Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 22 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 22, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the January 11, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Emmett Willis, Jr. Ron Woods Brad Walker (arrived after the roll call) John McDaniel (One Open Position) Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 22, 1994 I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z-5726 Peach Tree Drive R-2 to 0-3 B. Master Street Plan Amendments II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z-5782 11,225 I-30 R-2 to I-2 2. Z-5785 4800 South Shackleford R-2 to I-2 3. Z-5791 3620 Asher Avenue R-3 to C-3 4. Z-5792 1919 and 1923 west 10th R-4 to 0-1 5. Z-5793 Mitchell Dr. and I-2 to C-3 Frenchman's Lane ITEM NO.: A Z-5726 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: D. B. Davis Corporation J. E. Hathaway, Jr. Peach Tree Drive Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 Of f ice 0.74 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Koger Office Development, zoned 0-3 South - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 East - I-430 Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The site on Peach Tree Drive is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the location to 0-3 for future office use. The property is situated at the entrance to the Sandpiper Subdivision and is adjacent to I-430. In fact, a portion of the tract was taken for use as right-of-way for I-430. The site has approximately 273 feet of frontage on Peach Tree Drive. Zoning in the general area is R-2, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and OS. There is also a large PCD, the Summit Mall site, on the south side of I-430. The property in question abuts R-2 land on three sides and 0-3 zoning is directly across Peach Tree Drive. Land use is primarily single family and the Koger Office Development. At the corner of Hickory Hill and Peach Tree is the location of the subdivision's recreational area. There is undeveloped land throughout the area, especially to the west of Centerview Drive. Because of the property's location and other factors, it does appear that the site has some potential for limited nonresidential development. However, it is questionable whether 0-3 is the best zoning approach for the site. The lot has a 40 foot platted building line, and because of a very shallow lot depth, the addition of the 15 foot rear February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • A Z-5726 (Cont.) yard setback could severely limit the use of the property, possibly make it unfeasible to develop. Staff suggests a POD as a better option for the site because it does offer more flexibility. The property is somewhat unique, and the POD process is designed for atypical situations. Also, a POD would insure that any development (site plan) is sensitive to the residential lots located directly to the west. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The adopted plan in the I-430 District recommends either no use or office. Any office use should be carefully designed to minimize any negative impacts to adjacent single family. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning and suggests that the POD process be utilized for the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993) Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred. There were two objectors present, and there was a brief discussion about deferring the issue. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 19, 1993 meeting. The Commission's vote was S ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson). (The Planning Commission's action also waived the deferral provision in the bylaws requiring a written request five working days prior to the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993) Staff told the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral, however, it was not received at least five working days prior to the hearing. After some discussion, the item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 30, 1993 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. (The Commission's action also waived the Bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.) E February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • A Z-5726 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 30, 1993) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were two objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway distributed some materials to the Planning Commission and then proceeded to describe the area and reviewed the written information. Mr. Hathaway then presented two conceptual plans and described the proposed development as low density with maximum buffers. He said the plans were very similar, but there were some minor variations in each plan. Mr. Hathaway described the site and said that the maximum size of the building would probably be 8,000 square feet. He then proceeded to review four conditions that would be included in the ordinance and they were: 1. To create a 20 foot wide naturally landscaped buffer on the western side of the lot. 2. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 25%. 3. Building height not to exceed two-story. 4. To create a landscaped buffer area with a minimum depth of 10 feet along Peach Tree Drive, except for two curb cuts. Jim Magnus, a resident of the neighborhood, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Magnus submitted a petition and said, the residents were opposed to the office rezoning. He said there were potential traffic problems due to limited visibility and a hill. Mr. Magnus also said the location of the subdivision pool was a concern. He continued his presentation by describing the environs and said the rezoning would not help the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus reminded the Commission that the plans were just concepts and not part of the request before them. He said there were approximately 115 names on the petition opposed to the rezoning from single family to office. Mr. Magnus told the Commission that no meetings have taken place between the neighborhood and Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Magnus made some additional comments and said he would prefer a POD. Ron Newman, Planning staff, discussed the plan for the area. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, offered some comments and said the staff was in support of the 0-3 rezoning with the proposed conditions. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said the group was strongly opposed to the office rezoning. Mr. Wilson said the subdivision has only Q February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A _Z-5726 (Cont. two entrances and an office use would create traffic problems. He said the property acts as an entry for the neighborhood. Mr. Magnus went on to say that the site plan did not address the possible traffic problems and made other comments. Jim Magnus spoke again and discussed the Koger development. He made some comments about the site and said additional review of a plan would be appropriate. Jim Hathaway told the Commission that he did attempt to meet with the neighbors/property owners association. Mr. Hathaway reviewed the site plans and said the property was about a block away from the crest of the hill. He said the proposed conditions would ensure a compatible development and they would be included in the ordinance and run with the land. Mr. Hathaway then asked for a vote to rezone the site to 0-3. He then said the amount of additional traffic would be minimal and reminded the Commission that Peach Tree Drive was a collector. There was some discussion about 0-2 for the property. Mr. Hathaway said the owner would accept 0-2. A motion was made to recommended approval of 0-2 as amended. The motion failed to receive a second. Discussion continued on a number of items, including deferring the issue. Jim Hathaway said that he would be willing to defer the item. A motion was made to defer the 0-3 rezoning request. Comments were offered by a number of individuals. Jim Magnus said deferrals tend to create problems and asked the Commission to deny the 0-3 request. Reginald Wilson said that he saw no problems with deferring the item. The Commission then voted on the deferral motion. The vote was 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Brad walker) and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the January 11, 1994 hearing. 