Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 05 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD APRIL 5, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the February 22, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Brad Walker B. J. Wyrick Emmett Willis Ron Woods City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA APRIL 5, 1994 I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z-5792 1919 and 1923 West 10th R-4 to 0-1 B. Coulson Oil Co. Short -form PCD (Z-5799) C. P&L Investment Co. - Amended PCD (Z -4016-D) D. United Properties Conditional Use Permit (Z -4103-C) II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z -1791-B Candlewood Area R-2, R-4 and R-5 to MF -24 and OS 2. Z -2970-B W. 12th and Fair Park Blvd. R-3 and C-3 to C-1 3. Z -3173-A John Barrow Road MF -12 to MF -18 4. Z -4807-C North of Chenal Parkway MF -6 and OS to R-2 and West of St. Charles 5. Z-5805 11,820 Chicot Road R-2 to I-2 6. Z-5808 Asher Avenue and Adams St. I-2 to C-3 7. Z-5810 South Shackleford Road R-2 to I-2 III. OTHER MATTER 8. Alley Abandonment in Block 3, Oak Forest Addition April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z-5792 Owner: 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 Office 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. April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: A 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 0-1 rezoning by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent. 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO • Z-5799 NAME: COULSON OIL CO. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the north side of Highway 10, southeast of the Southridge Dr. intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• COULSON OIL COMPANY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 1434-38 Pike Ave. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-4222 221-7880 AREA: 2.19 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop a combined convenience store and restaurant use on the site. The concept involves the combination of a convenience store outlet with fuel sales and accompanying enclosed car wash, and a restaurant with drive-through service. This concept, explains the applicant, "is a relatively new idea that is appearing in other parts of the country"; that "the combined usage is logical because restaurants with drive-through service exist for the same reason of convenience as (does) the convenience store"; and, that "they both serve the demand for quickly accessible goods and service at 'convenient' locations to residents and passing traffic". The applicant proposes to own and operate both uses and will purchase a restaurant franchise for "name brand" food service. The location on Highway 10 was selected, explains the applicant, because it has good accessibility to present and future customers in a growing area, and it is adjacent to other existing and pending commercial developments. The proposed site, states the applicant, is large enough to accommodate the proposed development program and to provide substantial landscape space, building setback, and buffering. There is proposed to be a large area along the northern boundary that will be undisturbed and existing trees will be preserved. Additional trees will be April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 planted in this area to create a lower canopy of trees to enhance the screening effect. A privacy fence is planned to be set along the limits of the site dividing the developed and undisturbed areas. The site is a 2.1887 acre tract consisting of two existing parcels which will be combined into a one -lot subdivision. A one-story, 6,000 square foot building will be occupied by the convenience store and the restaurant. The drive-through service for the restaurant will be located on the west face of the building. To the east of the convenience store, and separated by approximately 60 feet, is the fuel pump canopy which measures 47 feet by 84 feet. An enclosed, automated car wash is located east of the canopy and will serve convenience store customers following their fuel purchase. The main building and car wash are located 108 feet off Highway 10. The south edge of the fuel pump canopy is located 91 feet off the right-of-way. Building coverage is proposed to be 11.19% of the land area. Access to the site is proposed to be limited to one two-way curb cut on Highway 10 and one two-way curb cut on Southridge Dr. The Southridge Dr. access is intended to provide service to the site from the Walton Heights customers without forcing traffic around the site and onto Highway 10; and, it is located on Southridge in order for customers who wish to travel east on Highway 10 to have the benefit of the signal light at the Southridge Dr. -Highway 10 intersection in order to turn left. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD for the development of a 2.1887 acre site for a combined convenience store with fuel sales -restaurant with drive-through service -and automated car. wash. The proposal involves construction of a 6,000 square foot building in which the restaurant and convenience store would be located; a 47 foot by 84 foot fuel pump canopy; a 20 foot by 36 foot automated car wash building; a drive-through service window and order board; parking for 49 vehicles; and access drives. The area abutting Southridge Dr. forms an undisturbed landscaped buffer area which ranges from a maximum width of 50 feet at the eastern edge of the site to 15 feet wide at the access drive onto Southridge Dr. A privacy fence is to be located at the perimeter of the undisturbed buffer to provide visual screening of the site from persons driving down Southridge Dr. from the north. The requirements of the Highway 10 Overlay are proposed to be met. Primary signage for the project will be located at the Highway 10 entry and will adhere to the Design Overlay District guidelines. No variances or waivers are requested. 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5799 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently made up of two tracts which are to be combined. The site is vacant, except for a one story home located at the southeast corner of the property. There are many trees on the site, especially along the north property line. The site has a 40 foot elevation differential across it, with the low point being at the southwest corner of the site. Half of that differential occurs in the northwest 120 feet of the property. The current zoning is R-2. A Little Rock Fire Department Station is located immediately to the west in R-2 property. All the surrounding property north of Highway 10 is zoned R-2. South of Highway 10 is R-2 and 0-3 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a sidewalk will be required to be constructed along Highway 10 and along the Southridge Dr. frontage of the site. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that the details of the water main relocation will need to be more specific, and the layout will vary from that shown. The water main will need to be laid outside of the highway right-of-way and Water Works will need a 10 foot wide easement adjoining the back side of the 20 foot permanent construction easement for construction of this main. Wastewater indicated that sewer is available. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance required additional screening and trees along Highway 10 above those required by the Landscape Ordinance. A lawn sprinkler system to water the plants will be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: All required exhibits and information have been submitted. There are no issues remaining as far as the needed plans and information to meet the requirements for PCD submittals. 3 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5799 The Planning staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain District, and the Land Use Plan recommends Transition Zone for the area. There have been no changes to justify amending the Plan to allow commercial uses. E. ANALYSIS• The site planning has attempted to deal with the need to provide landscape buffering of the proposed use from the residential area beyond, especially to the north in Walton Heights. A large natural and landscape buffer is proposed along Southridge Dr. The fence, retaining wall, and existing and proposed trees are said to provide a canopy of trees which are to enhance the screening effect. The matter of site lighting has not been addressed. Buffering of the sound from the order board/intercom must be adequately addressed; fire fighters live and sleep in the fire station immediately to the west. The proposed use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan, and there is not sufficient justification to amend the Plan to allow commercial use of the site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Robert Brown, representing the applicant, was present. Staff presented an overview of the proposal and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown the items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Brown responded that he would made the needed corrections or provide the additional information requested. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated March 4, 1994, asking that the item be deferred to the April 5, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 5 meeting, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, no nays, 1 absent, and no abstentions. 4 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) Staff reported that all required exhibits have been submitted, and there are no outstanding technical issues to be resolved. The staff recommendation, however, was reported as being unchanged: denial due to conflict of the use with the Land Use Plan. The applicant was represented by David Jones of Vogel Realty. Mr. Jones introduced Mr. Ray Coulson, of Coulson Oil Co. and Mr. Robert Brown, of Development Consultants, the project engineer. Mr. Jones introduced the project, indicating that the submittal was for a PCD. Mr. Jones related that he was no stranger to Highway 10 development or to the Highway 10 Land Use Plan; that he had been on the Planning Commission when the Plan was developed and represents a number of clients who own property on Highway 10. He related that Coulson Oil had given him an assignment to find two sites: one on Highway 10 and one on Chenal Parkway. Both were to be beyond I-430, but close to I-430 for accessibility to "going -home traffic", and on the north side of the road on the "going -home" side of the road. The sites must be at least 2 acres in size. On Highway 10, though, except for the proposed site, there is no other site which meets those parameters. Across Highway 10 from the proposed site is a liquor store, a Phillips Petroleum store, a cleaners, and a convenience store. Next to the Phillips site is a 5 -acre site which is already zoned for commercial uses which is ready for development. On the north side of Highway 10, and immediately to the west of the proposed site, is a fire station. The Southridge-Highway 10 intersection, with its concentration of commercial and other non-residential uses, forms a commercial "node" which qualifies this site for other commercial development. From this location, to the west, there is the "node" where the Kroger store is located, with the strip center directly across the street; at east Taylor Loop Road, there is the "node" where Harvest Foods is located; next, there is Johnson Ranch; then there is the Highway 10-Chenal Parkway intersection. In the 4 1/2 miles from I-430 to the Highway 10-Chenal Parkway, there are no sites which meet the parameters which Coulson Oil must have except for the one chosen and which is represented by the application. Mr. Jones explained that the reason for the greater development along Chenal Parkway, as opposed to along Highway 10, is the more strict regulations imposed on developments along Highway 10; that developers do not want to have to go to the Supreme Court every time they want to try to re -zone a piece of property along Highway 10. He pointed out that there are only 2 corridors along which development can take place in west Little Rock, and, since there is no commercial zoning along Highway 10, the Chenal Parkway corridor is getting all the development. 