rezoning, not to remove the existing two-story residential structure. Staff offered a recommendation of approval of the application, as amended to C-1 with the condition as offered by the applicant. Robert Allen addressed the Commission in support of the item. He stated that the business was primarily small tool rental and that there would be no outside storage or display. He presented photographs of other locations which the applicant has in the state. The photographs showed older residential structures which had been renovated for occupancy by the rental business. Mr. Allen stated that plans were to keep the residential structure as it is, other February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C than repairing it. He stated that privacy fencing would be installed along the rear property line. Mr. Allen stated that his company desired to be a benefit and an asset to the community. He presented a letter from Abraham Carpenter, Jr. of 1510 Wright Avenue, voicing support for the proposed rezoning. Alvin Duncan, of 2324 Schiller Street, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that a "rent -to -own" business would be of no benefit to the neighborhood. Debra Harris, the Wright Avenue Alert Center Facilitator, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She stated that there was already a business in the area that sold second hand tools and furniture. Ms. Harris stated that the proposed use would add to the neighborhood's crime problem. Sylvia Tyler, of 1922 Battery Street, spoke against the rezoning. She stated that a "rent -to -own" business would take advantage of lower income persons. Ms. Tyler stated that the proposed use would be incompatible with the Central High Historic Neighborhood. She also stated that she was opposed to any outside display of equipment. Ms. Tyler read from a letter from Pam Marshall, the Central Little Rock CDC special project coordinator. Ms. Marshall's letter voiced opposition to the rezoning. In response to a question from Commissioner Muse, Mr. Allen stated that a security system would be installed on the structure. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Allen stated that the adjacent, gravel -covered lot would be developed as a gated, paved and landscaped parking lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Faust, Mr. Allen answered that the house had been empty since October or November 1997. Commissioner Berry asked Sylvia Tyler if she felt this property was better suited for low intensity commercial development or for residential use. Ms. Tyler responded that she felt it was better for the property to be used for offices. Mr. Allen interjected that "rent -to -own" was less than 2% of the company's business and that was only at the customer's request. In response to a question from Chairman Lichty, Mr. Allen stated that the site would be landscaped to conform to City Code. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, briefly described some of the City's landscape requirements. 4 R February 19, 1998 ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4373-C In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, Mr. Allen confirmed that the neighborhood was aware that the application had been amended from C-3 to C-1. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Allen if he would consider deferring the item to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Allen responded that he would defer the item if it would be beneficial. Sylvia Tyler stated that the neighborhood was working to improve itself and urged Mr. Allen to meet with neighborhood residents. She again spoke against "rent -to -own" businesses. Mr. Allen agreed to defer the item. A motion defer the issue to the April 2, 1998 meeting. was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 5 was made to The motion absent. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU98-12-01 NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - 65th Street West LOCATION: S. Shackleford Road REQUEST: Multi -family to Mixed Commercial Industrial SOURCE: Mike Rushin PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street West District from Multi -family to Mixed Commercial Industrial. MCI provides for a mixture of commercial and industrial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are commercial or mixed commercial and industrial. A PZD is required if the use is mixed commercial and industrial. RECENT AMENDMENTS: June 3, 1996 on the east side of Marigold from Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family. MASTER STREET PLAN: Shackleford Road is shown as a minor arterial and Stagecoach Road as a principal arterial on the plan. CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE: The property is zoned R-2 and is 15± acres. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to Pecan Lake, Westwood, and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations. No .comments were received by print time. STAFF REPORT: The site is shown on the land use plan as Multi -family. There is Light Industrial shown to the north and northeast, Multi -family to the east and Single Family to the south. There is a Park/Open Space strip between the Light Industrial and Multi -family. The site is currently vacant land. The majority of the property along the stretch of Shackleford from Colonel Glenn to Stagecoach is either vacant or industrial/warehouse type uses. The Water/Waste Water Utilities have a site on this road. There is a single family home to the south of this property and single family lining Stagecoach Road. FILE NO.: LU98-12-01 (cont.) Prompted by this land use amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include all the property from Stagecoach Road north to Colonel Glenn Road on either side of Shackleford Road. This portion of the District Plan had not been reviewed for some time. Staff is recommending changes to the Plan which would encourage development of the area as light industrial and distribution support. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends against an amendment from Multi -family to Mixed Commercial Industrial. Planning Staff recommends the Multi -family and Single Family adjacent to I-430 be amended to Suburban Office and Low Density Residential with Parks Open Space around the existing stock pond; the Multi -family and Single Family on the west side of Shackleford be amended to Service Trades District and the Multi- family on the east side of Shackleford be amended to Office and Public/Institutional. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Pat Herman, Planner II presented the item and explained that the Planning Staff had extended the area for land use plan amendment. This area had not been reviewed in ten years and little development had occurred. The Planning staff recommended changes to change the area from residential to an office and industrial support site. Mike Russin, the applicant, presented his requested change from Single and Multifamily to Mixed Commercial Industrial. He stated that he felt MCI was the best choice for his future development plans which would include two one-story buildings. Juanita Reyna of TJC Custom Fabricators spoke as the potential tenant of one of the buildings and briefly described her business. Chairman Lichty questioned Mr. Russin on whether he would be agreeable to the staff's recommended changes. Mr. Russin indicated that would be acceptable. Staff clarified that both Suburban Office and Service Trades would require a PZD. With no further discussion, the item was approved with a vote of 10 for and 1 against. 2 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs East LOCATION: 9823 Hilaro Springs REOUEST: Park/Open Space to Light Industrial SOURCE: Michael G. Pinner PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs East District from Park/Open Space to Light Industrial. LI provides for light warehouse, distribution or storage uses, and/or other industrial uses that are developed in a well-designed "park like" setting. RECENT AMENDMENTS• September 1997 a change from Single Family to Multi -family for the apartments at American Manor. MASTER STREET PLAN• Hilaro Springs is shown as a minor arterial on the plan. CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE: The property is zoned R-2 and is 6.2± acres. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notice was sent to the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association. No comments were received by print time. STAFF REPORT: Shown on the land use plan as Parks/Open Space the property is just to the north of the city limits. The site is removed from other development in the area and is currently in use as a contractors storage yard and office. The area surrounding this property is zoned R-2 and shown on the plan as either Parks/Open Space or Single Family. This property is located in the floodway. It is also shown on the Master Parks Plan for Priority Two acquisition. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends the property remain as Park/open Space on the land use plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case. The property is in Park/Open space, it is a priority two acquisition for parks and that the property is in the floodway. We, as staff, do not recommend changing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jerry Fitzpatrick, employee of the applicant, presented their case for changing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Mike Pinner, owner and applicant, spoke briefly. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Commissioner Earnest referenced a letter from Steve Loop, Floodplain Engineer, Public Works, to Pat Herman stating "The property's location within the floodway of the Little Fourche Creek will require that the City prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated (through hydrological and hydraulic analysis performed by registered engineer) that such improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood elevations established on the FIRM Panel." Following was a discussion of whether the property lies within the floodway or floodplain and a discussion of the direction of the expansion. Steve Giles, representing the City Attorney's office, stated that "if the structural improvements you are proposing are in the floodway, no matter if the planning commission rezones the property, you cannot develop because it jeopardizes our flood insurance program. If it is in the floodplain, you may develop with the guidelines stated in the engineer's letter. We need to know that before we can take an action." When asked for a clarification on the floodway or flood plain, Ms. Herman "deferred to Public Works that are the experts and that it does lie in the floodway." Mr. Giles stated that generally to remove floodway encumbrances, the developer is required to do channel improvements. They have to get an engineer qualified in hydraulics to certify that those improvements have been done