Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 26 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD MARCH 26, 1965 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 9 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members present: William Ketcher Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones Jim Summerlin Members absent: Jerilyn Nicholson Ida Boles City Attorney: v March 26, 1985 Item No. A - Z -4409 Owner: Lenon Bradford Applicant: Same Location: East 9th and Picron Street, southwest corner Request: Rezone from "R -3" Single Family to "C -3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating place Size: 5290 Square Feet+ Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 11 The proposal is to rezone the property to "C -3" for a restaurant. The site is located in an area that is primarily occupied by residential uses. The predominant zoning classification is "R -3" with some nonresidential zoning to the northeast "I -2" and to the south along East 10th. Lots that are on East 10th with "C -3" or "I -2" zoning are across the street from the Airport's property, a major nonresidential use in the area. A use such as the airport with related facilities could provide some justification for the commercial /industrial zoning on the north side of East 10th. Those lots are confined to just a three -block area along this portion of East 10th. The land use on East 10th is still mixed with some "C -3" and "I -2" lots occupied by residential uses. North of East 10th, the land use in the immediate vicinity is residential with the exception of one block north of East 9th, and that site was rezoned a number of years ago to "I -2." It appears that a commercial reclassification for this property is inappropriate and could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential uses. There are also some questions as to whether the property could accommodate a quality commercial use with the necessary parking and other requirements. March 26, 1986 �-- Item No. A - Continued 2. The site is a vacant lot with street frontage on three sides. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. (Access shall be coordinated with the City Engineer before any permit is approved.) 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. Staff's position is that this rezoning, if granted, would create a commercial spot zoning at an inappropriate location along East 9th, and is opposed to the request. The potential for this proposed rezoning to adversely impact the residential character of the immediate neighborhood is too great and outweighs any benefits from the project. The long -term •� goal of the East Little Rock community is to concentrate and establish a quality neighborhood commercial center on East 6th Street in close proximity to the East Little Rock Community Complex. This proposal is counter to that objective and should not be granted. Every effort should be made to strengthen and preserve this residential neighborhood, and this rezoning could disrupt that. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the owner /applicant had not notified the required property owners and the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 26, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1986 �. Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 26 -85) The applicant, Lenon Bradford, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Bradford described the property and said the residents were in support of the request because there was a need for an eating place in the neighborhood. Be spoke at length about the proposal and identified some residents in the audience who supported the request. Ms. Eunice then spoke in support of the rezoning. She said that the eating place would be good for the neighborhood. Mitchell Harvell, a resident across the street, spoke against the proposal. Be said that it would cause too many problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Bradford spoke again and there was a long discussion about various issues including when the previous building had been removed. At this point, Mr. Bradford indicated that seven persons were present in support of the rezoning and four of them lived in the east Little Rock neighborhood. Mr. Barvell said parking would be a major problem and described some other concerns. The Planning Commission then voted on the request as filed. The vote: 2 ayes, 6 noes and 3 absent. The request was denied. March 26, 1985 �. Item No. 1 - Z- 1894 -A Owner: Central Baptist Church Applicant: Peters & Associates Location: West Markham and Natural Resources NE Corner Request: Rezone from "MF -6" and "O -3" to "O -2" and "C -3" Purpose: Office and retail Size: 4.5 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "0-2" South - Office, Zoned "0-2" and "0-3" East - Single Family and Office, Zoned "R -2" and "O_3" West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned 00 -2" and "C -3" �- PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal is to develop the northeast corner of Markham and Natural Resources Drive for retail uses and a long narrow tract on the east side of Natural Resources Drive for office use. The subject property is located in close proximity to I -430 and in an area that is experiencing an accelerated rate of development. On the west side of I -430, the intersection of Shackleford and Markham is developing into a major commercial location. The predominant zoning classification is "C -2" or "C -3" west of I -430. Immediately to the east of I -430, the zoning pattern is "0-2" and "0-3" with the exception of the northwest corner of West Markham and Natural Resources Drive which is "C -3." It appears that I -430 has created a very visible line between the commercial and office zoning in the area. Also, the current zoning does create inadequate buffer for the residential neighborhood east of Natural Resources Drive. 