Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 31 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MAY 31, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 19, 1994 meeting. The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were approved as submitted by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Chachere Kathleen Oleson B. J. Wyrick Joe Hirsch Selz Ramsay Ball Emmett Willis, Jr. Bill Putnam Ron Woods Brad Walker John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA MAY 31, 1994 DEFERRED ITEM• A. Pankey Plan B. The Washing Well Short -Form PCD (Z -5106-A) PUBLIC HEARING• 1. Adoption of New Planning Boundary May 31, 1994 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A TITLE: Pankey Plan REQUEST: Development Plan for Pankey CDBG Area SOURCE: Community Development Block Grant Committee STAFF REPORT: As part of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program, a neighborhood study for the Pankey area was funded. This study was to produce a development plan for Pankey that the City and private citizens could use as a guide in making development and investment plans. At today's meeting representatives from the consultant (The Donaghey Project) will present the plan which they together with the Neighborhood and City staff have developed. Items to be covered are the survey and analysis of the area, goals and objectives, plan alternatives developed, recommendations for residential or commercial projects, public facilities, and implementation of these strategies for redevelopment and development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Ron Newman, Planning Manager, stated staff was recommending the issue be deferred for six weeks to allow time for further neighborhood meetings. Tim Polk, Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, began the presentation with a history of Pankey. Mr. Polk went on to state that this was a cooperative effort between the City, Donaghey and the residents of Pankey. George Wittenberg, III - Director of the Donaghey Project - indicated Donaghey was glad to be part of the Pankey Plan. This is what the Donaghey Project wants to do, to be in that middle position to facilitate planning activities bringing together staff and residents to produce a workable plan. This presentation, today, is just to provide information, no action is requested. Mrs. Nelson and Barbara Douglas went on to discuss how the neighborhood got to this point. May 31, 1994 ITEM NO • A (Continued) Belver Nelson wished to make a brief statement, the plan can be used as a basis to work from, even though it can be amended later. Barbara Douglas, Chairperson of the Pankey Improvement Corporation, stated that the community along with Planning staff, the Donaghey Project and Attorney George Ivory has designed a plan to provide for future growth. All segments of the community were involved. A CDC (Community Development Corporation) was formed to develop the plan. Ms. Douglas reviewed the sections included in the Plan. A proposal for a community center has reviewed in detail (programs) and what activities would occur at each site. Ms. Douglas hoped that with this plan, we can see a future for Pankey not just look back. Commissioner Oleson asked about Ms. Nelson's statement amending the plan. There was discussion about timing changes and the extent of changes. about of Mr. Jim Mercado stated that the previous presentation gave background and executive summary has been distributed to each commissioner. At this time, Mr. Mercado reviewed the recommendations. The development plan should be used as a guide. The first recommendation is to organize the community such as the CDC is attempting. The second recommendation is a community center, reviewed by Ms. Douglas earlier. The third recommendation is for housing rehab, elderly and infill single family. This recommendation would be accomplished in phases. No recommendation for changes to the land use plan or zoning are proposed. The fourth recommendation is for infrastructure - signage, landscape, and bus shelter. An action plan to accomplish these recommendations is included as a section of the plan. There was discussion about the community center/bus stop proposal and tool storage proposal. Mr. Polk indicated the plan is unique due to the large amount of citizen input. This is the first of many plans to come before the Commission. It is important that neighborhood organizations understand the zoning and development process. There was additional discussion about the housing recommendation. A motion was made to defer the issue to six weeks, April 19, 1994. By unanimous vote (9-0) the issue was deferred. 