and that is given to the Corps of Engineers and they send it to Washington for a map restudy and redraw. It is complicated, but it has been done. We may not be able to help you. E February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning and Development Director, asked "if the Planning Commission would have an opinion on changing the Land Use Plan to Light Industrial, regardless of the floodway matters because if these gentlemen go and do all of the engineering work and spend a lot of money, and come back and we say that we do not like it and deny it. we need to get a reaction from the commission. Larry Lichty, Commissioner, questioned how did they get there? Bill Putman, Commissioner, questioned how long have they been there? Mr. Fitzpatrick answered that they had been there 8 years. Mr. Pinner stated that there was a construction company there before us that was a non -conforming use and that we could stay as long as we are in business. Mr. Lichty said that "I hate to think that you have a viable business for eight years and want to expand and are going to be prohibited. I do not have any problem in giving a signal to what the commission thinks relative to the expansion of the business." Mr. Lawson suggested that we change to LI the area outside the floodway. If after research, all the property lies in the floodway, the plan would not be changed. You must have the engineering study. Mr. Lichty asked if a conditional approval could be granted only until the business ceases operation. Mr. Lawson proposed that the Land Use Plan Amendment could be denied, the applicant should come back for a PID, but we would have to deal with the floodway issues, that is preferable. Mr. Putman, asked for a Mr. Lawson to restate and clarify what he had just said. Mr. Lawson responded, "If they are serious, they could do an engineering study, come in with a PID, and deal with it as an expansion of a non -conforming use and not change the Land Use Plan." Mr. Pinner stated that they were willing to take the risk. Mr. Lichty said to the applicant that he must have more information. "I am looking for a way for all of us to be happy. Get the engineering study, come back with a PID, and leave the Land Use Plan as is." Mr. Lawson explained the PID process and stated that the applicant will have to spend engineering money, that is your only route. 3 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned the validity of the FEMA maps and asked if they blanketed the area with floodway status. Mr. Lawson stated that that was a possibility. Mr. Lichty stated that Mr. Mizan Rahman asked if they could expand in a different direction. Following was a discussion of the direction of the water flow. Mr. Lichty asked Mr. Pinner to approach the dais and explain an exhibit and elevation differences. Commissioner Herb Hawn asked if "our actions require Parks and Recreation to purchase property in one year?" Mr. Lawson said no. He also went on to ask if the applicant would consider withdrawing. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if they had to have an engineer and how long would that take. Mr. Rahman asked what the timetable of the applicant was. After hearing the answer, he stated "You will not have time to do the study. I worked with the gentleman that you bought the property from many years ago. If it goes to the Corps and to Washington, look for one year or two. You could acquire the floodplain land next door, providing it is buildable. When asked, the applicant stated that he was willing to withdraw the petition. Mr. Lichty asked for a motion to withdraw. Mr. Pinner asked if he could sell this property. Mr. Lichty stated "As Parks." Mr. Giles said, "You have a non -conforming use on that property, I cannot act as your attorney or advise you, but generally speaking, you can sell the property as is, the next person will have problems getting flood insurance and there may be restrictions on the title insurance and you still have a use that you cannot expand." Mr. David Scherer of Public works said that they could get flood insurance, and we could rezone, but the applicant could not make significant improvements to a building located in the floodway. If proved to be in the floodway, they can make minor alterations. A motion made to withdraw the application was made by Mr. Hawn. The Motion was seconded. The motion passed with 11 for and 0 against. N February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LU98-18-01 NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain LOCATION: 14703 Kanis Road REQUEST: Single Family and -Transition to Service Trades District SOURCE: Bennie Jean White PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain District from Transition and Single Family to Service Trades District. STD provides for a selection of office, warehousing, and industrial park activities that primarily serve other office service or industrial businesses. The district is intended to allow support services to these businesses and to provide for uses with an office component. A PZD is required for any development not wholly office. RECENT AMENDMENTS• August 1994 amendment from Low Density Multifamily to Suburban Office on Kanis/Pride Valley and Low Density Multifamily to Single Family on Woodcreek Drive. MASTER STREET PLAN: Kanis Road is shown as a minor arterial on the plan. CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE: The property is zoned POD and is 2.92± acres. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to Parkway Place and St. Charles Neighborhood Associations. No comments were received by print time. STAFF REPORT• Transition is shown on the Land Use Plan along each side of Kanis Road. The Public Institutional to the north of the site is Baker Elementary School. There is some Low Density Residential shown on Kanis across from the school. There are existing single and multi -family units around the site and an existing office on the property. FILE NO.: LU98-18-01 (cont.) In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning Staff to undertake a study of the Kanis corridor. This site was contained within that area. A Study Committee was formed and met for a nine month period concentrating on three primary issues: land use, roadway design and funding alternatives. Three land use options were developed by the committee. A fourth option was to maintain the current plan. None of the options recommended an increase in intensity for this site; two depicted the area as residential. The options were presented to the Planning Commission in October 1997. A vote on preferences was taken by the Commission but no option received the six votes needed to recommend an option to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has taken no action on the Kanis Corridor Study at this time. This site was submitted to the Planning Commission on September 12, 1996 to rezone from a POD to a PCD. Planning staff recommended against a plan change from Single Family and Transition to Commercial. The Commission denied the request for a PCD with a vote of 2 ayes, 8 nays, and 1 absent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the land use plan amendment from Single Family and Transition to Service Trades District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Pat Herman, Planner II presented the item and stated that the Planning Staff is recommending denial and that Transition was working along Kanis Road. Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Firm, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The request is to allow the owner of the property to develop it. It is approximately 3 acres, zoned POD and has an existing security firm business. The applicant would like to expand the business to include a two-story warehouse facility at the rear of the property. Mr. Riggins stated the owners feel this usage would fit the site and would not be visible from the street. Mr. Riggins detailed the existing uses along Kanis Road. Jim Bottoms, owner of the property, described the site and its surroundings to the Planning Commission. He stated that the land would not support residential development based on recent perc tests. He also stated that the area has a mixture of existing residential and commercial uses and that many of the homes were up for sale. 2 FILE NO.: LU98-18-01 (cont.) B. J. White, owner of the property, stated that the design of the building and its use would fit and function well in the area and that no objections were heard from the neighbors. Commissioner Berry requested staff clarification on the definitions of T and ST districts. Commissioner Faust questioned what the applicant could do if the land use was not changed. Ms. Herman stated that a PCD could be filed by the applicant. She reminded the Commission of recent events in which the Commission had decided that warehousing was not allowed in Transition on Kanis Road. Commissioner Berry spoke about the Kanis corridor study and stated that despite a lack of agreement on the best option, all four plan options developed by the Kanis committee considered that property and the area around it low intensity and not high intensity or service trade. The Planning Commission voted against the amendment with a vote of 4 for and 7 against. 3 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.• 9 NAME: River Market Design Overlay District (DOD) REQUEST: Amendment to the River Market Design Overlay District SOURCE: River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) STAFF REPORT• On July 9, 1996, the Little Rock Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 17,240. This ordinance established the Design Overlay District (DOD) for the River Market area and a Design Review Committee (DRC). The purpose of the DRC is to protect the visual integrity of the River Market District. The DRC must review a proposal before a permit will be issued. If a proposal does not meet the design guidelines established by the Design Overlay District, the DRC must make a recommendation (either positive or negative) to the Board of Adjustment (BOA). On September 24, 1997, a River Market Property Owner asked the DRC to consider amending the DOD to allow perpindicular signs. After much discussion the DRC voted (5 ayes, 0 nayes) to allow perpendicular signs within the District. Staff was instructed to draft the amendments. At the December 19, 1997, the DRC voted (4 ayes, 0 nayes, 1 absent) to recommend the following amendments. Sec. 36-350. Definitions. 6. A projecting sign means a sign, other than a flat wall sign, which is attached to and projects from a building wall or other structure not specifically designed to support the sign. Sec. 36-353. Signs. (1) Signs in general. (A) Location. 3. wall signs shall be confined to the flat surface of the building and shall not project more that five (5) inches from the building facade. Sec. 36-353. Signs. 3. wall signs located on or facing Markham Street, Commerce Street, Rock Street, Sherman Street, Cumberland Street and Second Street. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 9 (cont.) Sec. 36-353. Signs. (5). Prolectina Sians shall adhere to the following criteria: (A) Location: 1. Proiectina signs shall maintain a nine (9) foot clearance in all pedestrian walkways and a thirteen (13) foot clearance over vehicular use areas, i.e. alleys and driveways. 2. Heiaht of pro-iectina signs shall not extend past the _sill of the second story windows. 3. Protecting sians shall extend a maximum of three (3) feet from the face of the buildina. 4. The number of proiectina signs shall be limited to one (1) sian per one hundred (100) feet of primary street frontage per building. 5. Prolectina signs shall be placed at 90 degree anale to the buildina. 6. Signs shall be spaced so not to conflict or obscure other signage. (B) Appearance: 1. Prolectina•signs shall have a maximum of twelve (12) sauare feet of sian face per side. 2. Thickness of Pro-iectina Signs shall be limited to five (5) inches. 3. Sianaae colors, type face and style shall be compatible with the District. (C) Letterina• 1. Letters shall not exceed 1'-6" in height. 2. Text shall not exceed three.-auarters of the heiaht of the sian. _(D) Sian Illumination: 1. Internally lit signs are prohibited. whenyrolectina sians are externally lit, they shall be illuminated from a concealed source of liaht or a decorative source that is integral to the desian of the sign. 2. Neon is not permitted on Protecting Signs. On November 24, 1997, a River Market Property Owner asked the DRC for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow banners to be hung at the Museum Center. During the discussion it was discovered that the DOD did not directly address the issues of banners and franchise permits. Staff was instructed to draft amendments to address the issues of all permits. At the December 19, 1997, the DRC voted (4 ayes, 0 naves, 1 absent) to recommend the following amendments. Sec. 36-352. Application of District regulations. (B) These regulations shall apply to new development and redevelopment or expansion of existing development. The design guidelines shall be implemented when a building permit is 2 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 9 (cont.) requested for exterior improvements on buildings or in the public right-of-way. This ordinance also applies when any exterior improvement is undertaken which may not require a building permit, but affects the exterior visible elements of the structure such as repainting in a manner that significantly changes the color of the facade as determined by the DRC. Routine repairs, maintenance and interior alterations shall not require compliance with this section. (C) Except for construction of improvements in the public right of way required by the City, except for new and existing improvements requiring franchise permits, and except for new development, redevelopment or expansion of existing development, all uses, structures or lots which existed on the effective date of this ordinance which do not conform to the standards and guidelines established in this ordinance, shall be treated as nonconforming according to the provisions of Article III of this chapter. (D) Franchises shall be required for all structures located in the public right of way. Franchise permits are to be issued for a period of two (2) years. All franchise owners are reauired to renew their franchise permits every two years upon the anniversary of the original permit. Franchise permits which were valid on the effective date of this article will be dissolved on the two year anniversary of the effective date of this article. Notwithstanding any other provision for the application and issuance of permits, owners of all existing franchises shall obtain a new franchise within sixty (60) days after notification. The franchise owner shall submit to the administrator any changes in the information contained in the original franchise. Any franchise not permitted by the due date shall be classified as abandoned. Such franchises are illegal and shall be removed by of this ordinance. Sec. 36-367. River Market District Design Review Committee. (B) Submission of proposals. The developer or designer of exterior improvements to a structure in the District shall meet with the DRC prior to request for a ming permit. No ming permit shall be issued unless the DRC has approved the proposal. The DRC will meet on call as projects are filed with the planning staff. A written record of the review and recommendation will be forwarded to the planning commission or board of adjustment on proposals not meeting the design guidelines established by the DOD. (C) Authority of the DRC. The DRC shall function with a primary goal of providing substance and governance to the DOD guidelines. This includes: 8. Reviewing all new sign appliedten.. within the Distriet, and previding reeemmendatiene en all site plan submittals and ..1 ..a 3 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 9 (cont.) 2. Provide recommendations to the appropriate governing body on all building, sign, banner, franchise, rezoning and final plat applications within the District. The amendments to the River Market Design Overlay District were reviewed at the January 26, 1998, Plans Committee meeting. Staff reported that the River Market Property Owners Association, City Attorney's Office, and Public works have been notified and no negative comments have been received. Discussion followed. Commissioner Hawn recommended that the wording be changed in Sec. 36-353(5)(D)1. His recommendations are reflected within the amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval. River Market Design Review Committee recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) There were no objectors present. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 THERE IS NO AGENDA WRITE-UP FOR ITEMS 10 AND 11. STAFF WILL PRESENT A BRIEFING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PROCESS AND THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 12 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT The following several proposals are as directed by the Commission at its informal meeting on January 22, 1998. The amendments are: 1. Establish plans committee as a standing committee. 2. Removal of language permitting executive sessions. 3. Modifying order of hearing to be consistent with protocol. 4. Modifying language in paragraph V. E. 10 dealing with applicant attendance. 1. ARTICLE III. COMMITTEES A. Standing Committees 1. Standing Committees may be created by the Planning Commission and charged with such duties as the Commission deems necessary or desirable. 2. Such Committees shall be composed of two or more Commissioners, but less than a quorum of the full Commission, and shall hold membership for one year or until succeeded. 3. The Subdivision Committee shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by the full Commission and include Planning Commission members only. The Subdivision Committee shall act as a review body for all conditional use, site plan and planned unit development issues in addition to platting matters. 4. The Plans Committee shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by the full Commission and include Planning Commission members only. The Plans Committee shall act as a review body for all master plan elements, ordinance amendments and other project activities as may occur from time to time as referred by the Planning Commission. The above language not only adds the Plans Committee as a standing committee, it removes two elements that have not been active for a number of years. These are: • A quorum of three (3) members would be required to conduct business. R February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT • In addition, there shall be appointed as nonvoting members, one staff member from each of the two public utilities (water and wastewater). The utility membership shall be allowed participation in discussion and preparation of the Committee recommendation. 2. ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS E. Executive Sessions (THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY.) The Commission may, either before, during or after any meeting sit in executive or private session. No official business shall be transacted during such session except privilege matters relating to personnel as allowed by law. 3. ARTICLE V. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS A. Order of Agenda All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the topics and cases in the following sequence: 1. Roll Call 2. Finding of a quorum 3. Approval of previous minutes as mailed 4. Old Business 5. New Business 6. Adjournment B. Order of the Hearing At the hearing, the order shall be as follows: 1. The chair presents an brief overview of the proceedings to follow including any concern about quorum and voting. 2. The chair directs staff to present the consent agenda which shall include all items to be voted on at one time. E f February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 12 (cont.) PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 3. Following the conclusion of all proceedings involving the consent agenda the chair shall direct staff to present the first item on the regular agenda. 4. The staff will briefly present the request along with information update and the staff recommendation. S. The petitioner or applicant will then be recognized by the chair. A total of twenty (20) minutes shall be allotted for presentation. 6. The chair will then recognize objectors or interested property owners. A total of twenty (20) minutes shall be allotted for presentation. 7. At the conclusion of presentations the chair will submit the application to the Commission for discussion. At this time the commissioners may request individual speakers be recalled for questions. There will be no time limit assessed for commission discussion or questioning. 8. Rebuttal shall not be permitted. 9. The chair shall present the request for a motion. 10. Commission motion and vote. 11. Additional motions as may be required shall be placed in the positive. 4. ARTICLE V. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS E. General Policies 9. Deferrals No application which has been docketed for public hearing and advertised for such hearing shall be deferred, except as follows: a. Except for cause and with a written request five working days prior from the applicant of record no case shall be deferred. b. In the event a case may require an additional deferral, a renotification of property owners shall be required. 7 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 12 (cont.) PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT c. No single request for deferral shall be granted for more than ninety consecutive days, except by unanimous vote of all members present. d. In no case shall more than two requests for deferral from an application be granted. e. In the public hearing, the Planning Commission may for cause defer an application on its own motion. The length of deferral shall be specified by the Commission in the motion. 