4 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • A Z-5726 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 11, 1994) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke briefly and said that he was still considering the same type of plan and that he did attempt to have a meeting with the neighborhood. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said that the deferral gave the neighborhood adequate time to prepare for the hearing. Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood was still opposed to the 0-3 because of increased traffic and reduced property values. He then submitted a petition with 80 names opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Wilson reminded the Commission that Sandpiper was a single family neighborhood and the residents want it to remain that way. Mr. Wilson went on to say that the neighborhood tried to see if there was anything that could be done to support the rezoning and the answer was no. He also said that Mr. Hathaway had not mentioned the possibility of reaching a compromise with the neighborhood and the residents opted not to meet with Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Wilson said the neighborhood considered uses that would be appropriate and they would like to see a request for a specific use. Mr. Wilson then responded to some questions. Julia Ketner, second house from the site, then addressed the Commission. Ms. Ketner said the she understood Sandpiper to be a residential area and she wanted it to remain a single family neighborhood. She was concerned with safety because of being on the crest of the hill. Ms. Ketner went on to say that a business would increase traffic flow and a rezoning would cause a decrease in property values. Ms. Ketner also said that the safety of children in the neighborhood was a concern. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, made some comments about the I-430 plan. Jim Magnes told the Commission that a portion of the neighborhood was not part of the property owners association. Mr. Magnes said that a major problem with the 0-3 request was the lack of a restriction on use. He went on to say that a POD would be more desirable because of restricting the use. Horton Steele, Sandpiper Property Owners Association, thought the property was part of the I-430 right-of-way. Mr. Steele also said that he has a problem with certain uses in O-3. Jerry Gardner, City Engineering, offered some comments about the right-of-way. 5 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • A Z-5726 (Cont.) Mark Allen talked about potential traffic problems and said the Sandpiper area was growing. Dennis Johnson, a resident, said that Koger did create some buffer areas. Mr. Johnson said the property in question was adjacent to a residential lot and the proposed rezoning was encroaching into the neighborhood. Jim Hathaway then addressed the Commission and passed out some materials, the zoning sketch and an aerial photo. Mr. Hathaway then discussed access to the property and said there would probably be a minimal amount of additional traffic through the neighborhood. He then said he envisioned low density utilization of the site and described some conditions and restrictions which would be included in the rezoning ordinance. Mr. Hathaway then said that it was unfortunate that no meeting took place. He continued by discussing the use issue and said that the owner was willing to limit the use to seven uses in 0-3 and no accessory or conditional uses. The seven uses would be: • Clinic (medical, dental or optical) • Day nursery or day care center • Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization • Laboratory • Library, art gallery, museum or other similar use • Office (general and professional) • Travel bureau Mr. Hathaway said the use restriction would be incorporated into the ordinance. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, said the ordinance could have restrictions and they would run with the property. Mr. Giles said the restrictions should be filed for record with the deed. Jim Hathaway spoke again and discussed the Koger development. Mr. Hathaway reminded everybody that Koger has the right to build two more buildings. He then went on to say that the rezoning would not impact the neighborhood and the uses were consistent with land use in the area. He also said that it was unprecented to have use restrictions through an 0-3 rezoning. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and described a conceptual site plan for the property. 6 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5726 (Cont.) Stephen Giles responded to the use question and said the applicant offered the restrictions and conditions. Mr. Giles said the ordinance could include the use restriction because the applicant volunteered to limit the uses. Reginald Wilson spoke again and made comments about the Koger development. Mr. Wilson then asked the Commission to vote against the 0-3. There was additional discussion about the various issues. The Commission then voted on the 0-3 rezoning with four conditions and the use restriction (seven permitted uses in 0-3) to be part of the ordinance. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The item was deferred to the February 22, 1994 hearing because a majority vote was not obtained. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There was an interested property owner in attendance. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission and read a memorandum, addressed to the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, into the record. The correspondence described the conditions and restrictions that would be placed on the site through the 0-3 rezoning. (See attached copy of the memorandum for specifics.) Mr. Hathaway also presented a conceptual site plan that showed how the conditions would work. Mr. Hathaway said the conditions and restrictions would be included in the rezoning ordinance and a copy would be recorded with the title. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, responded to a question about conditional zoning. Mr. Giles said that the rezoning was not conditional zoning because the conditions and restrictions were bring proposed by the applicant, and not by the Commission. Reginald Wilson, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Wilson told the Commission that Jim Hathaway worked closely with the neighborhood and the Association did not oppose the rezoning because of the conditions and restrictions. A motion was made to recommend approval of the 0-3 rezoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. (The approval motion included the conditions and restrictions outlined by Jim Hathaway in his memorandum, dated February 18, 1994.) 