2 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 19, 1994) Ron Newman, Planning Manager, informed the Commission that the neighborhood wanted to have three meetings to discuss the plan. To date only one meeting has occurred; therefore, the staff agreed to ask the Commission to defer this item until May 31, 1994. By unanimous vote the Commission voted to defer the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 31, 1994) Mr. Jim Mercado, Donaghey Project, reviewed the process used to develop the plan for Pankey. Mr. Mercado also informed the Commission that meetings would be held in the near future to discuss the zoning process and implications of rezoning. Commissioner Woods asked about displays, to which Mr. Mercado indicated those were presented in March. Barbara Douglas, thanked the Commission for its patients on this issue. The plan was good and countless hours have been spent to develop the plan, by the neighborhood. All age groups were represented and had the chance for input. Facilities have been included to address many of the needs of Pankey residents. After further educational meetings, there may be some desire to amend the land use plan. Commissioner Oleson asked about the time table to implement the plan. Mr. Mercado indicated 5 to 10 years, though the CDC was moving faster than expected. Projects were beginning such as the park site development. As far as commercial development is concerned, no recommendations were presented to change the existing land use plan. There was discussion about the Washing Well PCD. Commissioner walker asked about access issues. Mr. Mercado indicated some of the smaller streets would become cul-de-sacs, with Black Road experiencing an increase in demand. Commissioner Woods expressed concern about not showing commercial in Pankey. Mr. Mercado indicated Pankey was serviced by commercial around it. There was further discussion about the Washing Well PCD, the PUD process and zoning processes. The Commission discussed deferring the issue until after the zoning educational meetings. The question was called, and by 10 ayes, 0 noes the Pankey Plan was approved. 3 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -5106-A NAME: THE WASHING WELL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 0.4 miles west of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER: ASCOMB ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., ATTORNEY 1619 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 378-7720 AREA: 0.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to utilize an existing commercial building at the proposed location as a laundromat. The 0.3 acre site contains a 2800 square foot building, and the site is not currently being utilized. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and pave a parking area at the front of the building to provide 8 parking spaces. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD in order for the applicant to utilize an existing commercial building situated on a lot which is currently zoned R-2 for a laundromat. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and to provide paved parking at the front of the building to accommodate 8 vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing building is a vacant, deteriorated building located on a lot in the Pankey community. There are, as indicated on the survey, encroachments by neighboring buildings on the lots which the applicant plans to develop. May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning exclusively on all other properties in the area. There is an illegal non -conforming use in the residential structure immediately to the west. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 will be required, as will construction of a sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage of the site. Water works and wastewater have no objections to the proposal. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide easement at the perimeter of the lot. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review indicates that an opaque 6 foot high screen is required to screen the proposed use from the residential property to the south, east, and west. This screen can be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. The landscape strip width west of the proposed parking lot must be increased to 6 feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submittal is seriously deficient: there was no project narrative submitted; the survey is inadequate; no landscape plan was submitted; no Bill of Assurance was furnished; etc. There has been no contact with the applicant since January when the file was "dropped off", with no personal meeting, and a telephone call a few weeks later to confirm that the file had been received. There has been no confirmation that the required notification, either by the placing of the sign or the mailing of certified letters, has taken place. At a previous Commission hearing, when an identical problem in the Pankey area surfaced regarding encroachments across property lines, it was determined that such encroachments are civil matters between property owners, and are not within the scope of concern of the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain Planning District. The Plan recommends single family uses for the Pankey area. There have been no changes to warrant an amendment to the plan to allow for commercial land uses in Pankey. 2 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5105-A E. ANALYSIS• The proposed land use, according to the Land Use Plan, is inappropriate to the area. The submittal is deficient. There has been no verification that the required notification has been accomplished. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed with the Committee the comments made in the discussion outline and presented the request. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the review of the deficiencies noted and for action on the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and related that the notice requirements had been met by the applicant. Mr. Willard Proctor, an attorney representing the applicant, outlined the request, and explained that the current proposal is an identical one to a request made to the Commission approximately 2 years earlier. At that time, he said, the Commission had recommended approval of the request to the Board of Directors, but the Board of Directors had denied the rezoning request. Mr. Proctor related that during the 2 -year interim, he and the applicant's representative, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, had been working with the neighborhood to gain the neighborhood's approval of their proposal, and that he felt there is now a consensus of the neighborhood to allow the commercial use of the applicant's property for the Washing Well laundromat. Mr. Proctor continued, saying that fairly recently, the City had allowed a non-residential use of the property in the abutting property to the west: a neighborhood alert center. He complained that the applicant had been waiting and waiting for approval of the non-residential use of their property, but that others had come in and were getting approval for non-residential uses which are not that dissimilar to the type uses the applicant had been pursuing. Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant's building was designed and used as a commercial building from the beginning; that it was 3 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z -5106 - never a residential structure; that it had originally been a nightclub until it was heavily damaged by a fire; that it was sitting vacant and was deteriorating, and was an eyesore to the neighborhood; that the building was a non -conforming building which had lost its legal non -conforming status due to it being vacant after the fire; that the applicant had put a new roof on the building a few years back in order to keep the building from deteriorating further; but, that the applicant wished to continue the repairs in order to enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood and put the building to a commercial use. The required right-of-way will be dedicated, Mr. Proctor said, and the AP&L easement will be granted. The Landscape Ordinance requirements will be complied with. Mr. Proctor went on to say that the real issue is apparently the land use issue; that this issue has been the "sticky" point all along. He explained that there has always been one person who has said that she spoke "on behalf of the neighborhood" who has said that the neighborhood does not want the proposed use for the building. On the contrary, he said, when the applicant talks to people in the neighborhood, the applicant is told by the neighbors that they are in favor of the proposal; that, in fact, many say they would use the laundromat if it were allowed. There is not, he related, a laundromat anywhere in the neighborhood. Since the individual who had spoken in opposition to the non- residential use of the property is the same person who had gained approval of the neighborhood alert center next door, Mr. Proctor said that he could not see how she could still be in opposition to the applicant's proposed non-residential use of their property. Chairperson Chachere inquired of Mr. Proctor if the applicant is aware of the Donaghey Study for land uses in the Pankey area which is currently on-going, and, if so, if the proposed use complies with the Study's results? Mr. Proctor responded that the applicant is aware of the Study, and that according to the Study, the applicant's property is supposed to be a commercial use. Chairperson Chachere asked if the applicant had discussed the proposed use with the neighborhood association? Mr. Proctor explained that Mr. Bickerstaff had been in communication with various individual in the neighborhood. Mr. Tim Polk, Assistant Director, Neighborhoods and Planning, interjected that the Study calls for the area in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property to remain residential; that those involved in the preparation of the "Pankey Community Plan" have indicated that commercial uses should be located on the north side of Highway 10, and located further east towards the Kroger Center. Mr. Polk also explained that the abutting use which Mr. Proctor had cited as a "neighborhood alert center" is 4 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A not a City -operated alert center, but a support center operated for the neighborhood, and that the approval of its use had not entailed a rezoning, but a conditional use permit. The property had remained zoned R-2. Mr. Proctor reiterated that the existing structure is an eyesore, but that, because it is a commercial structure, nothing can be done with it without rezoning. The applicant has a substantial investment in the structure and needs to be allowed to use it. Mr. Bickerstaff pointed out that there are several similar non- conforming uses on the south side of Highway 10, but, in the applicant's case, the structure had lost its non -conforming status due to extensive fire damage and its subsequent vacancy. Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to what role Mr. Bickerstaff had in the proposal. Mr. Bickerstaff responded that the owner is ASCOMB Enterprises, Inc., and that he is related to one of the principles. Commissioner Willis asked for clarification of the proposed signage. Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant would comply with the regulations and would install a monument -type sign. Commissioner Nicholson related that the Pankey community has a long history, and that the City had made a commitment to keep the Pankey community residential; that until she heard from the community that the community is ready for a change, she would not support the rezoning. Mrs. Nicholson indicated to the applicant that perhaps a deferral of the request should be sought until the Donaghey Study is completed. Mr. Proctor indicated that, indeed, a deferral would be appropriate, and that he did request a deferral. Commissioner Walker warned that the applicant's property is only 150 feet deep; that by denying such applicants use of their property, the City is holding citizens hostage of a Plan for planning purposes. If the City Plan calls for the applicant's land to be a buffer to the residential property to the south, then the City needs to acquire the property. If the City is not allowing the property to be used by the applicant, then the City needs to start paying rent on the property, he said. Mr. Walker continued, saying that all other non -conforming uses in Pankey have been recognized by the Donaghey Study; that the applicant's property is the only one which is not being recognized due to its loss of its non -conforming status. The Study needs to address the situation regarding the applicant's property, since the building is a commercial structure. 5 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A Mr. Polk explained that the "plan" is the Pankey Community Plan, and that it is being formalized and should be completed in a matter of weeks. Chairperson Chachere asked if the Commission were ready to vote on a motion to defer the hearing until the next Subdivision agenda. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that the deferral of the item at the March 22, 1994 hearing to the May 3, 1994 hearing was based on the assumption that the Pankey Community Plan would be completed prior to the May 3 Commission meeting, and that the Plan would designate the commercial use area within Pankey which the community endorsed. Since this Plan has not been completed, staff reported that there had been communication with Mr. Willard Proctor, the applicant's representative in this request, regarding a further deferral of the item. Mr. Proctor, therefore, has asked the matter be deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission meeting. Approval of the deferral was included in the Consent Agenda, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, and the applicant's attorney, Mr. Willard Proctor, Jr., were present. Staff presented the item it indicated that the Pankey Neighborhood Plan was not, as for as staff know, ready with a recommendation the location of commercial node in the neighborhood. Mr. Ron Newman, of the Planning Staff, indicated that the neighborhood plan would be ready to provide the needed information by the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 1994. The Chair gave the opportunity to the applicant to defer the request to the May 31 meeting, and, after discussion involving commission member, Mr. Bickerstaff, and Mr. Proctor, Mr. Proctor agreed to the deferral. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item to the May 31, 1994 hearing, and was passed with this vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 0 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 31, 1994) Mr. Jim Mercado, with the Donaghey Foundation, presented the Pankey Neighborhood Plan to the Commission. Since the Commission had wanted the Neighborhood Plan to be presented prior to voting on the Washing Well issue, the discussion of the Washing Well was intertwined with the presentation. Commissioner Oleson recalled that when the Pankey Plan had been presented to the Plans Committee for a prereview, it had been mentioned that the Plan would indicate areas which would be proposed for commercial development. She asked if this had been done. Mr. Mercado replied that the only commercial use area was in conjunction with the Kroger Center. He stated that additional workshops would follow to discuss the possibility of additional commercial areas, but that the workshops would deal with the implications of such commercial uses for the future stability of the neighborhood. Commissioner Putnam clarified with Mr. Mercado that the study had not been completed to the extent that possible commercial use areas within the neighborhood had been identified. Mr. Mercado explained that the study had not addressed further commercial development because none was anticipated; that the Overlay had already identified the commercial use areas, and no change is anticipated. Chairperson Chachere stated that the Commission had asked that the Washing Well item be deferred because there had been a belief that the Plan could help in the making of that decision. Mr. Mercado responded that the "C.D.C." Board had met and had decided that no recommendation on the Washing Well issue should be made at this time. Ron Newman, Planning Manager, reiterated that there were no specific land use changes being supported in the Plan. Commissioner Woods complained that every community has need of some neighborhood commercial uses; that just residential and recreational uses are not sufficient. Mr. Mercado replied that, since Pankey is so small, there is adequate commercial land in close proximity to Pankey residents. Ms. Barbara Douglas, spokesperson for the Pankey Neighborhood, stated that the neighborhood needs additional time to study the ramifications of non-residential uses for the neighborhood. 