10. Applicant Attendance at Meeting The applicant, on each item docketed, shall be present or represented at the meeting and prepared to discuss the request. If the applicant or the representative is not present, the item shall be deferred one time to the next appropriate meeting. 11. Precedents No action of the Commission shall be deemed to set a precedent. Each item docketed shall be decided upon its own merit and circumstances attendant thereto. 12. Dissent If a member of the Little Rock Planning Commission wishes to dissent from a majority opinion of the Commission, he or she shall communicate a written minority opinion to the following: a. All Members of the Planning Commission b. The Secretary of the Planning Commission c. The City Attorney d. All Board of Director Members PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) The Commission received the proposed amendments as specified by the bylaws. There were two changes made: one in paragraph 4. Article III. (A.). This change adds language that requires referral by full Commission to initiate a project of review. The second change in language of paragraph 10. Article V. (E.) to correct second sentence. The amendments will be placed on the next public hearing agenda on March 19, 1998 (no vote). 4 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: S-1176 NAME: Gill - Subdivision Site Plan LOCATION: 301 Gill Street ENGINEER• William Ketcher Pat McGetrick 301 Gill Street McGetrick Engineering Little Rock, AR 72203 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 4.38 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-3 ALLOWED USES: Heavy Industrial PROPOSED USE: Mini -warehouses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Variance for reduced side yard setbacks along north and south property lines. The property at 301 Gill Street is zoned I-3 Heavy Industrial District. A site plan review is required for this site due to the fact that the applicant is requesting a multiple building development. A. PROPOSAL• The applicant is proposing the phased construction of seven (7) one-story miniwarehouse buildings. Phase I will include construction of buildings 2, 3 and 4. Phase II will include buildings 1, 5, 6, and 7. Building 1 will consist of 9,000 square feet of conditioned (climate -controlled) space. Building 2 will include a 1,200 square foot office/manager living quarters. The entire site will be fenced during Phase I construction. The buildings, exterior will be metal construction. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently fenced and vacant. Any trees that may have existed on the site have been removed. The property immediately north is occupied by a roofing company and is zoned I-3. The property immediately south is zoned PCD for a future miniwarehouse development. The area to the east is vacant and zoned I-3. There are single- family and multifamily residential uses to the west across Gill Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has received no public comments as of this writing. The Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedication of right-of-way to a total of 60 feet wide is required for Gill Street. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct 36 feet wide street improvements to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks, or provide in -lieu contribution. 3. Stormwater detention per ordinance applies to this property. 4. Building cannot be constructed over a utility easement unless approved by Little Rock wastewater Utility. 5. Obtain barricade and street cut permit prior to any construction work within right-of-way. 6. Provide striping and signage plans for the development, for Traffic Engineering approval. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation required prior to start of construction of project. AP&L: Relocate 10 foot AP&L easement. Arkla: No comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments. Water: On site fire protection required. feeder lines may be required to provide protection to this project. Fire Department: Show fire hydrants. 2 Reinforcement of adequate fire ' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 County Planning: No Comment - inside city limits. CATA: No comments received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No Comments. Landscape Issues: Area set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. The dumpster should be oriented away from the street. This current dumpster location would appear to be a good area for building landscaping. G. ANALYSIS• The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setbacks along the north and south property lines. The required setback is 30 feet minimum on each side. The applicant is proposing a 15 foot setback along the north property line and a 16.7 foot setback along the south property line. Given the adjacent zoning and uses, the reduced side yard setbacks should have no adverse effects. The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on January 22, 1998. The revised plan addresses the outstanding issues discussed by the Subdivision Committee. Any site lighting must be directed away from the residential property to the west. No signage is shown on the site plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions noted in paragraphs D, E and F. 2. Staff recommends approval of the variance for reduced side yard setbacks. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the site plan. Mr. McGetrick stated that a variance would be requested for 3 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 reduced side yard setbacks. He stated that the AP&L and Wastewater easements would be relocated. Mr. McGetrick indicated that a revised site plan would be submitted and address all staff concerns. The Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 1998) Pat McGetrick and William Ketcher were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed site plan. William Ketcher addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that he would respond to concerns. Commissioner Hawn stated that concerns of the neighborhood related to hours of operation and site lighting. Pat McGetrick, project engineer, stated that the hours of operation would be normal daytime hours, but there would be 24-hour access to the property and 24-hour security. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated that he did not think that the hours of operation could be limited on a site plan review. Commissioner Berry stated that he had concerns relating to the exterior design of the buildings. He stated that the location being near the state capitol that a more compatible building design, such as a masonry exterior, would be appropriate. He stated that other cities require higher design standards for mini -warehouse buildings. There was a lengthy discussion relating to the surrounding zoning and land uses. Mr. Lawson stated that the proposed mini - warehouse project should have no adverse effects on the area. A motion was made to approve the site plan. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 nays, and 1 absent. There was a brief discussion relating to the hours of operation. There was additional discussion concerning the appeal process. Commissioner Berry stated that he thought the item needed to go back to staff to look at exterior design and landscaping. Chairman Lichty stated that he thought the intent of the industrial zoning was being exceeded when discussing exterior design. 4 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 Commissioner Berry stated that the discussion of design criteria was appropriate, based on the fact that the application was for site plan review. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that the Commission would need to vote to expunge the previous vote in order to send the item back for further staff review. There was additional discussion relating to the appeal process and a possible lawsuit. A motion was made to expunge the previous vote. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. There was additional discussion relating to the site plan review process and the surrounding zoning and uses. There was also additional discussion about the appropriateness of imposing exterior design criteria. A motion was made to defer the item to allow the applicant time to meet with staff and the neighborhood. The motion failed. Another motion was made to approve the application as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent and 2 abstentions (Adcock, Muse). STAFF UPDATE• The applicant has requested that the item be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. The applicant has a revised plan which addresses concerns raised by the Commission on February 5, 1998. Article V.E.7b. of the Planning Commission Bylaws states the following: Reconsideration "Except for cause and with the unanimous consent of all members present at a meeting, no matter on which final action has previously been taken shall be reopened for further consideration or action. If consideration is granted by the Commission, the case will be rescheduled for the next regular meeting, a new application will be made (new fees, legal ad, and adjacent property owners renotified so that they may have an opportunity to hear any new evidence and to be heard.)" 61 '' February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, informed the Commission that the item was back on the agenda due to the fact that all the issues were not adequately discussed at the last meeting and that he felt that the last hearing was not full and fair. He stated that it is a procedural matter and the item could be reheard with a majority vote of the Commission. A motion was made to reconsider the item. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Pat McGetrick, project engineer, stated that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m. He stated that the roofs of the structures would be of colored metal. He stated that the ends of the buildings would be split -face block. He also stated that a wood fence would be constructed across the front (Gill Street) property line. Commissioner Berry asked if the metal roofs would be non - reflective. Mr. McGetrick stated that they would be non -reflective. A motion was made to approve the application as presented. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay. The application was approved. 6 0 w uj0 Z 0 CO 0 U Z Z CL W N z 0 al1if0eflmool 00ll00ommmool =ZNt_¢.jOmwm �P-.:C)0w cozof2'UPJ 2 } �Z3:LU w0ZzF—z Wcr,¢O> >UI—Z 3; mW 0��L¢L¢a.Z =1= _ = zz } �=�ZNF=¢ J0�O� �F=c�o��am��w Cf) mwz,gM2 >=wZ �4�U¢_t �3clL=tg0ZZ ZZ ¢ �Uf—Z=?j mu�0R�l¢i_¢ WZJ= N O m CD m W r z i W Q February 19, 1998 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. S Date g � 15 me eta&"� Chai an