2. The site is vacant and portions of it are heavily wooded. March 26, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street `- Plan issues associated with this request. 4. The Engineering staff reports the following issues: (1) The traffic engineer must approve traffic circulation and curb cuts for access, special attention at the northeast corner of West Markham and Natural Resources. (2) Detention must be used due to critical flooding conditions downstream. No other adverse comments have been reported. 51 There are no legal issues. 6. The history of this site dates back to the middle 1960's when an attempt was made to rezone the land for multifamily and commercial uses. In the early 1970'x, the property was rezoned to "MF -6" and "MF -24" (the current "O -3" tract). In the late 1970's, the "MF -24" property was zoned to an office classification, and the "MF -6" parcel remained as such. During that time, there was also some court action involved with the property. The neighborhood's position on this site is well documented in the case files. There are a number of petitions opposed to the various proposals, and at one hearing in 1976, approximately 50 objectors were present according to the minute record. The residents of the area have supported, for the most part, the current zoning scheme. 7. The I -430 identifies the north side of Markham east of Natural Resources for office use and residential use to the north of that strip. Staff's position is one of support for the I -430 plan and is opposed to the proposed rezoning. The existing zoning pattern has been maintained over the years by previous actions by the City and should not be changed to accommodate this request. The "C -3" on the west side of Natural Resources Drive was initially opposed by the staff. The "MF -6" has been viewed by the neighborhood as a buffer and the "0-3" as protecting them from the commercial encroachment to the west. This section of Markham is establishing itself as a quality office corridor and should be kept that way. Staff's position has been consistent through the years and does not change with this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: `- Staff recommends denial of the "0-2" and "C -3" request. March 26, 1985 �-- Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Bob Richardson. There were several persons in attendance who expressed an interest in this case. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter prior to the hearing requesting withdrawal of the "C -3" rezoning and amending the application to "0-2" only. Because of this development, staff indicated support for the "0-2" rezoning. Mr. Richardson spoke and reaffirmed the applicant's desire to withdraw the "C -3" request. He said that the applicant had met with the neighborhood and offered some assurances to the residents. It was pointed out that the "0-2" district requires site plan review prior to any development occurring. Nathan Sedford addressed the Planning Commission about various issues associated with the request. Bob Wood, a resident, spoke about the "O -2" request. He said that the neighborhood had met with the proposed developers and the residents preferred the "O -2" rezoning. He went on to discuss some concerns the neighborhood had, including needed drainage improvements in the area. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the amended application for the "0 -2" request only. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z- 3292 -A Owner: G.W. Davis Applicant: Paul Stanfield Location: West Markham between Gamble and Adkins Road Request: Rezone from "O -3" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 5.5 acres + Existing Use: Office and Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned 00-3" West - Vacant, Single Family, Church and Office, Zoned "R -2" and "0 -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 11 The request is to rezone the property in question to "C -3" for some type of commercial use. No plans or any specifics have been provided at this time. The land is located in area that has a very mixed land use pattern which includes single family, multifamily, office and industrial. The property is bounded by vacant land to the north, east and west with the single family development found primarily to the south. Recently, a large apartment complex to the west was completed and another one is being proposed in the immediate vicinity. Because of the large amount of "C -3" land that is still vacant in there, it appears that there is no reasonable justification or need for the rezoning of this land to "C -3. 2. The site is relatively flat and occupied by several structures and heavy industrial equipment. Some of the property is also storing materials necessary for a contractor's operation. March 26, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued 3. Gamble Road is classified as a collector on the Master Street Plan which requires a 60 -foot right -of -way. It appears that the existing right -of -way is deficient and some additional dedication will be necessary. One other Master Street Plan that could effect this property is the proposed connection between the Rock Creek Parkway and the I -430/I -630 interchange. Based on information provided by the Engineering staff, the parkway location will neccessitate the realignment of Markham at the intersection with Atkins. This proposed change would impact the northern portion of the property in question. Engineering has requested that area not be rezoned. 