7 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A Commissioner Putnam said that there are physical limitations with which landowners along Highway 10 must contend: the lots are shallow and small, an unless there are recombinations of lots, no lots will meet the requirements of the Design Overlay District. Chairperson Chachere asked for a clarification of the Washing Well P.C.D. application; whether the zoning classification would revert to residential if the Washing Well PCD failed. Staff reported that the application was for the Washing Well use specifically, and that only the Washing Well, by name and use, would be allowed in this PCD. The applicant, staff stated, had not asked for other uses to be approved; therefore, if the Washing Well fails, or is not instituted, the zoning of the site would revert to residential. Mr. Newman reiterated that the Pankey Neighborhood Plan does not recommend any changes in the City's Land Use Plan. With the approval of the Pankey Neighborhood Plan by the Commission, the discussion turned to the specifics of the Washing Well issue. Staff indicated that the item had been deferred 3 times previously; that the last deferral had been suggested with the understanding that the Pankey Plan would be addressing the need for commercial "nodes", and that, specifically, the Washing Well location would be addressed in the Plan. Mr. Willard Proctor, attorney for the Washing Well owners, said that the attempt to use the building had been in process for 7 years. He said that the building is a commercial building, and that it should be allowed to be used for commercial purposes; that the land does not lend itself for development for residential uses. He stated that the applicant will meet the City's requirements for buffers, parking, dedication of the required right-of-way and utility easements, signage, etc. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, reminded the Commission that the applicant had, over a number of years, re -submitted the same application over and over, and that it had been rejected over and over; that the commercial use is inappropriate at this location. Commissioner Walker stated that, unless this lot is, as is the case with much of the land along Highway 10, recombined with adjoining property to increase the land area, the lot is too small to meet the development requirements within the existing ordinance regulations. It must also be kept in mind that the proposed Washing Well building is an existing building. Commissioner McDaniel stated that in the applicant's case, the non -producing property is due to the City's plan. 8 May 31, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A Commissioner Oleson said that it not appropriate to give in to the requested zoning change simply because the applicant has been in a number of times; the applicant could seek approval for an approved use in the building. Chairperson Chachere asked for clarification on the deficiencies of the application. She confirmed that the parking and buffers meet requirements, and that Landscaping review had approved the upgrade of the landscaping for an existing building. Staff indicated that the remaining questions which required clarification were the signage and lighting issues. Commissioner Walker suggested that the application be approved, subject to the lighting be low-level, directional lighting, and that the sign be a ground -mounted sign which conforms to the Overlay restrictions. The motion was clarified to require the applicant to make the required changes in the site plan to reflect the changed imposed by the utility and staff comments. The PCD application was approved with the vote of 6 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 0 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 ITEM: New Planning Boundary LOCATION: Saline - Pulaski County Line REQUEST: Remove all areas in Saline County SOURCE• Staff STAFF REPORT: In 1988 the City of Little Rock adopted the current Planning Boundary. At that time the City wished to protect northern Saline County as well as areas in Pulaski County surrounding Little Rock. However due to problems beyond staff's control and increasing demands for staff time within the City, little to no city activity has occurred in Saline County. Further, it has become more apparent that the City will not cross the county line, making city expenditures to help clean up and protect the area inappropriate. It is a better approach for the City to use its limited resources in areas which are likely to become a part of Little Rock sometime in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 31, 1994) Walter Malone, Planner II, informed the Commission that staff was requesting the Planning Boundary be moved out of Saline County. That is those areas in Saline County and in the Little Rock planning area would be removed for the planning area. There was discussion about the location of the county line. Mr. Malone stated there would be no changes to the Planning Boundary inside Pulaski County. The question was called and by unanimous vote 10 ayes, 0 noes the new boundary was approved. ®C LL1 Z 0 z Z CL ®r S=- 4 W p so 0 a- fig t— z W Cly m W Z w i^ cs¢Www�;—:7 mM=c�QOOU¢p�Co �ui Ll -BOJ �U��zO�n�.-�cn'� w Q Q-F c� ¢ J Z p -j FrJ z� O =wcLzON� 0 w w Y w m J m =) p z m -0 W Lu W m r W so 0 a- fig t— z W Cly m W Z w LU H- ZLji zw=W W t=mU�:�Ez0S'�'yc/�� W J Q¢ w z Q C:) U W0 J zrz = J z LIJ p U J W O I U w w = F- Y O J> m -� m < z P o ¢ Z O O w --3 N W p ¢ m cr LIJ ¢ so 0 a- fig t— z W Cly m W Z w May 31, 1994 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Date 'Chairman