7 THE HATHAWAY GROUP Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors 3600 Cantrell Road, Suite 301 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202-1872 (501) 663-5400 FAX r (50 1) 663-5408 MEMORANDUM TO: Reginald Wilson FROM: Jim Hathaway DATE: February 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Zoning Application - Sandpiper Drive James E. Hathaway, Jr. Stephen A. Bonds CCIM Jeffrey R. Hathaway CCIM Olan J. Asbury Ray E. Barber, CSM, CFM', CMG -C0�rnmenk] _ = Xetmtk. Based upon our telephone conversation of February 15, it is my understanding that the Sandpiper Property Owners' Association (SPOA) will not oppose the subject rezoning application provided that my client will agree to further modify his application by imposing certain additional restrictions, for both design and use, over and above those restrictions which were previously proposed at the January 11 meeting of the Planning Commission. The purpose of this memo is to state all those restrictions which my client is willing to incorporate within his application. If the Planning Commission votes to approve the application on February 22, the ordinance to be voted on by the Little Rock Board of Directors would also include all of these restrictions, as follows: Design Restrictions A. Buffers The site plan shall provide for a 25 foot wide naturally landscaped buffer area on the western side of the property (adjacent to Lot 1) and the required 6 foot opaque fence along the western boundary shall be located along the eastern edge of the 25 foot buffer area. 2. The site plan shall provide for a 15 foot wide naturally landscaped buffer area along Peachtree Drive, except for the frontage used for up to two curb cuts. 3. The site plan shall provide for a 10 foot wide landscaped area on the eastern edge of the property. Memorandum to Reginald Wilson February 18, 1994 Page 2 B. Building Specifications 1. The maximum total square footage to be built shall not exceed 25 % of the gross area contained within the property. 2. The building height shall not exceed two stories or a maximum of 28 feet from the floor at the entry point on the north side of the building to the pitch of the roof. 3. The architectural style shall be residential in character and shall be limited to a pitched roof design and exterior materials of brick, stucco, and/or stone. C. Other 1. Signage shall be ground mounted and limited to two signs with an area no greater than 16 SF per sign and a height no greater than 4 feet. 2. Exterior lighting shall be designed so as to: a. avoid scatter of light on adjacent properties; b. provide "down lighting" for any light not affixed to the building; C. eliminate any lighting, other than for signage, further than 20 feet from the building; d. provide for low level reflective lighting for signage; and e. provide for minimum security lighting only after 9:00 p.m. until daylight. Use Restrictions D. Permitted Uses 1. The following uses shall be allowed: a. Clinic (medical, dental, optical) b. Office (general and professional) C. Travel Bureau 2. No Accessory uses nor any Conditional Uses shall be allowed. Enclosed is a site plan which illustrates how a building could be placed on the site under the design restrictions outlined above. Memorandum to Reginald Wilson February 18, 1994 Page 3 I have attempted to incorporate all of your requests into the above. Please advise me as soon as possible as to SPOA's position. 7EH/jb February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B TITLE: Master Street Plan Amendment REQUEST: Add Cross -Sections, Text and Reclassify Chenal/Financial Center Parkway SOURCE: City Staff STAFF REPORT: In order to clean up the Master Street Plan, staff would like to add seven new cross-sections and text to better define two of these cross-sections. The urban arterial section has reduced sections for older arterials approved over a year ago. An open ditch section is added for collector and local streets. These sections are consistent with require roads in the port and outlining large lot subdivisions. The seven lane section better illustrates language which has been in the ordinance since 1988. The Parkway text addition and sections, take the existing median principal arterial and further define it. The first "parkway" designation is proposed for Chenal/Financial Center Parkway. Currently, this road is designated expressway. The proposed reclassification includes a six lane standard east of Kanis Road and a four lane standard west of Kanis Road. Copies of the cross-sections and text were distributed to engineers, realtors and developers the week of January 18 (see attached memo). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 25, 1994) Jerry Gardner, Chief Civil Engineering, presented the staff position on this item. Mr. Gardner first reviewed the history of the Chenal-Financial Center -Rock Creek Parkway. The adopted design standard and the Master Street Plan requirements were discussed versus the actual right-of-way and road construction. There are definite discrepancies and this amendment is needed to settle the issue once and for all with the parkway recommendation. Mr. Gardner reviewed each of the cross-sections indicating that most were simply clarification and the open ditch sections were to allow for flexibility in the outlining areas. In response to Commissioner McDaniel's statement, there was discussion about finished ditch requirements and slopes. February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) Dennis Yarbro, Little Rock Water Works, expressed the Utilities' concerns about the limitation of placement of utilities in a 10 foot easement. Also, these requirements do not agree with the approved utility placement guide signed off on by the City. Mr. Gardner indicated there was not an intension of excluding utilities from the right-of- way. However, there could be problems with utilities in the drainage ditch area. Possibly, the sections should be modified as to the utility placement guide. Staff will need to review the two documents to see if this problem cannot be resolved. Bill Asti, CARTS Technical Advisory Committee - Little Rock Representative, in this capacity, Mr. Asti asked that the City wait and take the regional agencies information on how streets should look into account before amending the plan. There needs to be regional coordination and cooperation on the street system. As a representative of Southwest Little Rock and the Coalition of Neighborhoods, Mr. Asti had real problems with a seven lane street and questioned its need or appropriateness. Also, there are negative land use implication of a seven lane street. There was discussion about the need for greater carrying capacity and likely gridlock if six and seven lane roads were not built. The statement was made that just because we have always done it that way does not mean we must continue. Mr. Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, expressed the need to proceed with the Parkway portion of the amendment. Mr. Joe White, of White-Daters Engineering, stated he supported the plan amendment. However, "when was enough enough", the City needs to stop making development construct all roads. At some point the added capacity becomes the Public's responsibility. Before the late 1980's, the City stated any road more than four lanes was the Public's responsibility. A third lane should be the Public's responsibility to construct. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Jerry Gardner, Chief Civil Engineering, indicated the amendment really was four items. First, the Parkway standards and the classification of Chenal/Financial Center Parkway as a "Parkway". The second part is the "Residential Street Open Drainage" alternative. This change is to address the minor subdivisions of land in the southeast part February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) of the county where no curb and gutter exist for miles. It should be noted that the City Engineer would have final say on where this alternative is appropriate. The last two issues are housekeeping matters. First is the open drainage industrial section which is currently allowed but has no cross-section representation. The last issue is the classification of the principal arterial standard with an initial section of 60 feet of paving and a final section of six lanes and a median. The Chenal amendment would require a six land section from Shackleford west to Kanis. A third lane would be required at the time of development. James Lasley, property owner, indicated he was against the plan amendment. We have gone over and over on Chenal. When the Improvement District came in, right-of-way