5 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 Mr. Jones related that the Coulson's are prominent persons in the community and heavily involved in community affairs, and said that they want to develop a quality project that is sensitive to the area and to the neighbors. Consequently, he and the Coulson's met with the neighbors who would be most directly affected, the owners of the two homes across Southridge Dr., with Winrock and Don Schickel who own lots in the subdivision, and with the Walton Heights Property Owners' Association board. One of the homeowners across the street wrote a letter expressing no objections to the proposed development. The other homeowner was just starting construction on his home when contacted, and he decided that he was not concerned about the proposed development and decided not to delay construction. Winrock and Schickel expressed no objections. The Property Owners' Association expressed concerns, and there was an attempt by the developer to address these concerns in the site development plan. Robert Brown presented the specific proposal from a technical aspect. He presented the site plan and explained the various uses which are proposed, their relationship to one another, the traffic flow into, out of, and within the site, and the landscaping -buffering accommodations. Mr. Jones pointed out that it is normal for commercial zoning to be located at major intersections, and that the Highway 10- Southridge Dr. intersection should not be different. He said that it is not unusual for commercial zoning to exist at entrances to residential neighborhoods. Mr. Coulson addressed the Commission and public, saying that Coulson Oil is a good corporate citizen and wanted to maintain the good will of the citizens no matter how the vote came out. Chairperson Chachere asked if there were a spokesperson for those in opposition to the development. Ed Tyler indicated that he would address the issues, that he had been asked by Larry Mabry, president of the Walton Heights Property Owners' Association and Gene Hendershot to speak. He stated that the proposed use is not appropriate; that the neighborhood is concerned about the impact on traffic at the intersection, on Southridge Dr., and into the Walton Heights neighborhood; about getting in and out of the neighborhood through the one -and -only intersection serving the neighborhood; and, about the proximity of the development to the fire station. Larry Mabry introduced himself as a resident and president of the property owners' association. He related that, indeed, Mr. Jones and representatives of Coulson Oil had visited with the board of directors. Concerns expressed by the board are: 1) a park 11 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 designed for children is proposed to be built a short way up the hill from the proposed development at the first hairpin curve, and increased traffic will be a problem; 2) the property owners' association currently maintains the land at the northeast corner of the Highway 10-Southridge Dr. intersection, and the development will cause an increase in litter; 3) the development will cause an increase in traffic which will make it next to impossible to turn left onto Highway 10 from Southridge Dr.; 4) it will be impossible for Walton Heights residents to get through the traffic signal at Highway 10 and Southridge Dr.; 5) the noise from the development will be a problem to the fire fighters trying to sleep. Mina Drause introduced herself as a realtor, a residential builder, and a resident of Walton Heights. She said, responding to Mr. Jones' complaint about the lack of commercially zoned or available property along Highway 10, that Highway 10 has practically no commercial development because it has always been designated for residential development. She said that it is not appropriate to put the proposed type development at the entrance to an old, established neighborhood. She explained that the Walton Heights neighborhood is a very large neighborhood, but has only the one way in and one way out: through the Highway 10- Southridge Dr. intersection. There are, she said, 450 homes in the neighborhood, representing 1000 persons; there are 1000 cars per day going in and out; so, Southridge Dr. and the intersection are very congested. She related that the neighborhood is a very good neighborhood that "works", where children play and neighbors help one another. More traffic will adversely affect property values, will cause the neighborhood to be unable to keep the land at the entrance to the neighborhood picked up, and the neighbors will "loose" their neighborhood. She stated that all the residents are opposed to the development. Mr. Donald Glowen addressed the Commission. He explained that a park is supposed to be built to the east of the proposed site and abutting it, and that beer sold at the proposed convenience store and consumed at the park would be unacceptable; the cited the problem of the one-way-in/one-way-out to the neighborhood, and the problem with additional traffic; he cited the potential problem with the Southridge Dr. access to and from the proposed development site being located in close proximity to a blind curve, and the problem with sight distance for people on Southridge Dr. and entering or exiting the site; he cited the problem to the fire fighters with the noise from the 24-hour operation of the convenience store -restaurant -gas station; he complained about the additional traffic which would be generated causing back-ups for persons trying to get through the traffic signal; he was concerned about the fire equipment not being able to respond to emergencies due to traffic backed up on Southridge, or the danger of fire equipment having to use the wrong side of 7 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 the road to by-pass the traffic being met by persons at the blind curves; and, he explained that the center lane on Highway 10 is currently used as a left -turn lane, and that the addition of another use so close to the others will increase the incidence of head-on collisions in the center lane. Ruth Bell, identifying herself as spokesperson for the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, reported that the League had 2 concerns: 1) that the existing Land Use Plan be supported; and, 2) that the proposal contained the added nuisance factor of a fast food component with its message board and unpredictable and on-going noise. She expressed concern that the loud speaker noise would travel over the ridge to the neighborhood beyond. Mr. Jones responded to the concerns. He related that the current owner had received a letter from the City Parks and Recreation Department in which a plan for a neighborhood park had been outlined and in which a request for the sale or donation of land was proposed. Mr. Jones related that Mr. Coulson, if the PCD is approved, would donate the land outlined for the park. He also commented that Mr. Coulson would assume the responsibility for mowing and picking up litter at the entrance site to Walton Heights. Mr. Jones reiterated that the proposed site is not in a residential neighborhood. It is, he said, at a major intersection, with commercial uses similar to the ones proposed and undeveloped, commercially zoned land just across the street. He stated that there is a ridge which separates the residential neighborhood from Highway 10, and that the sound would not be a problem to the neighborhood. Mr. Jones contended that, if the site were zoned for office development, as was deemed a better choice by some of the neighbors, the traffic problem at the going -to-work and coming home time would be compounded, since office workers are coming and going at the same time. A commercial use would not, he said, add to the existing traffic problem of the neighborhood residents trying to go to or come home from work. Mr. Jones contended that there are no blind curves which would cause a problem for customers or residents entering or leaving the site. He stated that the current traffic count along Highway 10 at the site's location is 25,000 vehicles per day, and it will continue to increase; that the area is in transition and the intersection meets the requirements for commercial development. With the development approach which the current developer has taken, he contended, the proposal is the best and highest use for the site. Jim Lawson addressed the Commission. He maintained that the current application could "break the dyke" in the long-standing attempt to hold back "stripping out" Highway 10 like Rodney Parham or Asher Ave. and other arterials. He said that if the current rezoning request is granted, the Highway 10 will become another commercial corridor. The Land Use Plan shows the site under M April 5, 1994 ITEM NO. B _(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 consideration to be for an office use, and if it is rezoned for commercial use, then land to the east, between the site and the church, and across the street to the south would logically need to be rezoned for commercial uses. He pointed out that Highway 10 does not control access, as Chenal Parkway does; so, commercial development along Chenal Parkway was planned. The Commission and the Board of Directors had decided years earlier that Highway 10 was going to be done differently, that it was not going to be "stripped out". Just as the Plan had anticipated, office development is taking place along Highway 10. The available commercial land is limited and, consequently, expensive, but it is available. The applicant has other choices, but the alternatives are expensive. If he can rezone property and achieve his objective, then others can assume that they also have this alternative. The staff recommendation, then, is to reject the application. Commissioner Wyrick asked if the neighborhood would be amenable to the proposal if there were no access onto Southridge. A resident, identifying herself as living in the eleventh house up the hill, said that it would make no difference; she can hear the noise from the commercial development across Highway 10 all night as it is, and opposes the extension of commercial development to the north side of Highway 10. Mr. Jones responded, saying that there are office developments which have destroyed neighborhoods. Look at Birchwood and the office development at the end of Wilbur Mills, he said. On the other hand, there are commercial developments which have not harmed the abutting residential neighborhoods. The buffering and landscaping are the important determinant; so, if the design overlay requirements are imposed and the site is well landscaped and buffered, then the use can be compatible. Public planning needs to allow the private market place to operate, and the proposed site is the site the private market place has chosen as the place which is best suited for the applicant's development. The applicant, he said, has made extensive concessions to make the use compatible, and it is, he concluded, a good use for the site. Commissioner Walker pointed out that there is insufficient right- of-way to meet Master Street Plan requirements. Mr. Lawson said that the required right-of-way would have to be dedicated. Mr. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, agreed. Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification on the need for amending the Land Use Plan prior to acting on rezoning the property. Deputy City Attorney, Steve Giles, said that amending the Land Use Plan is required. Mr. Lawson responded that Plan amendments are prepared and accompany rezonings to the Board. A motion was made and seconded to approve the request. The motion, however, failed, with the vote of 2 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 9 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4016-D NAME: P&L INVESTMENT CO. -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of I-30 access road and Wanda Lane DEVELOPER: PERRY GRAVITT P&L INVESTMENT CO. 714 S. Ringo St. Little Rock, AR 72201 372-6596 AREA: 2 ACRES ZONING• PCD NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 20.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Commercial A PCD for the site was approved in Ordinance number 14,895, passed on June 4, 1985, after the Planning Commission recommended approval in a public hearing held on May 14, 1985. Included in the approval of the PCD was the requirement that the rear/north 7,800 square foot portion of the strip center be used for office uses. By letter from the owner, dated May 9, 1985, the owner volunteered that this rear 7,800 square feet be designated for general office uses under the 0-1, quiet office designation, and the limitation was approved by the Planning Commission as a requirement of the approved plan. (The remainder of the center to the south was approved for C-3 uses.) Over the years, non -0-1 uses have begun to occupy this rear 7,800 square foot portion of the center, and zoning enforcement began enforcement action in the matter. The owner, consequently, has proposed that, in addition to the 0-1 uses which were previously approved, this rear 7,800 square foot area be allowed to have C-1, neighborhood commercial, uses. No other change in the originally approved PCD is proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amendment to an existing PCD to allow C-1, neighborhood commercial, uses in the April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D rear/north portion of the existing strip center in addition to the previously approved 0-1, quiet office, uses. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing PCD is a strip shopping center with a mixture of C-3, C-1, and 0-1 uses. The rear 7,800 square feet is limited to 0-1, quiet office, uses, but, for instance, a book store is one of the tenants. Other non -0-1 uses are a cleaners pick-up station and a beauty -barber shop. In the past, it is reported that non -0-1 uses have included a video rental store. These are retail use, and are not permitted by right in the 0-1 district. The problem, though, as far as the neighbors are concerned, is a dance studio in the rear portion of the center. A dance studio is allowed by right in the 0-1 district, but the reported loud music, loitering, and alcohol consumption disturb the abutting residential neighbors. According to one neighbor, when the music starts, the dogs begin howling. The originally approved site plan shows the landscaping which was supposed to be installed. Practically all of the plantings are no longer in place. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering, Water Works, and Wastewater have no comments. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the landscaping which was proposed and required in the original PCD approval has deteriorated. Landscaping is required to be reinstalled and to be properly maintained. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Zoning Enforcement has undertaken enforcement action to bring the uses in compliance with the approved PCD requirements. The rear 7,800 square feet is limited to 0-1, quiet office, uses, but retail uses occupy or have occupied this area. The applicant is seeking to amend the approved PCD to permit C-1, neighborhood commercial, uses. When the uses change, the parking requirements also change. That there is sufficient parking to meet the Ordinance requiremtns needs to be confirmed. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Geyer Springs West Planning District, and the Plan recommends commercial uses. There is, in this request, no land use issue. N April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D E. ANALYSIS: The "Mystic Eye Book Store", which is not allowed in the 0-1 district does not appear to be a problem; a dance studio, which is allowed in the 0-1 district is, according to the neighbors, a nuisance. The minutes of the original May 14, 1985 Planning Commission suggest that "office" was the key word, and that "office" uses were the intended limitation. However, all uses by right in the 0-1 district were approved. It is, perhaps, more appropriate to limit the uses to those in the 0-1 and C-1 districts which are not offensive, and exclude uses such as a dance studio, video store, etc. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the change in the PCD to permit limited C-1 uses such as: antique shop; bank or savings and loan office; book and stationery store; barber and beauty shop; camera shop; cigar, tobacco, and candy store; clothing store; custom sewing and millinery; drugstore or pharmacy; duplication shop; florist shop; furniture store; handicraft, ceramic, sculpture, or similar art work; hobby shop; jewelry store; key shop; general and professional office; tailor; or travel bureau. Staff also recommends excluding non -office uses from those approved in the 0-1 zoning district, and limit the approved uses in the 0-1 district to general and professional office uses. There should be a restriction on commercial uses to limit those uses to available parking. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the proposal. Staff outlined the request and presented the items in the discussion outline. Since the deficiencies are minimal, and the request involves a change in the allowable uses, the Committee did not feel that the lack of attendance at the meeting was decisive. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item and briefly outlined the history of the request. The action establishing the PCD took place in 1985. At that time, C-3 uses were allowed in the front "leg" of the "L" -shaped building, and the rear portion of the "L" was restricted to 0-1 uses. The center has 18, 133 square feet of area, and the rear 7,800 square feet is limited to the 0-1 uses. The area restricted to 0-1 uses contains a "Dance America" dance April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D studio, a book store, a cleaners pick-up station, a beauty shop, and a family service agency. There are two vacant lease spaces. A dance studio and the family service agency are permitted uses in the 0-1 zoning district. The book store, a cleaners pick-up station, and a beauty shop are not; they are C-1 uses. The "Dance America" manager, Mr. Lewis Ridgel, confirmed to staff that his facility is exclusively a place for adult ballroom dancing instruction; therefore, the dance studio is an approved use in the 0-1 district so long as it conforms to the definition of a dance studio contained in the Ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the request to allow limited "quiet" C-1 uses in the rear 7,800 square feet as outlined in the staff recommendation. Staff also reported that, since the center has 18,133 square feet of floor area, and provides 49 parking spaces on site, if the center is approved for all commercial uses, then the parking regulations would require 58 parking spaces. Staff reported that the applicant maintains that there is sufficient parking for the activity generated by the businesses occupying the center, especially with the Dance America clients utilizing the center primarily after other businesses close. Barbara Bonds, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and reiterated that the applicant's purpose is to allow the C-1 uses which, over time, have crept into the Center to remain, and that the applicant could accept the staff recommendation that only specific C-1 uses, which would not be out of character with an office zone, be permitted. Mr. Donald Turney of 7605 Denise Dr. addressed the Commission. He introduced his next door neighbor, Mr. William Holley, of 7601 Denise. He presented to the Commission a petition containing approximately 46 names and representing 35 homes in the abutting neighborhood. He related that the neighborhood's concerns.are the tranquillity and serenity of the neighborhood. This tranquillity and serenity is put at risk, and that since Dance America moved in, there has been a noticeable increase in the noise. If a dance studio is for the instruction of dance only, then, since Dance America is not limiting its activities to that it is not in compliance with the regulations; Dance America rents its space out for parties. Last Saturday night, Mr. Turney continued, there was still the "thump, thump, thump" of loud music coming from the Dance America studio at 3:00 in the morning. Mr. Turney related that he reported the conditions to the police, and the police were witnesses to a large number of people carousing in the parking lot, drinking, milling around, and getting "a snoot full". Drunk driver were seen leaving the center and going the wrong way on University Ave. Ever since University Center opened, there have been problems. There is a Pizza delivery business located in the front of the building, in the C-3 area, and they empty their dumpsters at 2:00 A.M. Mr. Turney complained that the clanging of the equipment and dumpster, coupled with the beeping from the O.S.H.A.