The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpc_05 30 1995LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD MAY 30, 1995 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum ,y A Quorum was present being six (6) in number. ty, . ( ) II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Commission approved the minutes of the April 18, 1995 Planning Commission meeting by a unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Pam Adcock Joe Selz Ramsay Ball Bill Putnam Brad Walker Doyle Daniel Diane Chachere Ron Woods Suzanne McCarthy Emmett Willis Mizan Rahman City Attorney: None in Attendance LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA MAY 30, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS. A. Kingwood Place Subdivision, Lots F1 and F2 - a waiver of Subdivision Regulations (5 -1059) II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z- 3434 -A 8623 Asher Avenue C -3 to C -4 2. Z- 5549 -A 4709 West 65th St. C -4 to C -3 3. Z -5986 6603 Asher Avenue C -3 to C -4 4. Z -5989 1401 Battery R -3 to 0-1 5. Z -5990 900 Blk. Autumn Rd. R -2 to 0-3 west side of street 6. Z -5987 10420 Helm Drive R -2 to C -4 7. Z -5991 villages of Wellington various zones at west end of to R -2, MF -12, St. Charles Blvd. MF -18, 0-1, O -2, C -1 III. OTHER MATTERS 8. G -23 -234 Unnamed right -of -way abandonment described as 90 ft. right -of -way located in the South 1/2, SW 1/4 Section 31, T -2 -N, R -13 -W, Pulaski County, Arkansas. 9. G -23 -235 Block 214, Original City Alley Abandonment, described as a 20 ft. alley right -of -way located between West 15th and West 16th, West of Arch Street. 10. G -40 -12 West Highway 10, Suburban Water District Improvement District No. 344, described as generally along and either side of State Highway 10, from Morgan Cemetery Road to 011ie Lane. 11. Master Street Amendment - Wellington Subdivision Area, west of St. Charles Addition /Chenal May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S -1059 NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION, LOTS F1 AND F2 -- WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOCATION: At the northwest quadrant of the Sunset Circle cul -de- sac, at #7 Sunset Circle DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• H. Bradley Walker Joe White WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 666 -4242 374 -1666 AREA: 0.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R -2 PROPOSED USES: Single - Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the pipestem lot restriction STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a "lot split" to divide his nearly 1 -acre lot into two. The proposal involves creating a "front" lot which contains an existing single - family residence and which would have 61.16 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle with approximately 0.46 acres (20,015 square feet ±) of area, and a second lot which would be a "pipestem" lot. This pipestem lot would contain approximately 0.50 acres (21,803 square feet ±), with nearly 0.4 acres being in the main body of the lot to the "rear" of the front lot and 0.1 acre being in the pipestem portion. The pipestem is proposed to be 20 feet in width and be approximately 240 feet long. It is to lie along the south property line, and is designed to provide the required access to the rear building site. Approval of lot splits are delegated by the Planning Commission to staff for approval, but since the Subdivision Regulations restrict the creation of pipestem lots, the applicant requests a waiver of the restriction to enable staff to approve the proposed lot split. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: The applicant requires a waiver of the restriction on the creation of pipestem lots in order for the proposed lot split to be approved. Review by the Planning Commission of May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: S -1059 the needed waiver, and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing residence on the property which is located, after demolition work and remodeling, to permit a drive along the south property line for access to a second building site at the "rear" of the home. The area proposed for the second building site is heavily wooded. The property is zoned R -2, with R -2 being the zoning on all surrounding properties. C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments that the pipestem needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in width, at least at the street right - of -way, to provide sufficient room within the second lot's street frontage for the driveway apron, mail box, garbage container, etc. The location of the driveways, aprons, and mailboxes for both lots must be shown. D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN: The applicant has requested the Code provides that "the delegates to and designates authority for approving lot being split into two (2) lo- be governed by the lot size ordinance classification of a "lot split ". Sec. 31 -143 of Planning Commission hereby the Planning Director the splits, where a single lot ... is ts. The minimum lot size shall specified by the zoning the subject property." The R -2 zoning district (Sec. 36 -254) requires a minimum of 7,000 square feet for single - family lots. Sec. 31 -231 states that "every lot shall abut upon a public street... ", and Sec. 36 -254 states that, in the R -2 zoning district, "there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than sixty (60) feet...." A "Pipestem Lot" is defined (in Sec. 31 -2) as one with a narrow street frontage and a disproportionately wider rear yard. Sec. 31- 231(8) states that "pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions ". E. ANALYSIS• The Planning Commission has delegated the responsibility for approving lot splits to the Planning Director, and the requested lot split could be approved at staff level, except for one of the lots being proposed not having the required 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: S -1059 minimum lot frontage on the public street. Each of the lots meet the requirement of the R -2 zoning district, since each lot will contain over 20,000 square feet; however, the Subdivision Regulations prohibit pipestem lots, and require each lot to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street. A waiver from the Board of Directors of this restriction is required for each lot to have the required frontage on Sunset Circle and for the lot to be divided. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the Board's consideration in granting or denying the waiver. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed pipestem lot, subject to the plat being amended to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage for the pipestem at the Sunset Dr. right -of -way line, and subject to the Public Works approval of the location of the driveway from the proposed Lot F1. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Mr. Joe White, Jr., with White - Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and explained the requested waiver. The proposed "Final Plat" was presented to the Committee, and the Committee members reviewed the plat with staff and Mr. White. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the request, and vice - Chairperson Willis, noting the number of persons wishing to speak on the item, moved directly to the objectors for their presentations. Mr. Charles A. Brown, an attorney representing neighbors, spoke in objection to the proposed lot split. He reviewed the requested action in relation to the character of the surrounding residential lots, saying that it is not in keeping with this existing development. Ms. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Barbara Thurman, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Yvonne Law, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. 3 May 30, 1995 Cont. FILE NO.: S -1059 Dr. Reed Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He said that, in addition to the points cited by the previous neighbors, there are legal issues which would prohibit the lot split. He said that, although the Bill of Assurance has expired, there is a legally binding document, executed by all the property owners in the past, which is still binding, and which prohibits lot splits. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split, saying that pipestem lots are bad planning. Mr. Joe Scerbo, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Vice - Chairperson Willis called on Mr. Randy Ensminger, who had completed a registration card, indicating opposition to the request; however, Mr. Ensminger had left the meeting. Ms. Margaret Ensminger, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Lt. Col (Ret.) Bynon Magness, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He again dealt with the deed restrictions which are binding on the lots in the area, and which restrict lot splits. Ms. Jane Cozort, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Lisbeth Ensminger, a former Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Bonni Leeh, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. With the number of Commissioners present reduced to 5, a motion was made and seconded to defer, as a procedural matter, further consideration of the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The motion to defer the item was approved with the vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 6 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S -1059 NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION, LOTS F1 AND F2 -- WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOCATION: At the northwest quadrant of the Sunset Circle cul -de- sac, at #7 Sunset Circle 4 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: S -1059 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• H. Bradley Walker Joe White WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 666 -4242 374 -1666 AREA: 0.