was freely given (though it amounted to over five acres). One hundred feet was given and somewhere during the process that requirement was changed to 120 feet. It is not right to require individuals to put in a super highway. The City should have to come in and condemn the land, if they want it. But the City tries to get you on a building permit. Requiring the road before a building permit is issued. Roller -Drummond had to go the Board which voted 11-0 against Staff, not to build the road. And what about areas already developed, how is the road going to built in those areas? Staff should let this area alone. The City should build a street this major. Mr. Lasley indicated the City needed to be careful about requirements, since Jonesboro was taken to court and had to pay for additional right-of-way. There should not have to be any additional voluntary giving of more right-of-way along Chenal. In the past, the owners had tried to be good citizens by giving right-of-way and paying for construction of Chenal. They need to be given credit for this. Mr. Dickson Flake, agent for Catholic Diocese, indicated opposition to the plan amendment. Any new requirements on Chenal should be done by the Public. The owners have given the right-of-way and taken out bonds for 10 to 15 years to pay for Chenal Parkway. When the City accepted the right-of-way and improvements, the City stated they complied with the Master Street Plan. The City, a partner, is trying to change the partnership rules in the middle. One does not do that and keep partnership. It is fine for the Staff to advise the need for more lanes due to more intense traffic, but there is a problem making additional requirements on owners. Commissioner Putnam asked approximately when the City had accepted Chenal. He was told when it opened in 1989 or 1990. 91 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) Mr. Robert Shults, representing Financial Center Partnership, indicated opposition to the plan amendment. Mr. Shults' group built a divided road (which was not required) and paid 100 percent of the costs for the first piece of the Parkway. There is one major problem with the additional requirements. His group has a very narrow piece of land from which if any additional right-of-way were taken, the owners would not have enough land to build anything. Mr. Shults went on to state that four lanes were enough to expect a developer to build, any additional lanes should be done by the City. In addition if developers build the road, the result would be going back and forth from 4 to 6 lanes. This would create serious traffic hazards. The whole improvement should be done at one time. Commissioner Selz asked about stipulating that the City must compensate for additional improvements. Stephen Giles, City Attorney, stated each case must be reviewed on its own merits. It is a policy decision on requiring or compensating for additional right-of-way. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, suggested the Commission send the amendment to the Board of Directors with no recommendation. The issues of what the City has agreed to and who pays for it are decisions that the Board of Directors should make. In any case, the City needs to resolve the issues one way or the other. Prospective developments are uncertain until this is resolved. Mr. Gardner, stated staff cannot dispute any thing that had been said. Long term traffic projections indicate a need for six lanes. Who builds the additional lanes is a policy decision. Mr. Lasley asked what was to stop the City from asking for more later. The Commission began a discussion of how to process with the issue. Commissioner Putnam stated that in his experience with the City along Geyer Springs and Baseline Road, over many years the roads were widened and the City had to acquire land. It is time for the City to recognize when we have given our word. Ten feet may not seem like a lot, if you own it than it is. It is also understandable that the staff would say let's get it when we can. But, the City needs to give these owners credit for the good road they have given the City. There was discussion about deferring the Chenal portion of the amendment and sending the rest on. Commissioner Walker asked how the staff has administratively been handling this since there was no discussion of it in the early case (Best Buy). Mr. Gardner stated that the Best 4 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) Buy site has a third lane on Chenal; the Wal-Mart site will build a third lane; and for the HQ site no third lane was required in exchange for a total reconstruction of Hermitage. Currently, the City is requiring 120 feet of right-of-way and a third lane of all development. Commissioner Walker expressed a desire the set a maximum requirement of 50 of right-of-way (per side) and two lanes (per side) in the plan. Mr. Gardner indicated the bottom line was who should pay for the third lane. The Commission can recommend to the Board of Directors only two lanes, or that the public should pay for the third lanes. Commissioner Walker stated concern about the constitutionality of requiring the third lane. There was discussion about the "Parkway" and other roads which could be given this standard. Staff informed the Commission that Chenal/Financial Center Parkway was the only road which would be given this classification. Several Commissioner's expressed the desire for more information. Mr. Lasley restated that some areas are already developed and the problems of changing back and forth from 2 to 3 lanes. There was more discussion about just sending the issue on to the Board. Commissioner Selz made a motion to approve the amendment with the change of not requiring Chenal owners who had already contributed to the District or Financial Center to give additional right-of-way or build additional traffic lanes. There was discussion about exactly what the motion said. The vote on the motion was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 abstentions. Since the motion filed to get six votes, the item was automatically deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jerry Gardner, Engineer Division of that this was a continuation of an the Master Street Plan Amendment. large map in detail, as well as the development. (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) Public works, stated item to get approval of Mr. Gardner reviewed a history of Chenal's The present ordinance requires 120 feet right-of-way (60 feet each side of the centerline), because of the confusion surrounding the number of lanes. Staff recommends a four lane section north of Kanis and a six lane section east of Kanis and to classify the road "Parkway" rather than expressway. Commissioner Walker asked a clarification question about the right-of-way required for a doctor's office north of Bale Chevrolet. There was discussion about the dates of approval 61 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued of the Master Street Plan (August 1988) and Chenal (July 1988 to 1990). Mr. Gardner indicated that before 1988 the Master Street Plan had indicated an expressway was the public's responsibility. The current graphic for expressway is a cross-section for South Loop. The approved graphic for Chenal (1987) shows no right-of-way and four lanes of 24 feet each (actual width was greater). Asked -about putting a six lane road in a 100 foot right-of- way, Mr. Gardner indicated there would be problems for sidewalks, left and right turn lanes. Staff recommends a clear statement of a minimum 120 foot right-of-way with an adopted cross-section. When asked about any cases of issuing a permit without getting the right-of-way, staff indicated there were no examples. Commissioner Walker asked about the grade separation issue at Markham and Bowman. There was a discussion about widening, doing nothing etc. Mr. Gardner indicated the properties will be less desirable with the congestion of doing nothing; however, that is always an alternative. There was more discussion about six lanes in 100 foot right-of-way. Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, indicated there should be a nexus between development and requirements placed of development. Commissioner Walker continued this line and suggested a schedule be development based on use to determine the amount of public improvement which would be required. There was discussion about impact based assessments. James.Lasley, representative of properties near Kanis and Kirk Roads, reviewed what he had stated two weeks earlier. He indicated no one had come to ask him for 120 foot right-of-way. He believed the reason for this was that a letter had stated he would be notified of any change. When asked Mr. Giles indicated that he could not remember sending a letter to Mr. Lasley about 120 foot right-of-way. Mr. Lasley indicated City files showed that staff knew a year early about the 120 foot right-of-way requirement. He also questioned the City allowing clearing before final plans were approved. He repeated that he was never notified of a 120 foot requirement. Further he indicated the way staff workers is to make changes without notice. Commissioner Selz asked if he agreed the City should have to purchase the extra 20 feet. In response, Mr. Lasley stated that he would not give the extra right-of-way and it must be purchased. He further stated the reason staff had not told him of the 120 foot requirement originally is because they thought he would back out and the alignment would have had to be changed. Developers are held hostage, they have a N February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued deal and must give the right-of-way to get a permit or lose the deal. There was discussion about notice given in 1988. Mr. Lasley closed by stating that he would not give any more land. Jerry Gardner wished to clarify that the City did not purchase the right-of-way. The improvement district acquired the right-of-way and staff dealt only with the district engineer. Bob Sultz, Financial Center Parkway, reviewed his statements of February 8. His group's primary concern is the Hermitage Road area and the City's 1990 certification of acceptance of Chenal as in accordance with the Master Street Plan. Mr. Sultz reviewed his concerns about the impact of 10 more feet on his properties. He further stated that a six lane road did not need sidewalks, but alternative walks should be provided. If the road cannot be placed in a 100 foot right- of-way, there should be compensation. Commissioner Oleson asked if the issue should be a need for a 120 foot right-of-way or who should pay for it. Mr. Sultz indicated the plan should clearly stated that one does not have to give the requirement of 120 feet and build a third lane. Otherwise, the Master Street Plan has the affect of taking land. He asked for better notification of plan amendments due to these implications. Further, lands already zoned should not have these extra requirements placed on them to get building permits. There was discussion about the areas donated for roads. Chairman Chachere asked if the Commission should only be reviewing the right-of-way issue or the issue of who should pay for street improvements. Mr. Giles indicated the Commission was only recommending, and all of this would be done again at the Board. If there is a nexus than it is definable. Further, this is an engineering plan and the City's Engineers say we will need it. Commissioner Woods stated staff had asked for guidance including the compensation issue. There was discussion about waivers and policy issues. Commissioner Nicholson stated these issues are intimately connected and far reaching, with further discussions necessary Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, stated that the issue was only whether to downgrade the plan to Parkway, and all other issues were side issues. Mr. Lawson went on to state that possibly the issue should have gone directly to the Board because of the policy concerns. Commissioner Walker indicated that the issue was fundamental. Just because 120 feet is a national standard does not mean that Little Rock must blindly use it. 7 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) How roads and land interplay is key to making zoning decisions. Commissioner Walker agreed that Chenal has unique characteristics. However in many places, cities are downsizing their roads. The north end of Chenal does need to be downgraded and possibly the two issues could be separated to allow more discussion on the south end. Commissioner Putnam indicated the question is whether the public or private individuals pay for the road. Already 80 percent of the right-of-way has been given (of a 120 foot requirement) by private developers. There was discussions of law suits if the City used varying right-of-way. Dickson Flake, Diocese of Little Rock (property at Chenal and Markham), repeated some of the issues brought up two weeks ago. The reason that the Diocese did not increase the right=of-way from 100 to 120 feet was because of the accessments were done on 100 foot right-of-way and the District did not want to reaccess the property. Due to the impacts on the Diocese's property, they did not feel that they could give additional right-of-way without changing the accessment. The question is equity not planning. The Diocese believes that the Boards 1990 resolution excepting both the right-of-way and improvements in affect amends the Master Street Plan to the standards built. When Chenal was built, it was hailed as a public/private partnership. However, the public contribution has been small. Now, one partner (the City) wants to change the partnership agreement. This is a problem. While staff is obligated to say there is a need, the Diocese objects to one sided changing of the agreement and trying to change history. The 1990 resolution of the Board made the exceptions acceptable (and part of the Master Street Plan). The Diocese objects to any changes above what was approved in the 1990 resolution. There was discussion about the Roller Drummond case, fitting the road in existing right-of-way and economic issues. Wingfield Martin, Shackleford Property, objected to right-of-way but had nothing new to add. Marlene McCormick, a Cloverdale resident, questioned Mr. Giles about the City's level of involvement in the process. There was discussion about compensations, accessments and legal proceedings. Commissioner Nicholson asked about deferring a vote to the end of the meeting. There was discussions of existing standards, right-of-way differences to the north vs. to the east; who should build or pay for roads. February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) A motion was made to amend the Master Street Plan from six to four lanes from Kanis to Highway 10 (as staff recommended) and reserving all other issues to be brought back at a later date. The Chair restated the motion as amending the Master Street Plan from six to four lanes from Kanis to Highway 10. By unanimous vote the Commission approved the amendment. February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-5782 Owner: James H. Hill Applicant: James H. Hill Location: 11,225 I-30 Request: Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Purpose: Industrial Size: 0.72 acres Existing Use: Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Interstate Right -of -Way and Vacant Building, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Single -Family and Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Interstate Right -of -Way, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS This issue is before the Planning Commission because of an enforcement action against the property. For years, the site was used for retail sales, Hill's Carpet, and had C-3 nonconforming status. Recently, an industrial user occupied the location without first rezoning the property. Therefore, the City issued a violation notice and the owner was instructed to file for the appropriate zoning district. The request is to rezone 11,225 I-30 from R-2 to I-2. The site has one building and a high percentage of the land area is paved for parking. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is either R-2 or I-2. Other zoning found in the area is C-2 and C-4. Land use is single family and industrial. The single family residences are found along Meadow Lane and the industrial uses are scattered throughout the area. Some of the surrounding land is undeveloped and several of the existing industrial uses are nonconforming. Another significant land use is the I -30/I-430 interchange. (The property in question is situated on the I-30 frontage road.) An industrial reclassification of the site is compatible with the area and conforms to the adopted plan. The single family neighborhood has been impacted by the existing land use pattern and previous rezoning actions in the area. The proposed I-2 reclassification will not create any new problems for the area. In fact, the Geyer Springs West plan February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-5782 (Cont.) shows the area to the south of I-30 for industrial use, including the properties along Meadow Lane. There are no outstanding zoning issues associated with this request, and staff -supports the rezoning. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in question is located in the Geyer Springs West District. The plan recommends Light Industrial uses. There is no land use issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Dedication of additional right-of-way is required for Meadow. The standard is 25 feet from the centerline. 2. The property is within the boundary of the proposed I-430/South Loop interchange. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the I-2 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. A motion was made to approve the I-2 rezoning request. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 2 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5785 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Toll Corporation Richard F. Toll 4800 South Shackleford Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Wholesale Nursery 7.26 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Industrial, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned I-1 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 4800 South Shackleford is to rezone the site from R-2 to I-2 for a wholesale plant nursery. Currently, there are two structures on the property, with a majority of the site undeveloped. The PAGIS land use map shows one to be a residence and the other building to be used for nonresidential purposes. The site under consideration has approximately 670 feet of frontage on South Shackleford. Zoning in the area is R-2, I-1, I-2, OS and PCD. The property in question abuts R-2 land on three sides and directly across Shackleford the zoning is I-1. Just to the north of the I-1 on the east side of Shackleford, a tract of land was recently reclassified to PCD for mini -storage units. Land use includes single family, industrial and an auto salvage yard. The existing industrial uses include a milk producing facility, warehousing, some light manufacturing and a contractor's storage yard. The single family residences are found on unplatted tracts and within a developed subdivision. A high percentage of the land in the immediate vicinity is still vacant. The adopted plan, 65th Street West, recognizes a large area along South Shackleford for light industrial uses/development. Therefore, some type of industrial reclassifications is appropriate for the seven acres. Because the most recent industrial reclassifications have been to I-1, staff's position is that the existing pattern should be reinforced by rezoning the site in question to February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 2 Z-5785 (Cont.) I-1. I-1 is consistent with the established zoning for Shackleford and maintains the plan's concept for a light industrial area. (Wholesale plant nurseries are permitted by -right in the I-1 district.) I-1 is a site plan review district, which means the Planning Commission must approve a site plan prior to any permits being issued for the property. Also, the following development criteria applies to I-1. (1) All properties within this district shall be contiguous and shall be totally developed under a unified site plan submitted to and approved by the planning commission. Criteria for submittal of the accompanying site plan shall follow the guidelines set forth in this chapter. (2) Every use, or any part thereof, that is not conducted within a building completely enclosed on all sides shall be enclosed within a wall or fence six (6) feet in height. Such wall or fence six (6) feet in height. Such wall or fence shall completely screen all operations conducted within such wall or fence from observation. No exterior storage area shall encroach into any of the required yards. (3) All buildings shown on the required site plan shall cover an aggregate area of not more than fifty (50) percent of such site. (4) No loading or storage of materials or products shall be permitted in the required front yard. (5) Notwithstanding the yard regulations for this district, no part of any building or accessory structure shall be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to any residential district boundary. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in question is located in the 65th Street West District. The plan recommends Light Industrial uses. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Shackleford is a minor arterial and the existing right-of-way is deficient. Dedication of additional land area will be required for a total right-of-way of 45 feet from the centerline. K February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5785 (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of I-1 for the property, and not the requested I-2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant, Richard Toll, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Toll discussed his application and said he requested I-2 because I-2 permits lots as small as 14,000 square feet and he would like to develop the acreage for multiple users and sell some of the lots. Mr. Toll reminded the Commission that I-1 requires one acre lots, and there were a number of small user that would like to own their own building, but did not need an acre of land. Mr. Toll said that the smaller lot size was his primary reason for requesting I-2. Staff offered some comments about the I-2 and I-1 districts. Richard Toll spoke again and asked some questions about platting the land and creating small lots, less than one acre. Staff responded by saying that a plat, with variances, could be filed. Mr. Toll continued and said he envisioned some one acre lots, but he would like to have the flexibility of platting smaller lots to accommodate certain users. Staff indicated that they could probably support a plat that had a combination of lot sizes, with the substandard lots equaling 20% to 30% of the total. After some additional discussion, Mr. Toll agreed to amending the request to I-1. A motion was made to recommend approval request to I-1. The motion passed by a 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 3 of the amended vote of 7 ayes, February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5791 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: size: Existing Use: Lynton Egbosimba Lynton Egbosimba 3620 Asher Avenue (South Maple and Asher) Rezone from R-3 to C-3 Eating Place 0.17 acres vacant Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-3 South - Commercial, zoned I-2 East - Single -Family, zoned R-3 West - vacant and Commercial, zoned R-3, C-1 and C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question, the northeast corner of Maple and Asher, is occupied by a residential structure, and the owner