-required N April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D beeper are disturbing and wake him and the other neighbors. He and others in the neighborhood want to get piece and quiet back, and oppose allowing more commercial uses. He continued that the neighbors have no problem with business uses in the Center, but that Dance America is a problem; that 3:30 is too late to be instructing people how to dance. He charged that the Dance America business is being uses as a social club, and that the dance studio is a cover for other functions. Mr. Bonds responded that the dance studio should not be an issue, since a dance studio is permitted in the 0-1 zone. She added that the owners of the Center have no complaints on file from any neighbor; but, she suggested, that if a nuisance is being created,_the owners of the Center can take care of such a problem; that there are conditions in the lease which can be enforced. Commissioner Oleson asked if zoning enforcement personnel could confirm whether Dance America was in compliance with the definition of a dance studio. Staff responded that enforcement officers could visit the location after hours to verify whether or not the Dance America conformed to the 0-1 use. Ms. Oleson asked how non -0-1 uses were allowed in the Center. Staff indicated that, over time, these uses have crept in; that, sometimes, the Collector's office does not verify with Zoning before issuing a privilege license or allowing a change in location for an existing privilege license holder. Allowing such uses is a result of oversights, but in the present situation, the system worked, and a tenant had requested a privilege license and the Collector's office had denied the request. Consequently, the zoning enforcement office had become involved. As a result of the enforcement action, the applicant was seeking approval of the uses which would permit the existing tenants to remain. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles added that he would relay to the Collector's office a need to coordinate better with Zoning in issuing privilege licenses. Chairperson Chachere asked for a listing of the types of uses which would be allowed in the C-1 zoning district. Ms. Bonds, reading from the Ordinance list, responded that barber and beauty shops; camera stores; cleaners pick-up station, and the like would be allowed, and that the neighbors are not objecting to these types of uses. Mr. Giles continued the reading from the list of permitted uses: an antique shop; banks and savings and loan offices; daycare; nurseries; and others which would not be noisy or be intense uses. 5 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D Ms. Chachere asked whether, if the PCD were amended, some uses could be excluded. Mr. Giles responded that uses can be excluded and the PCD can be conditioned on complying with the Commissions limitations. Mr. Bonds replied that the applicant is requesting approval of only specific C-1 uses, primarily to allow the existing book store, cleaners pick-up station, and beauty shop to remain. Commissioner Nicholson observed that originally the plan was for a mixed office and commercial center; but, if the C-1 uses are allowed in the rear portion of the center, then the Center becomes a 100% commercial center, without the mixture of office and commercial. Commissioner Oleson suggested that the existing zoning uses be left in place, and that zoning enforcement should enforce the Ordinance. Ms. Bonds responded that such a position would penalize the small operations, the book store, cleaners, and beauty shop, that are not causing the problem, but would leave the dance studio alone which is causing the problem. Commissioner Oleson said that the PCD was approved and the neighborhood had been assured that the rear portion of the building would be 0-1 uses; that the neighbors can't trust the zoning if the agreement is not maintained. Commissioner Putnam asked if a PCD can be canceled. Mr. Giles responded that it can, but that staff would need to research the provisions for doing so; that the City has only canceled PCD's if they have not been acted on to implement them, but, he did not believe, the City had canceled any previously for violating the provision of the PCD. He suggested that, perhaps, the appropriate procedure was for zoning enforcement to seek a remedy in the courts for violating the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Walker asked Ms. Bonds for information on the square footage of the various uses in the rear 7,800 square feet of area zoned for 0-1 uses. Ms. Bonds indicated that Dance America takes 2,400 square feet, plus the family service agency leases an additional 900 square feet. Mr. Walker continued that the area in question, then, is 4,000 square feet, less the vacant space. Therefore, he concluded, the 0-1 area which is in compliance with the 0-1 uses is about 0 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z -4016-D one-half of the area, and that perhaps the applicant should consider asking for a mixture of C-1 and 0-1 uses in the rear 7,800 square feet, with one-half of the area being allowed for each type use. This would retain the mixture of office and commercial uses. Ms. Bonds responded that the owner would agree to that type condition, and would agree to seek as tenants no additional non -0-1 uses; that the owner requested that the existing non -conforming uses be allowed to remain. Commissioner Woods asked if the Commission could place restrictions on the dance studio? He added that dance studios are for instruction; not a place to have parties at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 in the morning. Ms. Bonds replied that the Center owner would concede to the establishment of hours of operation and for a prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property. She reported that P&L Investment can enforce such provisions by way of the lease provisions. Staff interjected that a change in use brings with it a change in the parking and signage requirements. Mr. Turney said that if P&L Investment moves Dance American into the C-3 area of the Center, it only moves the problem down to be a nuisance to other neighbors; that "by 8:00 tonight", Dance America will get "cranked -up" and "it will be 1:00 or 1:30 before they go home". Chairperson Chachere asked Ms. Bonds for a suggestion on the hours of operation which might be imposed. Ms. Bonds responded that, since Dance America is an adult dance studio, its business was conducted primarily in the evening, but that 9:00 or 10:00 was acceptable, 10:00 being preferable. Commissioner Nicholson complained that there was insufficient information to make a determination at this time. Commissioner Putnam suggested that the item be deferred. Staff pointed out that, since this is an enforcement action, the deferral needs to be for a short time period, and suggested that the Commission continue the hearing at the April 5 Commission meeting. A motion was made and seconded that the matter be deferred until the April 5, 1994 Commission hearing. The motion passes with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 7 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D STAFF UPDATE: The application letter from the applicant, dated May 9, 1985, specifically asked for C-3 uses in the front portion of the building and for 110-1 office" zoning in the rear 7,800 square feet. The staff write-up for the May 14, 1985 Planning Commission hearing relates a proposal for the following "mixed use development": 7,405 square feet for office/wholesale; 2,928 square feet for retail; and 7,800 square feet for office. The Planning Commission action paragraph relates: "The applicant stated a commitment to 'C-3' type uses on (the front portion of the building) and office uses on (the rear 7,800 square feet of the building)." Whether there was any realization on the part of the applicant or the Commission at that time that 110-1" included other uses besides "office" is unclear. Section 36-458 of the Code of Ordinances deals with revocation of PUD's. There is no mechanism for revoking PUD's for violating the provisions of the PUD. The means of dealing with a problem are through enforcement of the Ordinance as any other violation of the Zoning Ordinance. As long as the allowable uses of the PCD are being "re -visited" fi by the Commission as a result of the applicant's request for a k' change in those uses, then the Commission should be able to look at the establishment of limitations for user/tenants; i.e., the setting of hours of operation of the Center and the establishment of hours for garbage pick-up. This is done routinely for PUD's. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) Staff reiterated the history of the approval of the existing PCD. Staff explained that the Center is an inverted "L" shaped building. Beginning at the front/south of the building, at the I-30 access road/University Ave., and going to the rear/north of the building, when the PCD was approved in 1985, the first 174 feet was approved for C-3 uses and the back 135 feet and the 100 feet of the east -west leg were restricted to 0-1 uses. In the 1985 Planning Commission minute record, the designation for the front 10,333 square feet of the Center was consistently referred to as a C-3 use area. In the discussion of the uses for the rear 7,800 square feet, which is the rear 135 feet of the north -south portion of the building and the entire east -west portion of the building, the term "office" uses was consistently used to A April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D describe the uses anticipated for this area; however, it is clear that the applicant specifically requested approval of all 0-1 uses for the rear 7,800 square feet. Staff noted that it is unclear whether there had been a realization at that time that the 0-1 zoning district includes such other activities as a dance studio. Staff outlined the existing uses of the Center, indicating that Dance America, Meadowcliff Hair Fashions, and Alpine Cleaners are in the north -south portion of the building; and, the Mystic Eye book store and the Family Service Agency are in the east -west portion of the building. All of these uses are in the area restricted to 0-1 uses. There are 2 vacant lease spaces in the 0-1 area of the building, one in each of the legs of the building. Dance America, as a dance studio, and the Family Service Agency, as an office, are appropriate uses in the 0-1 area. The Mystic Eye book store, the Alpine Cleaners, and the Meadowcliff Hair Fashions are not legitimate uses in the 0-1 district. Staff went on to say that the problem, though, is that Dance America has been the nuisance to the abutting neighbors, as was reported by the neighbor at the previous Commission meeting, with its loud music, late hours, alcohol, congregating in the parking lot, and drivers leaving the Center and driving the wrong way on University Ave/the I-30 access road. The beauty shop, book store, and cleaners are quiet uses and are not the problem to the neighborhood. Staff reiterated that another source of noise and disruption has been the practice of emptying a dumpster at 2:00 in the morning, again, a complaint voiced at the previous Commission meeting. The neighbor had complained, staff related, that the dumpster for the pizza delivery business which is in the C-3 use portion of the building, was being emptied at the late night -early morning hours. In light of this situation, staff recommended: 1) that a restriction be placed on the hours of operation of the center businesses and on the hours when the dumpster can be serviced; 2) that the allowable uses for the rear 7,800 square foot area should