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R -2 PROPOSED USES: Single - Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the pipestem lot restriction STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a "lot split" to divide his nearly 1 -acre lot into two. The proposal involves creating a "front" lot which contains an existing single - family residence and which would have 61.16 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle with approximately 0.46 acres (20,015 square feet ±) of area, and a second lot which would be a "pipestem" lot. This pipestem lot would contain approximately 0.50 acres (21,803 square feet ±), with nearly 0.4 acres being in the main body of the lot to the "rear" of the front lot and 0.1 acre being in the pipestem portion. The pipestem is proposed to be 20 feet in width and be approximately 240 feet long. It is to lie along the south property line, and is designed to provide the required access to the rear building site. Approval of lot splits are delegated by the Planning Commission to staff for approval, but since the Subdivision Regulations restrict the creation of pipestem lots, the applicant requests a waiver of the restriction to enable staff to approve the proposed lot split. A. PROPOSAL /REQUEST: The applicant requires a waiver of the restriction on the creation of pipestem lots in order for the proposed lot split to be approved. Review by the Planning Commission of the needed waiver, and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing residence on the property which is located, after demolition work and remodeling, to permit a 5 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -1059 drive along the south property line for access to a second building site at the "rear" of the home. The area proposed for the second building site is heavily wooded. The property is zoned R -2, with R -2 being the zoning on all surrounding properties. C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the pipestem needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in width, at least at the street right - of -way, to provide sufficient room within the second lot's street frontage for the driveway apron, mail box, garbage container, etc. The location of the driveways, aprons, and mailboxes for both lots must be shown. D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN: The applicant has requested the Code provides that "the delegates to and designates authority for approving lot being split into two (2) to be governed by the lot size ordinance classification of a "lot split ". Sec. 31 -143 of Planning Commission hereby the Planning Director the splits, where a single lot ... is ts. The minimum lot size shall specified by the zoning the subject property." The R -2 zoning district (Sec. 36 -254) requires a minimum of 7,000 square feet for single- family lots. Sec. 31 -231 states that "every lot shall abut upon a public street...", and Sec. 36 -254 states that, in the R -2 zoning district, "there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than sixty (60) feet...." A "pipestem Lot" is defined (in Sec. 31 -2) as one with a narrow street frontage and a disproportionately wider rear yard. Sec. 31- 231(8) states that "pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions ". E. ANALYSIS• The Planning Commission has delegated the responsibility for approving lot splits to the Planning Director, and the requested lot split could be approved at staff level, except for one of the lots being proposed not having the required minimum lot frontage on the public street. Each of the lots meet the requirement of the R -2 zoning district, since each lot will contain over 20,000 square feet; however, the Subdivision Regulations prohibit pipestem lots, and require each lot to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street. A waiver from the Board of Directors of this restriction is required for each lot to have the required 0 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO. S -1059 frontage on Sunset Circle and for the lot to be divided. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the Board's consideration in granting or denying the waiver. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed pipestem lot, subject to the plat being amended to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage for the pipestem at the Sunset Dr. right -of -way line, and subject to the Public Works approval of the location of the driveway from the proposed Lot F1. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 15, 1995) Mr. Joe White, Jr., with White- Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and explained the requested waiver. The proposed "Final Plat" was presented to the Committee, and the Committee members reviewed the plat with staff and Mr. White. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the request, and Vice - Chairperson Willis, noting the number of persons wishing to speak on the item, moved directly to the objectors for their presentations. Mr. Charles A. Brown, an attorney representing neighbors, spoke in objection to the proposed lot split. He reviewed the requested action in relation to the character of the surrounding residential lots, saying that it is not in keeping with this existing development. Ms. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Barbara Thurman, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Yvonne Law, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Dr. Reed Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He said that, in addition to the points cited by the previous neighbors, there are legal issues which would prohibit the lot split. He said that, although the Bill of Assurance has expired, there is a legally binding document, executed by all the property owners in the past, which is still binding, and which prohibits lot splits. 7 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: 5 -1059 Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split, saying that pipestem lots are bad planning. Mr. Joe Scerbo, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Vice - Chairperson Willis called on Mr. Randy Ensminger, who had completed a registration card, indicating opposition to the request; however, Mr. Ensminger had left the meeting. Ms. Margaret Ensminger, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Lt. Col (Ret.) Bynon Magness, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He again dealt with the deed restrictions which are binding on the lots in the area, and which restrict lot splits. Ms. Jane Cozort, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Lisbeth Ensminger, a former Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Bonni Leeh, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. With the number of Commissioners present reduced to 5, a motion was made and seconded to defer, as a procedural matter, further consideration of the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The motion to defer the item was approved with the vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 6 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item and indicated that, because of the lack of a quorum when the item was heard at the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing, the members present had voted to defer the item to the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. Mr. Joe White, representing the applicant, presented the applicant's request. (Chairperson Walker, the applicant, left the room, and was not present for the hearing of the item.) He pointed out that the applicant's current lot is nearly 1 acre is size, and that, with the lot split, each of the new lots would exceed 20,000 square feet of area. The minimum lot size for an R -2 residential area, as provided for in the Zoning Regulations, is 7,000 square feet; for an R -1 area, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. Each of the two new lots, he said, would meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations except for the waiver of the pipestem prohibition which was being 0 May 30, 1995 A Cont. FILE NO.: S -1059 requested. Mr. white explained that there had been, even as late as the previous evening, negations for access to an abutting tract to the west, and that, if these negations were successful, the request for a pipestem waiver would be withdrawn. There was discussion involving several Commissioners on whether the hearing on the item should be deferred to permit negotiation to continue, which, if successful, would make the hearing on the pipestem waiver moot. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the item; however, when the applicant indicated that a deferral was not being requested, a motion was made, seconded, and approved to expunge the motion to defer the hearing. Mr. Charles Brown, Attorney, representing the residents along Sunset Circle, spoke in opposition to the requested waiver. He questioned the applicant's motivation in seeking the pipestem, saying that the neighbors suspected that the applicant was attempting, by way of the pipestem, to provide access to the abutting tract to the west, and, thereby, be able to develop that property. He questioned whether the pipestem waiver was the extent of the waivers which are required by the Regulations. He pointed out that the existing Lot F has 61.16 feet plus 27.38 feet of frontage along Sunset Circle; that if 30 feet for the flared pipestem is deducted from this, the remaining frontage is less than 60 feet, and this reduced frontage does not provide the required minimum frontage, as prescribed by the Subdivision Regulations, for the Lot F1. He said that an additional waiver, then, is required to permit Lot F -1 to have less than 60 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle. He quoted the Subdivision Regulations which state that all lots must have frontage on a public street, except where the Planning Commission approves a private street, and said that the rear lot, Lot F2, would have to have a street constructed to it in order to meet the Regulations. He said that the applicant must show that there is sufficient reason, a "real burden ", to justify waiving the Regulations which have been adopted as the standard for development in the City, and suggested that this has not been done. He said that the proposed lot split would create lots which are out of character with the neighborhood. He complained that development of the rear lot would cause a house on that lot to face the rear of other houses in the neighborhood instead of towards a street, which is the way houses are supposed to face. Mr. Brown related that, indeed, in the original Bill of Assurance, the lettered lots were permitted to be subdivided; however, he said, a few years later, the owners of the lettered lots along Sunset Circle entered into an agreement that prohibits subdivision of their lots. This agreement, he said, is binding on Lot F. This prohibition, he maintained, showed the commitment of the owners of the lots along Sunset Circle to retaining the large -lot character of their neighborhood. 