would like to open an eating place. To accomplish the proposed plan, the site must be rezoned to a commercial district and the request is to reclassify the corner from R- 3 to C-3. There is one single story residence on the lot and one accessory building. The property has 58 feet of frontage on Asher and an average depth of 145 feet. Zoning is R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-3, C-1, C-3, C-4 and I-2. The zoning pattern on the north side of Asher is very fragmented and includes all the previously mentioned districts. On the south side of Asher, the zoning is more uniformed with R-3, 0-3, C-3 and I-2. The most recent commercial rezoning was to C-1 for a small lot, directly across Maple. Land use is made up of residential, commercial, industrial, schools, churches and a Salvation Army store and facility. There are also some vacant buildings and lots found in the neighborhood. Along Asher Avenue, the land use pattern is mixed and ranges from single family to warehousing. The proposed C-3 rezoning for an eating establishment does raise some issues and concerns. First of all, an eating place requires one off-street parking space per 100 square feet of floor area, and because of the size of the lot, it is questionable whether the parking can be provided. Another possible problem with the parking is the site's February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 3 Z-5791 (Cont.) topography and how parking areas can be designed to work on the property. what this issue points to is the need for a site plan to see if the lot can accommodate the use. Secondly, the lot is part of a block that is still residential, and a site plan would be helpful to ensure that the adjacent single family residences will not impacted by the development. Because of these concerns, it is recommended that the site be reclassified to either C-1 or a PCD for the eating establishment. In the C-1 district, an eating place is a conditional use and the review process requires a site plan. C-3 is inappropriate for the location, and the adopted plan suggests a site plan approach for any nonresidential use of the site. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in question is located in the I-630 District. The plan recommends Mixed use. Since the request only includes commercial uses, a Planned Commercial Development is recommended. Alternatively, a "C-1" zone would be appropriate since office and residential uses are allowed by right. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Asher Avenue has a right-of-way standard of 35 feet from the centerline, and the existing right-of-way is deficient. Dedication of a 5 foot strip along Asher Avenue is required. Also, dedication of a small triangular piece of right-of-way is needed for Maple Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of either C-1 or a PCD for the property, and not the requested C-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant, Lynton Egbosimba, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Egbosimba spoke and said the property is at the corner of Asher and Maple. Mr. Egbosimba went on to say that he owns a small grocery store across Maple and the two lots north of the store, which could be used for parking. He then discussed the property and said that there was more than enough area for parking. Mr. Egbosimba also made some comments about the location of entrances and what would work the best on the lot. 2 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 3 Z-5791 (Cont.) At this point, the discussion turned to staff's recommendation of C-1. Mr. Egbosimba said that C-1 would not meet his needs and he was not willing to amend the application to C-1. He told the Commission that he felt C-3 was a reasonable request. There were some comments made about C-1 and C-3. It was pointed out that the C-1 district allows eating places as a conditional use, and not by -right. There was some additional discussion and Mr. Egbosimba was asked why he was not willing to accept C-1. Mr. Egbosimba said that he thought the site could handle the parking and C-3 was an appropriate zoning for the corner. There were some questions about the parking requirements and staff responded to them. Staff also voiced some concerns about the proposed use and then discussed some possible problems with a commercial development on the property. Discussion continued about various issues, including the possibility of deferring the item. Mr. Egbosimba said he was willing to consider a deferral, but he still desired C-3 because it would allow him more opportunities to serve the neighborhood. Mr. Egbosimba then responded to comments made by the Commission. There was a long discussion about C-1 versus C-3 and deferring the issue. After some additional comments, Mr. Egbosimba agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 8, 1994 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. K3 February 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5792 e-, MINT -27 W Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Glenn Fletcher, Marceliers and Joann Hewett Marceliers Hewett 1919 and 1923 West 10th Rezone from R-4 to 0-1 Of f ice 0.35 acres Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Parking, zoned 0-2 South - Office, zoned C-3 East - Single -Family, zoned R-4 West - Industrial, zoned I-2 STAFF ANALYSIS 1919 and 1923 West 10th are zoned R-4, and the request is to rezone the two lots to 0-1. The proposal is to utilize the properties for some type of office use. Both lots have single family residences on them and 1923, the corner lot, has a large metal shop in the rear yard area. It appears that the shop area is used for a nonresidential activity or some type of storage. Each lot is 50 feet wide and has a depth of approximately 154 feet. Zoning is very fragmented and includes R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-2, 0-3, C-3, C-4 and I-2. The site in question is surrounded by R-4, 0-2, C-3 and I-2 properties. Over the years, Arkansas Children's Hospital has made an effort to rezone its land holdings to 0-2, and by doing so, has done away with some inappropriate zoning and has started to create a more consistent zoning pattern. Land use found in the neighborhood is single family, multi -family, office, commercial, industrial and Arkansas Children's Hospital, a major institutional use in the area. Rezoning the two lots on West 10th to 0-1 is a reasonable option for the location, and the request conforms to the Central City plan. The land use plan shows the surrounding area for institutional use and a combination of office and commercial services. There are no unresolved zoning issues associated with this proposed reclassification, and staff supports the rezoning. February 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 4 Z-5792 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in question is located in the Central City District. The plan recommends Mixed Office and Commercial. The request is in conformance with the plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 0-1 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because the applicant was unable to notify the required property owners. A motion was made to defer the request to the April 5, 1994 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. February 22, 1994 FILE NO.: Z-5793 Owner: Louisiana National Life Insurance Company Applicant: Bill McClard Location: Mitchell Drive and Frenchman's Lane Request: Rezone from I-2 to C-3 Purpose: GYST House Size: 1.84 acres Existing Use: Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Commercial, zoned I-2 South - Vacant, zoned C-3 East - Commercial, zoned I-2 West - Vacant and day care, zoned C-3 and I-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The southeast corner of Mitchell Drive and Frenchman's Lane is zoned I-2, and the request is to rezone the site to C-3. (Mitchell Drive and Frenchman's Lane are located one block west of Geyer Springs and just