be amended to allow a mixture of 0-1 and C-1 uses, with the C-1 uses being restricted to antique shop, bank or savings and loan office, boot and stationery store, barber and beauty shop, camera shop, cigar or tobacco or candy store, clothing store, custom sewing and millinery, drugstore or pharmacy, duplication ship, florist shop, furniture store, handicraft or ceramic or sculpture or similar art work, hobby shop, jewelry store, key shop, or travel bureau, and that the ratio to the 0-1 and listed C-1 uses be fixed at 50%; and 3) that it be made clear to the applicant that a dance studio is, according to the Zoning Ordinance, a place for "instructing, counseling, or coaching in the arts, developing personal skills and/or talents", 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D and does not include leasing the studio for private parties, nor does it mean that it is a night club or bar, and that the music must not be so loud that it is heard outside the studio. Staff reported that in newspaper advertising for another dance studio, the ad had indicated that dancing was from 6:00 to 9:00 in the evenings. Since, at the previous Commission hearing, the applicant had indicated agreement with a proposal for a closing time for Dance America of 9:00 or 10:00, staff suggested that the hours of operation of the Dance America studio be set at 9:00 on weekdays and at 10:00 on weekends. Staff explained that with the 50% mix of office and listed C-1 uses in the rear 7,800 square feet, the beauty shop, cleaners, and book store would be made legitimate uses of the area, but their total square footage of lease space will not permit another C-1 use in that area; the 50% ratio is reached. The dance studio and family service agency, activities which are occurring at Dance America are beyond the scope of a "dance studio" as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. A dance studio is an approved use; Dance America, as it is operating, is apparently more than a dance studio and would not comply with the use restrictions in the existing or amended PCD. Barbara Bonds, an attorney representing the Center owner was present. She addressed the Commission, and introduced Mr. Perry Gravitt, one of the owners of the Center. Ms. Bonds reported that since the initial Commission hearing, the owners had: 1) contacted the dance studio and relayed to them that they must cease operations at 10:00 in the evenings, that they must cease the noise which constitutes a nuisance, and, that if they did not comply, they would be evicted; and 2) contacted the dumpster service company and stopped the late night servicing of the dumpster. Ms. Bonds reported that the owners had been in communication with Mr. Turney, who had made the presentation at the Commission meeting previously, and that he was satisfied that appropriate actions were being pursued which would correct the problems the neighbors had experienced. She also reported that Mr. Turney had said that he and the other neighbors were not opposed to the cleaners, book store, and beauty shop being in the area which was restricted to the 0-1 uses; that the neighbors were only concerned with the dance studio. She said that, since the Center owners were taking steps to abate the nuisance, she requested that the Commission recommend approval of the change in the PCD to allow the mixed office and limited commercial uses to continue. Commissioner Nicholson expressed concern that Dance America was not a legitimate "dance studio", as defined by the Ordinance; that it was, in fact, a place to socialize. She said that in her mind, a dance studio is a place to learn ballet and so forth, and she did not want to legitimize what happening at the Dance America operation in the change in the PCD. 10 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D Mr. Lawson responded that the effect of the staff's recommendation was to make Dance American conform to the Ordinance or be subject to enforcement action. He said that it is routine in PCD's to limit the hours of operation, and that this is what was being proposed by staff in this situation. Commissioner Nicholson, addressing Ms. Bonds, said that it looked to her like the Dance America people were playing with the definition in saying that "we teach dancing", but that the dancing is free. Perhaps, she said, the Ordinance definition needs to be strengthened. Ms. Bonds reiterated that the Center owners have a provision in the lease with the tenants which prohibits the tenants from operating unlawfully and from being a nuisance, and said that the owners will enforce the provisions. A motion was made and seconded to approve the amended PCD, as recommended. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions. 11 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -4103-C NAME: United Properties - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: United Properties by James Williams PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a single story, 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on this 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related floral merchandise. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of the 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive; two blocks south of West 12th Street and one half block west of South University Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned from R-2 and 0-2 to 0-3 in 1988. The area of 0-3 zoning is located between the commercial property on University Avenue and West 12th Street and the single family Broadmoor North neighborhood. The proposed office, showroom/warehouse occupies a tract on the eastern edge of the 0-3 zoning, adjacent to the C-3 property on University Avenue. There are other vacant 0-3 zoned lots between this site and the single family residential neighborhood. The proposed use appears to be compatible with the neighborhood of adjacent C-3 and 0-3 zoning, and is adequately separated from the residential neighborhood so as not to have a negative impact on the single family homes. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant proposes a total of 35 on-site parking spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped accessible. The number of on-site parking spaces proposed exceeds the April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C ordinance requirement. All parking lot and driveway lighting must be placed so as to reflect away from the nearby residential district. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The landscape strip on the Garfield Drive side of the northern parking lot must be increased to a minimum of six feet. The dumpster or trash receptacle must be oriented away from the street side of the property and must be screened on at least three sides to a height of 8 feet. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct a sidewalk along Garfield Drive. 6. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 10 foot easement along the north, south and east perimeters. Little Rock Municipal Water Works states an acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal connection charge. The sewer main relocation must be approved by the Little Rock Wastewater Utility and completed prior to any construction over the existing main. 7. Analysis The proposal before the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on an 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related merchandise. The ordinance defines an office, showroom/warehouse as a facility for mixed use with the following characteristics: 1. A showroom for display of product line which does not include items for user purchase, except within C-3 General Commercial District. 2. A storage or warehouse facility which occupies not more than 60% of the gross floor area of the structure. 3. The principal office of the business 4. Sales to contractors or other businesses installing or delivering to consumer/user. The site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned to 0-3 in 1988. The 0-3 zoning was approved conditioned upon a preliminary plat with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet being approved by the Planning Commission and a final 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C plat being filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The preliminary plat has been approved. The final plat for the southern lots and the cul-de-sac must be accomplished as a component of this conditional use permit. Although one 0-3 zoned lot separates this site from the nearest single family residential property, the developer should be sensitive to the residential neighborhood in the site design. The loading docks and dumpster are to be located on the southern end of the property which is separated from the nearest single family home by one 120 foot deep lot. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with all provisions established in Ordinance No. 15,447 which rezoned this property to 0-3 on March 15, 1988. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) James Williams and Randy Ashmore were present representing the application. Staff presented the issue and noted several items pertaining to the application. The applicant was advised to provide greater details on the percentage of square footage to be devoted to office, showroom and warehouse. Mr. Williams responded that the exact percentages were not worked out but that the ratio would comply with ordinance standards. In response to a question from staff, Mr. Williams stated that the showroom was designed to display items for wholesale customers and that there would be no retail sales. Staff asked the applicant to also provide details on proposed signage, the height and design of the security fence, the dumpster location and screening, and the parking lot and driveway lighting. Mr. Williams responded that this information would be provided. A discussion then followed concerning the provisions of the 1988 rezoning. The applicant stated that work was progressing on complying with all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that a petition and several letters of opposition had been received. James William addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Williams stated that the building would be roughly divided as follows: 20% office, 35% showroom and 45% warehouse. Mr. Williams continued by stating that it was United Wholesale Florist's intent to be a good neighbor and that his building would, in fact, help screen the neighborhood from the more intense commercial uses on University Avenue. Jody Williams, of 1607 Charlotte, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Williams presented a video showing the neighborhood as well as United Wholesale Florist's current location. She stated that the proposed use would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and would be better located elsewhere. Ms. Williams made reference to the petition and letters of opposition from the neighborhood which had been presented to the Commission. She concluded by stating that the proposed office, showroom/warehouse was too intense of a use for this location, that the proposed use would not serve the neighborhood residents and that the services offered by the proposed business could not even be used by the residents. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield Court, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed use. Ms. Terry stated that she had concerns about truck traffic going through the residential neighborhood to get to the business. She stated that the proposed use was an industrial use and that it would devalue homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wyrick asked staff what route traffic would take to reach the business. Dana Carney pointed out the access route from 12th Street to Cleveland and Northmoor to reach Garfield Court. It was also pointed out that there are two access drives coming off of University Avenue. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a final plat for these lots. 4 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C Pete Hornibrook of Rector Phillips Morse advised the Commission that a final plat had been filed for these lots on Garfield. At commissioner Walker's request, staff reviewed the conditions of the 1988 Rezoning Ordinance. Commissioner Putnam asked the applicant to describe the proposed building. Mr. Hornibrook stated that the building would be of masonry construction and would be an improvement over the current use of the property. James Williams stated that the proposed use is located in an office park location. He stated that the land is currently zoned 0-3, not residential. Mr. Williams continued by stating that the site was chosen due its distance from the adjacent neighborhood. He pointed out that the proposed site is on the east side of the 0-3, office development and will provide a screen from the commercial uses on University Avenue. A motion was then made to approve the application. The vote was 5 ayes, 3 noes, and 3 absent. Since the item failed to receive 6 votes, either for or against, it was automatically deferred to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval. Joe White, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. Mr. White presented a map showing the 0-3 zoned property and the location of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. White also presented an aerial photo of the site showing its relationship to other commercial development in the area. After presenting photographs of the site, Mr. White showed on a plat of the area that the traffic to the proposed development would not go through the residential neighborhood. James Williams, the applicant, next addressed the Commission. Mr. Williams presented drawings of the proposed building location and its relationship to other 0-3 zoned lots. He stated that the nearest residential lot was over 200 feet south of the building. Mr. Williams showed the commissioners proposed elevations of the building as well as drawings comparing the proposed building to United Wholesale Florist's current location. Finally, Mr. Williams gave a brief history of United Wholesale Florist. He stated that A April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C they have been good neighbors at their current location and are planning to continue that relationship with their new neighbors. Pete Hornibrook, of Rector Phillips Morse, next addressed the Commission. He stated that he had met with neighbors and explained the proposal. Mr. Hornibrook stated that he felt some concerns had been addressed. He then presented a letter from Unity Baptist Church stating that the church was not opposed to the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Hornibrook concluded by stating that other sites were considered but none worked as well as this proposed location. Paul Green, of 1311 South Cleveland Street, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal. He stated that he felt the proposed wholesale florist would be better than many other alternatives which could be constructed on the site. Jody Williams, of 1507 Charlotte, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Ms. Williams presented a video of the neighborhood showing the traffic routes to the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. She stated that traffic to the business would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Williams continued by stating that the proposed use is an industrial use and will not serve neighborhood residents. She stated that other locations are more appropriate for this type of industrial use. Ms. Williams stated that although there would be a cul-de-sac on Garfield Street, there would be no protection for the residents on Charlotte from any commercial/industrial traffic. Ms. Williams concluded by stating that the Broadmoor North Bill of Assurance was never amended to allow this office zoning. She stated that she bought her home in this neighborhood never thinking that office/commercial development would take place. Commissioner Chachere asked what effect the Bill of Assurance issue would have on this application. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, responded that he could not speak to that issue and that the City does not enforce Bills of Assurance. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield, next addressed the Commission. She stated that she was for the proposed development if proper buffering and landscaping is required. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Hornibrook if traffic to the proposed office development could be restricted from Charlotte. Mr. Hornibrook responded that signs will be installed to direct traffic away from the residential neighborhood. 0 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C After further discussion, a motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff with one additional condition. The added condition is that the building is to be of masonry construction, designed as presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 2 absent. 7 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z -1791-B Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Char -Beck Trust R. Wingfield Martin Candlewood Area (North of the Kroger on Hwy. 10) Rezone from R-2, R-4 and R-5 to MF -24 and OS Multi -Family 131.82 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 and R-5 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The area under consideration, 132 acres, is currently zoned R-2, R-4 and R-5. The request is to rezone the acreage to MF -24 and OS along a majority of the perimeter of the site. The land area is situated east of Pinnacle Valley Road, north of Hwy. 10 (directly north of the Kroger Center) and west of the Candlewood Subdivision (the end of Rivercrest Drive). The current zoning was approved in 1965 and 1966. In 1984 a PRD was filed for the land, but the plan was never finalized. The surrounding zoning is primarily R-2. Directly to the south, there are some R-5 and 0-2 tracts. There is some commercial zoning, C-3 and PCD, along Hwy. 10. Land use includes single family and commercial. As with the zoning, the commercial uses are found adjacent to Hwy. 10, including the Kroger development and a commercial center on the south side of Hwy. 10. At this time, the adopted land use plan identifies the entire site for single family use, and does not even recognized the existing R-5 zoning. Based on the previous zoning action and the property's location, it appears that increasing the amount of land for multi -family is reasonable. However, without seeing more specifics about a development concept and the land, it would be somewhat premature to establish an overall density of 24 units per April 5, 1994 ITEM NO • 1 Z -1791-B (Cont.) acre. A number of issues, such as topography and circulation, need to be looked at to determine the appropriate density for the site or if a MF -24 density is too high for the area. Another concern that needs to be reviewed is the land use plan and whether a plan amendment is justified. There are too many questions that need be answered before a rezoning of 132 acres to MF -24 can be considered. Staff's position is that the item needs to be deferred to give the city and the applicant more time to study the area and the site. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the River Mountain District. The recommended land use is single family. The proposed density is too high, while some multifamily may be appropriate, a blanket zoning is not. Due to the nature of the site, additional information should be required as to the location, arrangement and number of units. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Engineering is recommending that the dedication of any right-of-way occur through the plat or as part of a site plan review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request be deferred to allow the applicant to submit additional information and/or a plan for the development of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) At the beginning of the hearing, staff informed the Commission that the applicant agreed with deferring the item and requested a 60 day deferral. There were several interested individuals in attendance and they did not object to the deferral. The item was added to the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 28, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The Planning Commission action also waived the bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior to the hearing.) 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z -2970-B Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: various Owners Hawkins -McLane, Inc. by Frank Riggins West 12th and Fair Park (SW Corner) Rezone from R-3 and C-3 to C-1 Retail Drug Store 1.3 acres Single -Family, Office and Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Commercial, zoned C-3 and C-4 South - Single -Family and Office, zoned R-3 and C-3 East - Commercial, zoned C-3 West - Single -Family, zoned R-3 and R-4 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone a total of 15 lots from R-3 and C-3 to C-1 for a large drug store. The property in question is located in the Oak Forest neighborhood and in the block bounded by West 11th, West 12th, Taylor and Fair Park Blvd. At this time, there are several different uses on the site, a residence, a medical office and a commercial user. The two nonresidential uses front on Fair Park. C-1 permits a drug store or pharmacy by -right and the definition is as follows: A facility for preparing, preserving, compounding and dispensing drugs and medicines; and may include the display and sale of other merchandise such as cosmetics, notions, fountain service and similar items. The zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, R-6, 0-1, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2 and PCD. The zoning pattern south of West 12th is more uniform and is primarily residential. North of West 12th, the zoning is a combination of several districts and lacks any consistency. Land use is similar to the zoning and includes single family, multifamily, office, commercial and industrial. As with the zoning, a higher percentage of the nonresidential uses are found north of West 12th. It should April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z -2970-B (Cont.) be pointed out that both the zoning and land use are more homogenous north of West 12th and east of Fair Park. Rezoning the property under consideration to C-1 is a reasonable option for the corner, and staff supports the request. The C-1 purpose and intent section states: The C-1 neighborhood commercial district is designed to accommodate limited retail developments within or adjacent to neighborhood areas for the purpose of supplying daily household needs of the residents for food, drugs and personal services. The district may also be used in conjunction with existing commercial developments as an extension of such established commercial district. The C- 1 neighborhood commercial district shall generally be located at arterial or collector street intersections and within walking distance of residential areas. Such developments shall be designed to accommodate between one (1) to fifteen (15) stores on a site not more than five (5) acres in size. C-1 allows uses which are more appropriate for the entrance to an established neighborhood, and the request will reduce the amount of C-3 along West 12th. Because of the residential uses to the west and south, it is recommend that site plan review be made a condition of the rezoning approval and ordinance. This is to ensure a development that will be compatible with the neighborhood and to help avoid any potential problems. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-630 District. The recommended land use is commercial, office and single family. The use is appropriate; however, efforts should be made to protect the residential uses along Taylor. A careful review including parking, access, signage, lights, loading dock, dumpster and landscaping buffers should be conducted to protect the existing residential fabric. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The existing right-of-way for West 12th does not conform to the Master Street Plan standard. Dedication of an additional 10 feet will be required. K April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z -2970-B (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of C-1 with the requirement for site plan review being a part of the rezoning ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) During the presentation of the Consent Agenda, there was some discussion about this item. Cynthia Fleming, 1219 South Taylor, spoke and said she was concerned with the development of the site. It was explained to Ms. Fleming that her concerns would probably be addressed through the site plan review. After some additional comments, the issue was left on the regular agenda. The application was represented by Jim Hathaway. There were no objectors in attendance. (Cynthia Fleming had to leave before the item was heard by the Commission.) Mr. Hathaway described a conversation he had with Cynthia Fleming and indicated that he had answered a number of Ms. Fleming's questions. He said that her primary concerns were fencing and buffering. Mr. Hathaway went on to say that the applicant is willing to accept the site plan review condition. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said that 13 lots are being rezoned from C-3 to C-1 and only two lots from R-3 to C-1. Mr. Hathaway did point out that some of the C-3 lots are only 25 feet wide. A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-1 rezoning per the staff recommendation (site plan review). The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z -3173-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Joe Gribble Joe D. White. 2600 Block of John Barrow Road Rezone from MF -12 to MF -18 Multi -Family and Nursing Home 30.0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Duplexes, zoned R-4 South - Vacant and Industrial, zoned R-3 and MF -24 East - Single -Family and School, zoned R-2 West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question, 30 plus acres, is currently zoned MF -12, and the request is to reclassify the entire site to MF -18. The immediate proposal, as the staff understands it, is to develop approximately 3.5 acres for a nursing home. In the MF -18 district nursing homes are listed as a conditional use. Therefore, a conditional use permit will also be required for the proposed use, in addition to rezoning the property. The remaining acreage will be utilized for some type of multi -family use. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. Zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R -7A, MF -12, MF -24 and 0-3. The existing MF -24 abuts the acreage on the south and R-5 allows up to 36 units per acre. Currently, the MF -24 site is occupied by a nonconforming industrial use. On the west side of the site, there is a 130 feet R-2 strip, which was left when the property was reclassified to MF -12. This R-2 area separates the multi -family land from the single family neighborhood to the west. Land use includes single family, multi -family, a beauty shop, industrial and Parkview High School. The R-4 lots along Tanya are developed as duplexes. There are vacant buildings and undeveloped land found throughout the area. Based on the land use plan and the existing zoning pattern, a rezoning to MF -18 for the 30 acres is a reasonable zoning change. Allowing the potential for a nursing home and a density of up to 18 units per acres should not create any April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z -3173-A (Cont.) problems for the surrounding properties. The R-2 buffer will remain and the existing zoning configuration along John Barrow Road will be reinforced through this rezoning action. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-430 District. The recommended land use is mixed residential. Multifamily is an appropriate densification in this area, along a major arterial route. ENGINEERING COMMENTS If the existing right-of-way for John Barrow Road is not 45 feet from the centerline, dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the MF -18 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant, Joe White, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. White discussed the site and said the proposed use is elderly housing and a nursing home/living center. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, informed the Commission that Junious Babbs, Jr., principal of Parkview High, was concerned about traffic and how the increase in density would impact the traffic. (Mr. Babbs had been present earlier, but had to leave.) Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, discussed the proposed uses and said they should not generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Henry said the problem on Barrow Road is speed and enforcement of the 20 mile per hour school zone is the issue. Mr. Henry told the Commission that there are no city funds available for traffic signals. Comments were then offered by Diane Chachere, Chairman. Ms. Chachere said Tanya Drive is a major access point into a number of subdivisions and traffic is a major concern. Bill Henry responded to some of Chairman Chachere's comments and discussed the accident rate for the Barrow/Tanya intersection. 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.; 3 Z -3173-A (Cont.) Discussion continued about speed and sight distances on Barrow Road. Comments were also made about the intersections with Barrow Road and the additional problems caused by Parkview High School. Several commissioners also voiced some concerns with increasing the density to MF -18. Joe white spoke again and said the owner is willing to contribute funds toward the construction of a traffic signal. Joe Gribble, the perspective owner, said the site would be developed for a self-care unit, a nursing home and elderly housing. Bill Henry informed the Commission that the cost for a traffic signal is between $60,000 and $70,000. At this point, there was discussion about other options for the site and not having to rezone the entire 30 acres to MF -18. Joe white then amended the application to request MF -18 for only 5 acres in the northeast corner of the property. A motion was made to recommended approval of amended request to MF -18 for the northeast 5 acres. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay and 3 absent. M April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z -4807-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: J. W. Shackleford Winrock Development Company North of the Chenal Parkway and West of St. Charles Rezone from MF -6 and OS to R-2 Single -Family 44.48 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 and MF -6 South - Vacant, zoned MF -18 and 0-3 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned MF -6, MF -18 and 0-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for the 44 acres is to rezone the land from MF -6 and OS to R-2. If the rezoning is granted, the proposal is to plat the property into single family lots, basically a continuation of subdivision pattern found to the east. The land is located north of the Chenal Parkway and directly west of the St. Charles development. In 1989 a total of 172 acres, a portion of the Shackleford Dairy Farm, was rezoned to a number of zoning districts and this area was part of that effort. The OS site was identified as a potential park, but never included on the Master Parks Plan. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, MF -6, MF -18, 0-2, 0-3, C-2, C-3 and PCD. The existing land use is single family, a church, some minor commercial, office and a home center. At this time, a high percentage of the surrounding land is undeveloped, including the MF -18, 0-3 and C-2 sites. Rezoning the 44 acres to R-2 will reinforce the primary residential pattern, conventional single family lots, found in the area, and staff supports the reclassification. There are no outstanding zoning issues associated with this request. April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z -4807-C (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Chenal District. The recommended land use is single family. There is no issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R-2 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the R-2 rezoning. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5805 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ronnie wells Bill McClard 11,820 Chicot Road Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Industrial 4.24 acres Vacant and Office warehouse SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family South - Vacant, zoned East - Vacant, zoned West - Vacant, zoned STAFF ANALYSIS and Vacant Building, zoned R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 11,820 Chicot Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the site to I-2. The property, or at least a portion, has nonconforming status and is currently occupied by an office warehouse. There is one building on the site and a majority of it is undeveloped. The property has 85 feet of frontage on Chicot and a depth of approximately 755 feet. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-7 and C-3. The property in question is surrounded by R-2 zoning, and residentially zoned land accounts for 98% of the area. Land use is almost exclusively residential, either single family or a large mobile home park. There are two minor non- residential uses found along Chicot and both are nonconforming. One is an industrial operation and the other is a small commercial user. what is being proposed with this I-2 rezoning proposal is inappropriate for the location. The industrial reclassification is not supported by the adopted plan and an undesirable zoning pattern would be created if the I-2 is granted. An I-2 rezoning of the four acres would be a spot zoning, a concept that the city always tries to discourage, and could have a very adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. The direction of the land use plan will be reinforced by maintaining the R-2 zoning. Also, the residential character of the area will be strengthened by denying the requested industrial rezoning. April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5805 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The recommended land use is single family. With the existing surrounding use pattern, there is no justification to change the plan to industrial. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way standard for Chicot Road is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is needed because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had verbally requested a deferral at the beginning of the hearing. There were no objectors present and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the May 17, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior to the meeting.) 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5808 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: International Paper Company Muskie Harris Asher Avenue and Adams Street Rezone from I-2 to C-3 Private Club 1.71 acres Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Mixed, zoned C-3 South - Vacant and Industrial, zoned I-2 East - Vacant Buildings, zoned I-2 West - Mixed, zoned I-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The site in question, the southwest corner of Asher Avenue and Adams, is zoned I-2, and the request is to rezone the property to C-3. At this time, the proposed use is a private club. There is a metal warehouse type structure on the back portion of site and the remainder of the area is paved. The property has 200 feet of frontage on Asher and 295 feet along Adams. Zoning in this area is typical for the Asher and includes R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2 and I-3. The existing residential zoning is found north of Asher. On the south side of Asher, there is no established pattern and the zoning is C-3, I-2 and I-3. The property in question abuts I-2 on three sides and across Asher, the zoning is C-3. Land use in the general vicinity is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial. In the immediate area there are no residences or dwelling units that have Asher frontage. There are vacant buildings and some undeveloped land found throughout the neighborhood. Over the years, the city has endorsed a zoning pattern of C-3, C-4, and I-2 for a majority of the Asher corridor. What is being proposed with this request will continue the accepted zoning standard and reinforce the mixed land use concept along Asher. A C-3 reclassification conforms to the adopted plan and the rezoning should not create any problems for the surrounding properties. April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5808 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the I-630 District. The plan recommends commercial to the east and industrial to the south and west. There is no issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Asher Avenue has a right-of-way standard of 35 feet from the centerline. Dedication will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The C-3 rezoning request was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson). E April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 7 Z-5810 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Davis Investment Trust Atley G. Davis South Shackleford Road Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Industrial 30.0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2, I-1 and OS South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant and Industrial, zoned R-2 and I-1 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone a 30 acre site from R-2 to I-2. At this time, no specific use or user has been identified by the applicant. The property is situated on South Shackleford, about midway between Colonel Glenn Road and Stagecoach Road (Hwy. No. 5). The acreage has almost 1,000 feet of frontage on Shackleford and a depth of 1,315 feet. The property is vacant and wooded. Zoning in the general vicinity is either R-2 or I-1. There is also some OS zoning adjacent to several of the industrial tracts. The property in question abuts R-2 and I-1 zoning. Directly to the west, across South Shackleford, the zoning is also R-2 and I-1. Land use is single family, some minor industrial and the Waterworks/Waste water maintenance facility. A high percentage of the land is still undeveloped, including the area to the south and a large tract to the northwest. The current West 65th Street Plan does not show the 30 acres for industrial use; the land use plan identifies the site as part of a multi -family area. The plan reinforces the existing zoning and shows the industrial area stopping along the north property line and follows the zoning lines on the west side of Shackleford. At this time, staff's position is that adequate justification for an additional 30 acres of industrial zoning has not been provided and the land use plan should be maintained. Expanding the industrial zoning April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 7 Z-5810 (Cont.) could also have an adverse on the single family subdivision to the east and north. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the 65th Street West District. The plan recommends multifamily use. Staff cannot, at this time, recommend such a major change in the plan. If the Commission wishes Planning Staff will conduct a review of the larger area. Any such review should be allowed three to six months. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way standard for South Shackleford is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant, Atley Davis, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Davis discussed his request and described the area. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis said that he would be willing to consider I-1 and an OS buffer. Staff suggested a 100 foot OS area adjacent to the existing R-2 on the north and east sides. Mr. Davis then amended the request to I-1 and OS. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended application to I-1 with a 100 foot OS area on the north and east sides (only adjacent to R-2). The vote was 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The item was deferred to the May 17, 1994 meeting because the motion failed to receive a majority vote. K April 5, 1994 Item No.: 8 File No. G-23-208 Name:' Block 3, Oak Forest Addition Exclusive Alley Abandonment Location: Block 3, Oak Forest Addition; Southwest corner of West 12th Street and Fair Park Boulevard Owner/Atmlicant: Various owners by Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm Recruest 1. To abandon a 10 feet, east/west alley adjacent to Lots 16-22, Block 3, Oak Forest Addition AND To abandon that portion of a 20 foot, north/south alley adjacent to Lots 1-7, 16, 17 and the north 25 feet of Lot 15, Block 3, Oak Forest Addition 2. To abandon all public utility easements located within the above described alley rights-of-way This application is associated with zoning case Z -2970-B, a request to rezone the adjoining property from R-3 and C-3 to C-1. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way Initial review by other departments reflects no public need for these alley rights-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for these alley rights-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets Fair Park Blvd. and West 12th Street are both classified as minor arterial streets with a reduced right-of-way. Even so, additional right-of-way may be needed to comply with the Master Street Plan. April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) G-23-208 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Although platted, the 10 foot, east/west alley has never been developed. The right-of-way is covered with grass and brush. The 20 foot, north/south alley is paved but in disrepair. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of the alleys and easements will be incorporated into a proposed new commercial development, Walgreens. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect One residence, a liquor store and an optometrist's office abut the portions of alley proposed for abandonment. These uses will be removed and a new, commercial building constructed in their place. Two residences, an antique shop and a dentist's office abut the portion of the north/south alley which will remain open. Access to this end of the alley will remain open from West 13th Street. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All owner's of property abutting any portion of the alleys will be notified of the proposed abandonment. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities At the time of this writing, all public utility companies have approved the abandonment of the alley rights-of-way. However, all utility companies have not approved the abandonment of easements and relocation of facilities. This must be resolved prior to the Board of Director's hearing. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to the adjoining property owners. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandonment of these alley rights-of-way will not have a negative effect on the public welfare and safety. If the relocation of the public utilities can be resolved, K April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) G-23-208 the abandonment of the easement will have no effect on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approvals of the request to abandon the alley rights-of-way. Staff recommends approval of the request to abandon the utility easements only if all utility companies will agree to a relocation arrangement with the applicant. PLANN_I_NG COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) This application was discussed with Item No. 2, Zoning Case Z -2970-B, a request to rezone the adjoining property from R-3 and C-3 to C-1. The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One neighborhood resident was present seeking further information on the proposed commercial development. After discussion of the proposed C-1 rezoning, a motion was made to recommend approval of the abandonment of the alleys. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. 3 0 cc 0 w cc W 0 Z 0 0 z E z a a I 4 :. I z LU Q N LU r Q z i LU Q a 11111111 No N M Boom P I IN I III Olin Ilium V- I IN 11110111111 1111111,1111911 IN =us= MM I v NONNI I Moolill 11111 1 MEM N a z y z F �_ w 4 :. I z LU Q N LU r Q z i LU Q N P V- v N a z y z F �_ w � Lu z CC ZQ J I-} W p �- W O�� -� j �z J pQ Z� W J p Y co m M w m a Q W w w� Z Y O C- Z CC S Uj Q O O U Q p J� Y :E :E JQ�p=WpC�zO _j 2ZO ��cw3�: 4 :. I z LU Q N LU r Q z i LU Q April 5, 1994 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Date 61 cretary Chairman