0 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: 5 -1059 Staff explained that the Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31- 232(b), provides that the width of the lot is measured at the building line, and that the dimension of Lot F -1 at the building line, meets the Regulations. No waiver is needed for the width of Lot F -1. Staff also explained that the pipestem provides the required frontage on a public street; that this is the reason for the requested waiver, and that, with the pipestem frontage, a private driveway, not a street, will be constructed in the pipestem to the building site of Lot F2. Staff explained that the pipestem would provide access for one building site; that it could not be used for access to abutting property to the west for additional development. Staff explained that, indeed, the abutting tract to the west could be combined with Lot F -2, but that such a combination would still only provide one building site. Ms. Yvonnie Law, an owner of the abutting property on Sunset Circle, reiterated her opposition to the requested waiver, repeating her position from the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing, adding, however, that if Tract F were not divided, then the needed access to Tract M would be granted. Mr. White responded that, if indeed, the access to Tract M were provided off Pine Valley Rd., then the applicant was prepared to withdraw the lot split - pipestem waiver request. Mr. Charles Ensminger, an area property owner, living on Pine Valley Rd., asked that all the persons in attendance who are in opposition to the requested action to stand. (A number of persons stood.) He voiced his opposition to the change which was being proposed, and urged the Commission to deny the waiver. Mr. Joe Scerbo, an owner of a home on Sunset Circle, reiterated his opposition to the proposed development, and questioned staff on the meaning of the Subdivision Regulations relative to width of the lot being measured at the building line versus at the right -of -way and the ability of the pipestem to provide access to Tract M to the west. He said that it was not fair to measure the width of the lot at the building line, but to measure the width of the pipestem at the right -of -way. Staff responded that the pipestem could, if approved, provide access to build one home only; that subdivision of Tract M, with access to Tract M being provided by the pipestem, would require a public hearing. Mr. Scerbo said that he suspected that the applicant had ulterior motives in requesting the pipestem, and said that he suspected that development to the west would involve extending Sunset Circle to the west, allowing persons to have the prestige of a Sunset Circle address. This would destroy the character of the existing cul -de -sac street. 10 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 Mrs. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle property owner, spoke in opposition to the requested action. Mrs. Sandy Magness, an owner of a home immediately next door to the applicant's, spoke in opposition to the requested action. Ms. Jan Cozort, a Sunset Circle homeowner, spoke in opposition to the proposed action. Lt. Col. (Retired) Byron Magness, an owner of the property immediately adjacent to the applicant's, spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Bonnie Peek, a Sunset Circle homeowner, spoke in opposition to the request. She related that her husband, Richard Peek, is a surgeon, and could not be present, but that she, her husband, and her children opposed the waiver. Mr. White pointed out that pipestem lots are not unusual; that they are provided in the plats for Chenal, for Foxcroft, for St. Charles, etc., and that they are routinely approved in subdivisions. The motion made earlier to grant a deferral of the item was called. vice- Chairperson Willis determined that the deferral would be until the May 30, 1995 Commission hearing, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent (Walker). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Planning Commission was advised by staff that there was a letter of request from the applicant that this item be withdrawn from further consideration. In addition to that, the staff pointed out that there was a requirement for a bylaw waiver on the receipt of the letter requesting the withdrawal. The bylaws require a 5 day minimum submittal time. This letter received 4 days. Staff pointed out that there were no objectors present in attendance at this time. They left the meeting earlier when they determined that the matter had been withdrawn. The Commission then determined that the first item of business would be a vote to waive the bylaws and a motion to that effect was made and passed unanimously. A motion was then offered to accept the withdrawal of this item from further consideration. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nay, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Brad Walker). 11 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 Z- 3434 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Freddie H. Reed Freddie H. Reed 8623 Asher Avenue Rezone from C -3 to C -4 Utility Trailer Sales 1.11 acres Vacant, mostly tree covered with parking lot violation. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Rosedale Optimist Club and Commercial, zoned R -2 and C -3 South - Deep Residential Lots, zoned R -2 East - Office /Commercial, zoned C -1 West - Commercial, zoned C -3 STAFF ANALYSIS The subject site is a vacant parcel adjacent to Mr. Reed's business. Currently, he is using the site as unpaved parking for some of his employees or customers cars. Mr. Reed proposes to display and sell trailers on this lot which would be an expansion of his current business. The current land use and zoning in the area is mixed, with most of the former residential properties along Asher having been converted to other use. The corner at Manor Avenue, to the east, has been converted from a neighborhood church to a marketing /office use. This strip of Asher is a good example of a former primary highway commercial in transition. The only C -4 zoning in this area is a small piece at the Elm Street intersection and a couple of tracts one -half block east of Manor Avenue. However, there are several C -4 uses nearby including Mr. Reeds current small engine repair adjacent on the west. Others are a welding shop, auto sales and garage. A recent attempt to rezone a part of the lot immediately across Asher Avenue was unsuccessful. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 Z- 3434 -A ___Cont. A used car, C -4 application was denied around the corner on Barrow Road earlier this year. The only negative effect for residential that staff observed is the lots abutting this property on the south and at the southeast corner. some separation of use is appropriate. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is located in the Boyle Park District. The Plan recommends Commercial. A "C -4" use next to single family is not desirable, therefore a buffer is recommended adjacent to the single family use area. ENGINEERING COMMENTS, 1. Dedicate Asher Avenue right -of -way to 45 feet from centerline. 2. With future construction: a. Street widening to 33 feet from centerline. b. One driveway to be allowed on frontage. C. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. d. AHTO approval of work in the Asher right -of -way. e. vicinity information and base flood elevation data or floodplain certification prior to city permitting any development on this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the application subject to right -of -way dedication and provision of a 50 foot "OS" zone along the south property line and extending north along the east line for 109 feet, behind the residential lot. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The staff offered its recommendation on this matter which was a modified approval of the requested rezoning to C -4. Staff pointed out that its recommendation for a 50 foot OS strip along the south and east property line is to serve as a undisturbed buffer area between a potential residential area on large deep lots. The Chairman then asked the applicant, Mr. Reed, to come forward and present his comments. Mr. Reed indicated that he is the owner of the residential property lying to the rear of this rezoning site. He indicated that there was a floodplain property and a water flow area along the rear of 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 Z- 3434 -A Cont. this rezoning site that in some respects act as a buffer area. He pointed out that there were no existing residences in close proximity to the rear of this property. But in fact, there were two 75 foot wide and very deep lots running between the single family homes and the back of his property. Mr. Reed pointed out that this low lying area would probably not ever be used for anything unless someone could build it up and deal with the drainage problem. Chairman Walker raised the question of dedicating the floodway to the City in as much as Mr. Reed owned that property. The staff pointed out that this was not floodway but floodplain area; therefore, there is no dedication requirement. There was then a brief discussion of combining several of Mr. Reed's properties to move the buffering effect further to the south and in fact give him better utilization of the requested zoning site. It was pointed out that properties south of the C -4 application were not included in the application. Mr. Reed pointed out that he did recognize that there was a residence that reared upon his east property line at the south corner, and there needed to be a buffer there undisturbed. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that there was one adjacent resident that called and indicated that she definitely wanted an undisturbed strip to the rear of her residence to provide some shielding or separation from the new activity. A brief discussion then followed involving staff, the Chairman and Mr. Reed. The result being that Mr. Reed understood that this recommendation of staff did not lock him down permanently as to the use of his land. He did have options to return in some future point and include other owned properties or modify the existing application. Wood stated that the C -4 zoning which has been requested and supported by staff does include a lot of uses that would not be appropriate adjacent to single family residential areas such as mobile home sales lots and uses that would create noise and other disturbances. Commissioner Adcock then asked a question of Mr. Reed as to whether his proposal to sell trailers also included their manufacture, assembly or other activities. Mr. Reed responded by saying that his business sells trailers and they do not manufacture them. The Chairman then instructed Mr. Reed that he was in charge of his own application. It was his option as to whether he wanted the Commission to vote on the application as filed, except the staff's recommendation or offer some other approach. 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 Z- 3434 -A (Cont.) Mr. Reed stated that he would accept the staff. The Chairman offered the for a vote. It was pointed out that turned in. An objection from a Mrs. property on Manor Drive to the south buffer relationship. the recommendation of item to the Commission there was one card Dorothy Kinney who owns and east requested the The item placed before the Commission was approval of the C -4 application with the buffer along the south line and a portion of the southeasterly property line. A vote on the application produced a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe and 3 absent. 4 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2 Z- 5549 -A Owner: Metropolitan National Bank Applicant: Metropolitan National Bank by Becky Kuykendall, Vice President Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: 4709 West 65th Street Rezone from C -4 to C -3 Church 1.03 acres Church building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Industrial, zoned I -2 South - Single - Family, zoned R -2 East - Commercial, zoned C -4 West - Commercial, zoned C -3 STAFF ANALYSIS, The subject site is one of several large commercial lots with a long history of use change, legal challenge to the zoning regulations and neighborhood concern about use. The current use mix in this area ranges from single family on the south, to truck terminals, restaurants, adult bookstores and apartments. The intended use of this former commercial building is a church. This use typically falls within a residential classification. However, the rezoning of °R -211 or other residential districts on this lot would be inconsistent with the adopted Plan and would require still another hearing process for site plan. The downzoning from C -4 to C -3 will permit the use byright. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT This site is within the Geyer Springs East plan area and is shown as Mixed Commercial and Industrial. There is no land use issue. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2 Z- 5549 -A (Cont.) ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Sidewalks require repair and there is a four (4) foot section of curb missing. 2. Install handicap ramp transitions at the driveways. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Planning Commission received the staff recommendation of approval of this application with commentary that there were no objectors either in writing or in attendance. The Commission determined that it is appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The application was approved as submitted by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent. 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3 Z -5986 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Gunnison, Inc. Terry Nagel 6603 Asher Avenue Rezone from C -3 to C -4 Parts store and auto repair 2.14 acres Mobile Home Park SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Commercial, zoned C -3 South - Vacant Land, zoned I -2 East - Commercial, zoned C -4 West - Industrial, zoned C -3 STAFF ANALYSIS This applicant proposes to build a modern auto parts, sales and automotive repair facility on a site that is now devoted to a mobile home park, which will be removed. The immediate area has a long history of auto related business and other highway service uses. Many of those uses have been replaced with general retail such as the Kroger Store and Wal -Mart leaving a scattering of C -4 activity. The removal of the mobile homes and a general cleanup of the property could be a positive for this block, especially if a companion action were to occur on the auto parts salvage tract next door. Zoning in the area is all C -3, C -4 or I -2 which suggests a change to C -4 is appropriate. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT This site is located in the Boyle Park District. The Plan recommends Commercial. There is no land use issue. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3 Z -5986 Cont. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Dedicate right -of -way to 45 feet from centerline of Asher Avenue. 2. With construction on -site, a. Street widening to 33 feet from centerline b. Sidewalk on frontage C. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. d. AHTO approval of work in the Asher Avenue right - of -way is required. e. A grading permit for special flood hazard area is required. f. A development permit is required prior to starting work. g. One driveway per lot is permitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the requested C -4 District plus dedication of right -of -way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Planning Commission received the staff's recommendation of approval with comments that there were no objectors either in writing or in attendance. There being no other issues to discuss the Planning Commission determined it to be appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent. 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z -5989 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Dr. William H. and Ron Woods Dr. William H. and Ron Woods 1401 Battery Street Rezone from R -3 to 0-1 Office Occupancy 521 X 105' or .12 acres Residential, rental SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Multifamily, zoned R -3 South - Single - Family, zoned R -3 East - Single- Family, zoned R -3 West - Single - Family and Multifamily, zoned R -3 STAFF ANALYSIS, The subject site lies experiencing problems public and commercial south of West 14th St apartment, duplex and block south. within an area of the City which is with the housing stock, deteriorating buildings. The land use and zoning reet is residential with a mix of one family with a park in the next The only break in the land use is a small mortuary at 16th Street. The land use and zoning to the north is generally R -3 and R -5 with a grocery store at 12th Street and Battery. Given the zoning and use mix with the problems this neighborhood is working to resolve, it does not need another nonresidential use. This is especially the case when the site at issue is substandard for a residential lot in size and has no potential for provision of off - street parking. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Central City District. The Plan recommends single family use. Conditions have not changed to justify a change to a nonresidential use. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z -5989 (Cont.) ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Provide handicap access ramps at corner. 2. Repair curb and sidewalks adjacent to the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial of the application PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, presented the item offering the staff's recommendation of denial of this application. Wood expanded on this written staff recommendation to say that this is an area of the city currently experiencing a number of significant problems. They range from crime to abandoned houses and boarded and secured structures which are in the process of being saved. Wood indicated that the staff's position of denial of the application is based upon a desire to maintain the nonresidential uses to the north of 14th Street and in other areas where they are currently located. Wood pointed out that south of 14th Street there is very little in the way of nonresidential. The introduction of further nonresidential activities such as office uses could perhaps be detrimental to the neighborhood and its efforts. The Chairman then recognized a representative of the owner, Juania Freeman. Ms. Freeman offered some historical notes on the ownership of the property. It having been purchased in 1988 and the continuing history of poor maintenance by the renters of the property and the difficulty in keeping the structure occupied with responsible parties. She offered commentary on the condition of the neighborhood as to how it is deteriorating. She indicated that with this difficult neighborhood and with the tenant situation that the owner felt like that the best thing at this time would be perhaps to occupy a portion of the building with his architectural firm; thereby, offering to upgrade the structure and provide maintenance. In response to a question from the Chairman, she stated that there was no significant modification of the structure proposed. Commissioner Chachere then offered several comments relative to this use and other nonresidential uses nearby. She indicated her experience with the neighborhood and that her office is just a couple blocks to the east. In replying to Commissioner Chachere, Richard Wood of Staff again offered a basis for the recommendation and some history on the E May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z -5989 Cont. expansion of office type uses relative to the former Baptist Hospital