south of I-30.) At this time, the proposed use is GYST House, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. This use is allowed in C-3 as "establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic or psychiatric patients." There is one building on the property and a portion of the site is paved for parking. Zoning in the general area is R-2, R-5, MF -12, 0-3, C-3, C-4 and I-2. The site abuts C-3 and I-2 zoning on two sides and the properties across the two streets are zoned C-3 and I-2. The existing I-2 starts at Geyer Springs and extends for approximately 1/4 mile to the west and includes a multi- family complex at the end of Mitchell Drive. Other land uses found in the neighborhood are single family, office, commercial, day care centers, schools and several churches. One day care, zoned C-3, is located across Frenchman's Lane and the schools are situated south of West 83rd. There are no existing uses that require the I-2 zoning. Throughout the area there are undeveloped tracts, including properties to the south and west. The issue before the Planning Commission is whether it is appropriate to rezone the corner of Frenchman's Lane and Mitchell Drive from I-2 to C-3. This is not an use specific February 22, 1994 FILE NO.: Z-5793 (Cont.) request. The Geyer Springs West plan identifies the existing I-2 area for commercial use. Therefore, a commercial reclassification of the property is a justifiable option. Because of the plan element and the location, the proposed C-3 is supported by the staff. The existing I-2 is misplaced and C-3 is more compatible with the area. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in question is located in the Geyer Springs West District. The plan recommends Commercial. The request is in conformance with the plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 22, 1994) The applicant, Bill McClard, was present. There were approximately 25 to 30 objectors in attendance. Staff gave the Chairman letters in opposition (65 to 70) to the proposed C-3 rezoning. (The letters were submitted to the department prior to the public hearing.) Bill McClard addressed the Commission and made some comments about the neighborhood. Mr. McClard then presented some photos of the area and continued his discussion on the neighborhood. He then gave a history of the lot. Mr. McClard went on to say that the issue before the Commission was a downzoning and C-3 was appropriate for the location. He also said that the request was not a use question. At this point, the objectors spoke and presented their opposition to the C-3 rezoning. B. J. Wyrick, 11001 Alexander Road, discussed the neighborhood meetings and made a lengthy presentation about the GYST House operations and the neighborhood. Ms. Wyrick also said that the property could not meet the parking requirements and GYST House was not a residential care facility. February 22, 1994 FILE NO.: Z-5793 (Cont.) Pam Adcock, President of the Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, said the proposed use was inappropriate for the area. Ms. Adcock then discussed the existing day cares and schools in the neighborhood. She said that a facility that housed drug users was not compatible with uses that were for children. Ms. Adcock then made some comments about sidewalks and the efforts that were being made to save neighborhoods in Southwest Little Rock. (Ms. Adcock submitted 80 or more letters in opposition to the C-3 rezoning request.) Cristy Rowe, representing the Windamere neighborhood, discussed a number of items and said that the proposed use would need other services and help. Ms. Rowe said that individuals experiencing drug withdrawal were a problem for a neighborhood and not a desirable use. Ms. Rowe then also discussed some potential problems with sidewalks. Phil Wyrick then addressed the Commission. Mr. Wyrick first gave a history of bad experiences in Southwest Little Rock. He also said that property values were at risk in the area. Mr. Wyrick told the Commission that the area residents were trying to create a positive living environment and a GYST House could be counter productive to their efforts. Raymond Shoptaw, a resident in the Windamere neighborhood, discussed a number of issues. Mr. Shoptaw said he was familiar with the mentally disabled and gave his experiences. He then talked about density and said that was the major problem with GYST House. Mr. Shoptaw said the number of residents should be less than 16 and offered some thoughts about how the facility should operate. Beth Nelson, 5618 Chaucer Lane, said that she was opposed to GYST House, a negative user. Ms. Nelson also said it would be a disadvantage to the neighborhood to have a GYST House. Billy Hatcher, 6800 Hinkson, said the area basically supports the use and the idea of GYST House, but not at the site under consideration. Mr. Hatcher also said that he did not want to be a victim. He went on to say that the request was a use issue and disagreed with the staff and a commissioner. Mr. Hatcher concluded by saying that GYST House needs to be located in an appropriate zone and proper facility, but not in this area. Marlene McCormick, 7204 Cloverdale, voiced her opposition to the use and rezoning. Claudine Forte, a resident in the Cloverdale neighborhood, said she was against the rezoning and GYST House was not the best use for the property. Ms. Forte said GYST House was a good program, but they needed to find another location. 3 February 22, 1994 FILE NO.: Z-5793 (Cont.) Larry Gaines, representing GYST House, spoke and said that everybody needs to deal with what he called facts and not fears. Mr. Gaines then discussed the "not in my backyard" factor. He said that GYST House has clients from neighborhoods and there was a state agency that was responsible for density. Mr. Gaines then pointed out that GYST House handles alcohol problems as well as drug abuse. Mr. Gaines then said GYST House has been a good neighbor wherever it has been. Mr. Gaines also submitted letters of support for GYST House from several judges. Gene Gibbons, GYST House, talked about options, jail versus GYST House, and offered some broad comments on his experiences with the occupants of GYST House. Mr. Gibbons then addressed the parking issue and said the clients did not have cars. He also informed the Commission that the residents did not leave the site unescorted. Mr. Gibbons then stated that the request was not conspiracy to downgrade Southwest Little Rock, but part of the effort to upgrade the area. He said that the building meets the needs of GYST House regardless of its location. Mr. Gibbons then said GYST House has over 20 years of experience and it was not a clinic, but a place to get help. Jim Culberson, speaking for GYST House, offered a history of the program and dealing with people. Mr. Culberson said GYST House has a good environment and no drugs or alcohol were allowed on site. He then made some comments about Gene Gibbons and other people. Bill McClard spoke again and summed up the issue before the Commission. Gene Gibbons responded to some comments made by the Commission and said that the building would need some interior and exterior remolding. Mr. Gibbons discussed the site and said the building has approximately 12,000 square feet. Mr. Gibbons said the building would meet all the necessary codes. There was a lengthy discussion about the various issues and comments were made by several commissioners. There were some questions of the staff and the GYST House representatives. A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning request. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent and 1 open position. 4 tj o W 0 L. W F -- d No z W U) m 0 W Q z 1 1 ■111 No z W U) m 0 W Q z O w w ww ZQ r m W J o J 0 H 0 W UJ LLj W O Z Q J Z Q=� Q z����p`r a= mp�wm (D W Z LLJ U J < C!) Z J P m C.� �S Z O EL3: U) No z W U) m 0 W Q z February 22, 1994 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Date Z r 5 1 e retary Chairman