location. Commissioner Chachere then offered comments as to her knowledge of a number of businesses such as the beauty shop, approximately two blocks to the east and other business eastward from there to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. She expressed some curiosity as to why this was inappropriate when properties that close had been approved by the Commission and the Board in recent times. Wood pointed out that it was actually a little more than a couple of blocks to the east, and there was an old commercial established area that had been there for many years which runs back to the east to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive along 14th Street. Commissioner Chachere then offered that there were, even beyond Central High School a number of nonresidential uses, commercial and industrial. Staff pointed out that some of those uses as far west as Thayer Street did have a negative impact on that area. Uses such as the former florist at the corner of Park and 14th Streets heavily impacted the neighborhood with what was an industrial zoning and use. Wood stated that an office of the nature proposed probably would not offer a significant negative impact on the neighborhood but that once you cross that demarcation line, the question then is how much and where do you stop? A lengthy discussion then involved the staff, the applicant and several members of the Commission. Commissioner Daniels then injected a point extracted from the staff's write -up in this agenda which had to do with the actions of appropriate parking on this property. This elicited a response from several persons present as to the required parking, its design and where it might be located. It was determined during the course of this discussion that the existing provision for parking is barely two spaces on the eastside of the current duplex. Some persons that live there apparently park on the street or on the sidewalk. This point of discussion eventually reached a state to where it was pointed out that a variance would surely have to be dealt with for parking if the land use question is answered by rezoning this property. The Chairman then turned the subject to those persons in attendance who wish to comment in objection to this application. The first person offering comments was a Mr. Riggs representing the neighborhood CDC and the neighborhood association. He identified himself as living on Summit Street in the block to the west. 3 May 30, 1995 4 Z -5989 Cont. Mr. Riggs offered a lengthy commentary on efforts by this neighborhood, the City and other organizations to raise this neighborhood to a better and safer environment by the rebuilding of the single family infrastructure. He indicated that the change of this use to a business activity was inappropriate and was not compatible with the efforts that he observed in this neighborhood at this time. He pointed out that there was currently a parking problem in the area for tenants of the duplex and others where they are parking on the street or on the sidewalks. Commissioner Chachere then posed a question concerning the timeframe that the CDC or the neighborhood had for returning viability to this residential area. Mr. Riggs indicated that it was ongoing now that it was not a future proposition but that homes were being occupied, constructed and provisions made for others at this time. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning security and criminal elements within the neighborhood. This discussion was led by Commissioner Chachere and based upon her experiences. The Chairman then recognized Ms. Annie Abrams, a member of the local neighborhood association and an involved citizens. Ms. Abrams presented a lengthy discussion of neighborhood issues as well as her objection to the conversion of this structure to the business activity. Ms. Abrams' response to a question from a commissioner, stated that she was a resident of the area on Wolfe Street. The Chairman upon the completion of comments from Ms. Abrams asked Ms. Freeman if she would like to add further commentary. Ms. Freeman restated some of her previous concerns about the condition of the property and the condition of the neighborhood and her reason for requesting the rezoning. She completed her comments by stating that Mr. Woods, the owner, would at this time request a deferral of the matter. A discussion then followed involving the appropriateness and the procedure for deferral of items, especially when there is a commissioner involved in the application. Staff inserted a comment at this point in the discussion to state that there was not a planning commission meeting in two weeks. Staff was going to recommend, that this meeting not be held because there are no items to be presented. The next following agenda would be June 27, 1995. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Riggs for closing comment. He restated several items that he offered at the earlier presentation. In a response to a comment from Commissioner Chachere, the Chairman pointed out that the Commission typically accepted and allowed the applicant the first deferral requested. 4 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z -5989 Cont. The Chairman then placed the item on the floor for consideration of the applicants request for deferral. A vote on the item produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Ron Woods). The item was deferred until June 27. 5 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -5990 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Marian and Julian Genter and W. F. and Kathleen McElroy J. E. Hathaway, Jr. 900 Block Autumn Road/ West Side Rezone from R -2 to 0-3 Offices 2.5 acres Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Residential, zoned R -2 South - Residential and Vacant, zoned R -2 East - Office, zoned C -3 West - Commercial, zoned POD STAFF ANALYSIS, The subject site lies immediately south of the Chenal Parkway and Autumn intersection, which is actively under development for several commercial projects. Autumn Road functions as a commercial collector paralleling Bowman Road from Kanis Road to the Parkway. There is little potential for the existing three or four houses to remain good dwelling sites. Autumn at Kanis has been redeveloped in recent years from residential to commercial and office uses. Immediately across Autumn from this site is the psychiatric hospital and a site under construction for Kid Sport. These uses are commercial and office zoned. To the west or behind this site is an office /mini- storage use recently constructed. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is located in the I -430 District Plan. The Plan recommends Commercial and Mixed /Office Commercial for the area. There is no plan issue. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -5990 (Cont.) ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. 60 feet of right -of -way required on Autumn Road, 30 feet from the centerline. 2. With construction: a. Grading permit required before any construction or excavation. b. Widen Autumn Road to one -half of a 36 foot street with sidewalk. C. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. d. one driveway cut for total frontage if development is on both tracts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the application subject to right -of -way dedication. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Planning Commission received the staff's recommendation of approval with commentary that there were no objectors in attendance nor were there any letters of objections received. Mr. Jim Hathaway was present as was Mr. Bill McClard. These gentlemen were in attendance as applicants and sale agents. The Chairman asked Mr. Hathaway if he had comments. Mr. Hathaway responded by stating that he did turn in a speaking request card because there was one point of clarification he desired. The Public Works' comment dealing with access and a limitation of one drive way to the parcel. His question was "Was there going to be a condition of the rezoning ?" The response from staff was that it was included in the agenda write -up for information to advise him of this condition. At some future point when he receives a building permit review or site plan review, the issue will be called by Public Works as a requirement. Mr. Hathaway responded that he now understands the reason for placement of this comment within the agenda. The Chairman then stated that it was appropriate to place this item in the Consent Agenda package for a vote. A motion to that effect was made. A vote on the motion of 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent approved the application as submitted. K May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 6 Z -5987 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Elton R. Morehart Larry Morrow 10420 Helm Dr. Rezone from R -2 to C -4 Operate auto sales and repair .23 acres Auto repair and sales under violation notice SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant land, zoned C -4 South - Railroad right -of -way, zoned R -2 East - Industrial, zoned I -2 West - Residential, zoned R -2 STAFF ANALYSIS, This request comes to the Commission as the result of zoning enforcement action. The use as auto repair and sales was observed by an enforcement officer and a notice was issued to stop or rezone. The site has a history of commercial use which predates annexation and zoning regulation. However, any and all use of a C -4 nature was lost as a nonconformity when the last legal permitted occupancy by an auto repair closed in 1992. Since that time no commercial activity has occupied the building. The land use and zoning in the area is somewhat mixed, ranging from R -2 to I -2. However, the current zoning closely aligns with the adopted land use plan for this area. The realignment or Mabelvale Pike to one block north reduced this site as an arterial frontage and placed it on a residential type street. "C -4" use and zoning was provided in the Zoning Ordinance for location along arterial streets. It should be pointed out that across the street, to the east, there is industrial zoning and usage. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 6 Z -5987 Cont. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. With the realignment of Mabelvale Pike and Mabelvale West to the north, this area is no longer a major traffic or commercial area. If the Commission approves a C -3 or less reclassification, the result will meet the plan. However, C -4 is to intensive. The Plan recommends neighborhood commercial or mixed residential for the area. If the Commission recommends the C -4, staff will need to re- examine the vicinity for possible plan changes. ENGINEERING COMMENTS, With Construction: 1. Both Helm and Mabelvale are substandard streets and will require widening to 1/2 of 36 foot commercial street section with sidewalk. 2. Stormwater detention analysis will be required if impervious area is increased by 500 square feet. 3. Provide status of underground storage tanks before construction permit. 4. A grading permit for special flood hazard and a development permit are required. 5. Contact ADPC &E for approval prior to starting work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial of the application PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Chairman introduced this item to the agenda and asked that staff offer the recommendation. Richard wood, of the Staff, offered a lengthy commentary on the adopted Land Use Plan for this area. The history of the subject property being a former service station site prior to annexation. Wood pointed out the mix use and not only of this block but the immediate neighborhood ranging from single family to industrial. He completed the staff recommendation by affirming a recommendation of denial of C -4 rezoning. 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5987 In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere, Wood stated that the adjacent property is zoned C -4 to the north and is a vacant parcel. The current property at issue is occupied by a former service station building, a used car lot and repair facility. At this time, that use is in violation thereby causing the application. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Barry Morrow, the applicant, and asked that he come forward and present his application. Mr. Morrow offered a history on the property concerning a recent remodeling permit. He offered a history of the C -4 that is in place. He further outlined that ownership of the two parcels and to some degree answered the confusion about the adjacent zoning. The Chairman pointed out that although there are perhaps some legal questions to be answered here involving the issuance of the remodeling permit. The Commission will restrict its involvement at this time to the land use questions and the appropriateness of rezoning the property. A brief discussion followed involving the Chairman and Mr. Morrow. They discussed the current building, remodeling and occupancy of the building. After a brief discussion of zoning lines and ownerships, some clarification was gained of the issue of whether this property or a portion of this property is currently zoned C -4. The staff position is that where the building is located is not currently zoned C -4e therefore, this application is required. Commissioner Putnam then offered a comment concerning the land use of the area, its mixed nature and that this is one of the few properties which is not now zoned for something other than residential. Commissioner Putnam pointed out the industrial zoning to the east, the commercial to the south, some to the west and north and the railroad track along the south. Chairman Walker then inserted a comment by saying he seemed to be the person to always raise the issue of whether the landscaping of parking lots and other areas meet city code. This issue was addressed by Mr. Morrow by stating the he had already checked those issues with staff and determined that this would not be a problem. In a response to a question from Commissioner Daniels, it was stated that this property has a history of being utilized as a service station. Primarily during that period, it was located on Mabelvale Pike and prior to that street's relocation to the north. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question to the staff as to why we are recommending denial of the application when there 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 6 Z -5987 Cont. is the use already there and why we felt we needed to re- examine the land use of the area in a broader context. Staff responded to Commissioner Adcock's statement by stating that the primary reason for a revisit to the land use plan in this area would be that this is a mixed block which does contain residential, several structures to the west, although somewhat in a deteriorated state. There are structures to the north and west portion of the block that are somewhat better in structure. The primary reason for the recommendation being is that this area is no longer a principal arterial or a major traffic way in as much as Mabelvale Pike has been turned approximately one block to the north to bypass this area. This is not perceived by the plan to be more than a general commercial not a highway commercial area. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Wood stated that yes this is an area that is well mixed with the existing nonconforming uses at this time. Some of them are commercial and some of them industrial. (For the record: Staff did receive one letter of objection from a nearby owner.) The Chairman then stated to the rest of the Commission that the item is presented as filed by the applicant for the C -4 rezoning. The item was placed on the floor for a vote. The application was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nay and 3 absent. 4 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 Z -5991 Owner: Winrock Development Co. Applicant: Ronald C. Tyne, President Location: Various sites west of St. Charles Addition Request: Rezone various sites to R -2, MF -12, MF -18, 0-1, 0-2, C -1 Purpose: Reorganize plan for new residential plat, moving multi - family and nonresidential for plat area. Size: 39.4 acres on proposed sites as multifamily and office /commercial with a gain in single family acres of 27.8 acres. Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Generally vacant land ranging from R -2 to C -3 South - Generally vacant land ranging from R -2 to C -3 East - Generally vacant land ranging from R -2 to C -3 West - Generally vacant land ranging from R -2 to C -3 STAFF ANALYSIS This application was filed for purposes of shifting certain existing zoning created by a previous master plan effort on the Shackleford Properties. Winrock Development Company has acquired a large tract of land on which to develop single family lots. This plat, as proposed, overlays zoned tracts that are incompatible while at the same time this developer has property to the south that is proposed for zone change. This application will eliminate: (3) parcels zoned Multifamily (3) parcels zoned Office (1) parcel zoned Open Space (1) parcel zoned Commercial May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 z -5991 Cont. The application creates: (2) new or modified Multifamily parcels (2) new Office parcels (2) new Commercial parcels This application has ties to other actions occurring in the area. The arterial street that previously traversed parcels in this ownership is being relocated north westerly and away from the developing single family plats of Winrock. The dedicated right -of -way in place is another item on this agenda, requesting abandonment as an arterial. A collector street will be placed generally on the same alignment. Typically, rezoning applications generate a Master Street Plan requirement to dedicate needed rights -of -way. In this instance the realigned arterial is to be dedicated and later constructed by the developer of the several large tracts proposed as MF, 0-1, 0-2 and C -1. This dedication can occur as part of this rezoning or the abandonment petition so long as it is provided in conformance with the Public Works' comments on alignment. Adjacent property to the south is under development for office use and street construction is under way, that will provide access to the proposed new zoning. As to the composition of the tracts proposed and their size, staff feels that some restudy of the C -1 placement and the collector intersection is in order. There are two reasons for this which are: the redesign of the new arterial location will affect the depth and width of the smaller lots for 0-1 and C -1 development. The acreage proposed for C -1, while being about a half acre smaller creates two parcels for one existing. The purpose and intent of C -1 zoning is the provision of a unified spot of personal service, daily needs activities less than five acres. Multiple sites of C -1 tend to suggest a broader commercial use relationship. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is located in the Chenal District. The request is in conflict with the adopted Plan. Staff met with several property owners a couple of months ago and agreed in principle to Master Street Plan changes and a relocation of some zoning. This request is the result of those meetings. Staff does recommend that the MF -18 along the undergraded arterial be reduced to at least MF -12 - MF -6 would be preferred. Also, Staff would recommend only one "C -1" site and suggest the proposed "C -1" site southeast of the arterial /collector intersection be Office. 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 Z -5991 Cont. ENGINEERING COMMENTS, The layout of the parcels shows the proposed alignment of the minor arterial. This alignment is not in accordance with the Master Street Plan. Revise as follows: 1. 900 foot horizontal curve required on minor arterial. 2. vertical grades will be required to be within Master Street Plan for both collector and minor arterial. 3. Additional right -of -way for right turn lane at collector intersection is required per master street plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the rezoning in concept. However, we feel that the modifications indicated above are necessary to preserving a low key office /commercial area not previously indicated on the plan. We strongly support the dedication of the new arterial alignment and finally committing the street location. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Chairman introduced this item and asked that staff present its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the proposal stating that this is not a new rezoning, but the movement of zoning classifications from area to another in some instances the reduction and intensity of units of apartments and the reduction somewhat in the acreage of commercial and office. Wood pointed out that Mr. Joe White with the engineering firm that is preparing the survey and legal descriptions is present. Mr. White has reworked and established alignments and intersection designs that he will present in response to staff and Public Works' concerns. Wood pointed out that the staff supports this rezoning and downzoning application with the modifications to be accomplished by the owner and Mr. White. The Chairman then asked Mr. White to come forward and offer his comments. Mr. White presented a display indicating a potential solution of the street alignment for the arterial street that is being relocated and potential rework of the 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 Z -5991 Cont. intersection design involving the collector street which runs northeasterly from the arterial. Mr. White offered that his owner was accepting a recommendation of the staff and combining the commercial at one central point in the application and removing it from the perimeter site in the southeast corner. That site would be 0-1 Quiet Office. Mr. White stated that the final details have not been completed on the street design which then establishes the boundaries of the zoning parcels. This would not be accomplished until such time as a decision is made with any adjacent property owner about the point for the curve transition westward for the arterial street. Mr. White stated "if that can be accomplished beginning the curvature below the Winrock property's boundary, then the 900 foot radius can be accomplished thereby creating a better intersection and a better alignment for the arterial." Absent that arrangement, the Traffic Engineer's design for a 90 degree intersection will be presented. The accompanying legal description's modifications will be provided to staff prior to the item being submitted to the City Board. The question was then posed as to whether or not there were persons present in opposition, there were none in attendance. In a response to a question from Commissioner Ball, Mr. White pointed out that the arterial street within this zoning application terminated at the parkway on the south and tied to another arterial at One Source. Mr. White pointed out that to the north this arterial will tie into the outer loop which is a street connecting Chenal Parkway with Taylor Loop Road. Mr. White expanded on his comments by stating that those streets, arterials and collectors to the north and west of this rezoning are associated with the Master Street Plan amendment which was deferred earlier in this meeting. Commissioner Chachere addressed the staff and asked if the staff concerns will be addressed by what Mr. White has offered. Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying yes that either of those options as finalized will meet our expectations and what we have discussed with Mr. White. As a result of whichever decision is made, the staff would receive and assure the description of the parcels to be rezoned prior to the item being submitted to the Board. Mr. White pointed out in response to that statement that the descriptions and final resolution would be offered to the staff early in the process to give them time to look at the material. 4 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 Z -5991 Cont. Commissioner Daniel then addressed the rest of the Commission with a comment which had to do with his feeling uncomfortable with recommending approval of an application. The final determinations have not been made about alignments and boundaries and is expecting the staff to work it out prior to the City Board of Directors hearing the case. Assurances were offered both by Commissioner Chachere acting as chairman and Richard Wood, of the Staff. This is not an unusual procedure and the only items to be resolved are some specific points of legal descriptions. This has been done on previous applications. Staff does not forward the item without the material in hand. Commissioner Daniel followed his previous remarks simply by saying that he still had concerns about signing a blank check on these kinds of proposals and not actually seeing what was to be presented to the Board prior to it being voted on by the Commission. There being no further concerns or arguments presented on this issue, the Chairman called the item to the floor for a vote. The vote on the application as presented by Mr. White was 6 ayes, 1 nay, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Doyle Daniel). The application was approved. 5 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: G -23 -234 Name: Exclusive Unnamed Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: A platted but undeveloped 90 foot right -of -way located in the south 1/2, SW 1/4, Section 31, T -2 -N, R -13 -W Owner /Applicant: Winrock Development Company and J. W. Shackleford Recuest: To abandon the platted but undeveloped 90 foot right -of -way located in the south 1/2, SW 1/4, Section 31, T -2 -N, R -13 -W. No easements are to be retained in the area of the abandoned right -of -way. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way There is no public need for the platted but undeveloped right -of -way. A replacement collector street will be dedicated through the platting of the adjacent property. 2. Master Street Plan This right -of -way was downgraded from an arterial street to a collector standard street. As part of the rezoning of adjacent properties, the applicant has agreed that a replacement collector and a comparable arterial will be dedicated when the property is platted. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets, There are no adjacent streets. Comparable right -of -way will be dedicated through the platting of adjacent properties. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The right -of -way and adjacent properties are undeveloped. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of the former right -of -way will be incorporated into the adjacent properties which are proposed for rezoning to allow future development as single and multi - family residential and commercial. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: G -23 -234 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect All adjacent property is undeveloped. The right -of -way, although platted, has never been developed. A comparable, realigned right -of -way will be dedicated through the platting of the adjacent properties. Abandoning this right - of -way will have no effect on the surrounding properties. 7. Neighborhood Position There is no adjacent neighborhood. All abutting property owners have agreed to the abandonment. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Abandonment of this undeveloped right -of -way will have no effect on public services. All utility companies have approved the abandonment. 9. Reversionary Rights Reversionary rights extend to the abutting property owners Winrock Development company and J. W. Shackleford. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandonment of this undeveloped right -of -way will have no effect on the public welfare and safety. Comparable, replacement rights -of -way will be dedicated through the platting of the adjacent properties. The applicant has agreed to this dedication as part of a rezoning action which affects the adjacent properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested right -of -way abandonment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) Joe White was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Mr. White offered no additional comments. A motion was made to recommend approval of the requested abandonment. The motion was approved with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: G -23 -235 Name: Block 214, Original City of Little Rock Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: The 20 foot wide alley located within the block bounded by Gaines, Arch, West 15th and West 16th Streets Owner/Applicant: Gaines Street Baptist Church Request: To abandon the 20 foot wide alley right -of -way which extends from West 15th to West 16th Streets between Arch and Gaines Streets. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way The alley serves as a driveway accessing the various Gaines Street Baptist Church properties. There is no public need for this alley right -of -way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley right -of -way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets There is no need for additional right -of -way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The alley right -of -way is paved with asphalt and serves as a driveway accessing the Gaines Street Baptist Church property. 5. Development Potential Once the alley right -of -way is abandoned, the church proposes to erect a fence around its property, with gates at the alley entrances. This is to provide security for the church property. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: G -23 -235 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect, All property in Block 214, Original City of Little Rock is owned by Gaines Street Baptist Church. The properties consist of two church buildings, two parking lots, four vacant lots and an old commercial structure which is vacant and in extreme disrepair. The alley serves as a driveway to access the church property only. Abandonment of the right - of -way will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property is owned by the church. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. The area of the abandoned alley right -of -way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. 9. Reversionary Ricrhts All reversionary rights extend to Gaines Street Baptist Church. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues. Abandoning this alley right -of -way will have no effect on the public welfare and safety. It will allow the church to fence and secure its property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the right -of -way abandonment subject to: 1. The area of the abandoned right -of -way being retained as a utility and drainage easement. 2. The Fire Department being provided a means of access through any gates erected across the former alley right -of -way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. 0� May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.)---- FILE NO.: G -23 -235 The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to those conditions noted in the staff recommendation. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: G -40 -12 Name: West Highway 10 Suburban Water Improvement District No. 344 Location: 2,450± acres located generally along and either side of State Highway 10, from Morgan Cemetery Road to 011ie Lane Owner /Applicant: Proposal: STAFF REVIEW• Various property owners/ J. Mark Spradley, Applicant To approve formation of an improvement district for the purpose of constructing a sanitary water works distribution system within the district by connecting to the Little Rock Water Works system. 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way The need is expressed in a petition signed by individuals representing a majority in the number of property owners, area and assessed value within the proposed district. 2. Master Street Plan There is no Master Street Plan issue. The majority of the proposed improvement district lies outside of the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction and is not currently subject to the provisions of the Master Street Plan. 3. Characteristics of the District The proposed district is comprised of two large nodes containing a total of 2,450 acres, Within the district are 240 properties. Much of the district's land is undeveloped. There are 153 homes and several nonresidential uses. 4. Development Potential Much of the land within the district's boundarys is undeveloped so there is certainly the potential for future development. The district lies along and either side of Highway 10, beginning just west of the city limits near Chenal Parkway. The property to the west of the City has proven to be desirable for development and there is no May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 10 Cont. FILE NO.: G -40 -12 reason to expect this area to be any different. Extension of city water services would only enhance the developability of the area. The large majority of the district is outside of the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction, meaning the City would have no control over future development. Staff believes it is important to extend the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction out five miles from the current city limits which would give some level of control over future development in this area. 5. Staff Analysis The applicants propose to form an improvement district for the purpose of constructing a sanitary water works distribution system within the district by connecting to the Little Rock Water Works system. Since the proposed district is located in its entirety outside of the City, it will be a county district. An application has been filed with the office of the Pulaski County Judge asking for approval of the formation of the district. Only a small portion of the district is located within the City's planning area (extraterritorial jurisdiction), which has not been expanded since May 1988. The eastern boundary of the district is within 1 mile of the current city limits and the entirety of the district is located along one of the city's primary development corridors, Highway 10. Since the City is being asked to approve the extension of water services into the district and since the proposed district is located in an area that is developmentally attractive, staff believes it is appropriate to consider the ramifications of allowing unregulated development in this area. Certainly, once city water service has been extended into this area, its development potential increases. Staff supports the formation of the district and the extension of city water services however, staff firmly believes that the City's Planning Boundary should be extended to its full five miles from the current city limits, as is allowed by state law. At this time, staff does not propose extending zoning beyond the current planning boundary. The extension of the planning boundary will give the City a level of control over future development through its Subdivision Ordinance. 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 10 Cont. FILE NO.: G -40 -12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the formation of the improvement district and of the extension of water services to the district subject to the following conditions: 1. The infrastructure of the district is to be designed to comply with those standards established by the City of Little Rock Water Commission. 2. As is established City Policy, no properties located outside of the city limits will be permitted to tie onto the city water system until those properties are annexed into the City of Little Rock or a pre - annexation agreement has been executed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve extending the City's Planning Boundary to its full five miles from the current city limits to encompass this proposed improvement district. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had written requesting that the item be deferred to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 11 NAME: Amend the City Master Street Plan LOCATION: North of Chenal Parkway, south of West Loop and west of St. Charles Subdivision REQUEST: Change the classification of roadways and alignments SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: A property owner requested an arterial be downgraded to a collector. Planning staff after review of the area found that the proponents request was not appropriate due to no decrease in intensity of use. Further, the arterial had been added because of increased zoning along the collector and extension of the road creating a through movement. Upon further request for review, staff believes that if the alignment is altered together with the alignments of several collectors and the addition of a collector, the downgrade may work. However, this would offset several property owners. In order to allow the affected owners time for review and comment on the plan changes, additional time is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 15, 1994) Walter Malone, Planner II, stated that a property owner had requested the downgrading of an arterial north of Chenal Parkway and south of the West Loop. The request affects four property owners and staff is meeting with each to review alternatives. To this point, there is not an agreement among the parties, however, staff believes that by the first meeting in 1995 the issues should be resolved. By unanimous vote the Commission deferred the item to the first plan meeting in 1995. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 11 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that Staff recommended action for only a part of the requested area. A north -south arterial, just to the west of the St. Charles Subdivision would be downgraded to a collector. Mr. Malone briefly outlined other changes under review. The arterial to be downgraded was pointed out on a large Master Street Plan map. After some discussion and distribution of the letter from an adjacent property owner, the Commission voted unanimously to downgrade Wellington Place Drive to a collector. STAFF UPDATE: (MAY , 1995) The City Master Street Plan shows an arterial north of Chenal Parkway to the West Loop. Based on agreements made by City Staff and the four property owners affected the Arterial will be realigned to more closely parallel the Parkway. This alignment should help with traffic demands on the Parkway. The effect of moving the alignment will result in the realigning of several collectors. The rezoning request has trigger the reintroduction before the Commission of the previously agreed to Master Street Plan changes (among the four property owners and City Staff). The attached map delineates the proposed Master Street Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. By unanimous vote, the item was deferred. 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MASTER STREET PLAN REALIGNING A MINOR ARTERIAL AND ADJUSTING COLLECTORS IN THE AREA NORTHEAST OF CHENAL PARKWAY AND WEST OF LOYOLA AND FOR OTHER MATTERS. WHEREAS, the Engineering and Planning Staff believe the relocation of the arterial and resulting collector changes should improve the traffic pattern for the area; WHEREAS, the property owners affected by the changes have reviewed and agree to the changes; and, WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission has recommended the realignment and collector changes after public review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The extension of Kanis north to the proposed West Loop is realigned to more closely parallel Chenal Parkway on the adopted map. SECTION 2. The segment of the original alignment of the arterial from the proposed West Loop southeast to an unnamed collector is to be shown as a collector on the adopted map. that and, SECTION 3. The Master Street Plan text in the chapter entitled "Functional Classification of Street System, Collectors" section is amended as follows: ADD DescriUtion From To Unnamed Proposed West Loop Unnamed Collector PASSED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor 0 O w cc w O z O 0 z z z Q J CL Ln U W Q w �A .1 Q � , < NINE oo Ell MINIM �.� Q Q NINO 11111111 lill IIIIII gig] IIIIII I M11111111 Ell IIIIIII Ell 11111111 I NINE M, MEN <QQ�, milli W z Z ¢��Zi- z N J D p J Z p W p W U� N cE Cl- J J_ m W ¢ m CC LLJ ¢ W U W J m Q Z 2 L11 o m Z p0 O N cr- Y m- �J¢ LLI 2mU JU2ZUF- 2cr:0<0-�� -J a: 0 Q FA U) m d F_ z W co Q W z r W ¢ �I .1 NINE Ell MINIM NINO 11111111 lill IIIIII gig] IIIIII I M11111111 Ell IIIIIII Ell 11111111 I NINE MEN milli a: 0 Q FA U) m d F_ z W co Q W z r W ¢ �I May 30,1995 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Date Al- e cr Chairman