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Boundary street improvements on Gamble, Atkins and Lornea. Gamble is a collector; Atkins and Lornea are residential streets. (2) The southwest corner of West Markham and Atkins will need coordination of boundary street improvements. Suggested improvements on West �. Markham in -lieu until access intersection of Rock Creek Parkway is constructed. Coordinate construction with the City Engineer. There are no legal issues associated with this request. The property in question was originally rezoned to "0-3" and "C -3" in December of 1978. There were two separate actions involved. The initial request for Z -3276 was to "F" ( "C -3" Commercial) for the two tracts currently zoned "0-3" and "C -3." The Commission only approved the east 150 feet to commercial and the remainder to "E -1" ( "0-3 "), This was done to protect the front portion of the property. The site was rezoned to accommodate an existing nonconforming use. Much of the zoning in the area was accomplished by the Rock Creek Zoning Plan which did not support the rezoning in 1978. Staff recommended denial of both requests, Z -3276 and Z -3292, because of being in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The land at the southwest corner of Markham and Atkins was zoned to office through the Rock Creek effort. Staff has received some calls from the neighborhood in opposition to the rezoning. L March 26, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued As with the previous request for the site, staff is opposed to the current rezoning change to "C -3." This position is supported by the Suburban Development Plan which identifies the area for residential use. Staff believes that a majority of the nonresidential zoning south of West Markham in this general area is misplaced and should not be intensified by supporting this "C -3" request. West Markham provides a logical line between residential and nonresidential zoning for the area. The current use of the property has impacted the neighborhood, and a commercial zoning would probably have the same effect. One final issue is the amount of vacant land in the Rock Creek Parkway area. It has been estimated that there are approximately 80 acres of undeveloped commercial land available. That amount of acreage should meet the commercial need of the area for the next 5 to 10 years, and the rezoning of the property in question cannot be justified based on need or demand. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Paul Stanfield, was present. There were approximately 12 objectors in attendance. The Planning Commission was informed that the applicant had requested a deferral, but the request was not made within the required time, five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The request for deferral was first discussed by the Commission. Mr. Stanfield spoke and said that the owner was called out of town unexpectedly and that was the primary reason for the deferral. He also indicated that the owner was willing to discuss the request with the neighborhood and possibly reach some type of compromise. Mary Ann Rawls, a resident in the area spoke against the deferral. She said it was inappropriate for a number of reasons. She pointed out that the owner had made no effort to contact the neighborhood or express any concern with the possible effects from the rezoning on the property. Raren Land and a representative of West Markham United Pentecostal Church spoke against the deferral request. A motion was then made to defer the request. The motion failed because of 3 ayes, 5 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Clayton). The Commission then discussed the "C -3" rezoning request. Mr. Stanfield addressed the rezoning and discussed various aspects of the staff report. He said he did not know the owners plans for the property. There was a long discussion about several March 26, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued issues. Mary Ann Rawls spoke against the rezoning and presented a petition with 170 names opposed to the request. She said there was support for the Suburban Development Plan and the existing "0 -3" zoning. Elizabeth Shores voiced her opposition to the rezoning and said West Markham was the logical line for commercial zoning. A representative of the West Markham Pentecostal Church read a letter against the rezoning which was submitted for the record. The person said there was a need to protect the neighborhood. Tim Richardson and Mark Lollar, residents of the neighborhood, spoke against the "C -3" request. Mr. Lollar indicated that the residents compromised in 1978 with the "0-3." Both voiced their concerns about not having a plan for the property. There were additional comments made about the drainage and other issues. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the rezoning, the vote - 0 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent and 3 abstentions (David Jones, John Clayton and John Schlereth). The request was denied. March 26, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z- 4016 -B Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: P s L Investment Company Perry Gravitt Wanda Lane, North of I -30 Rezone from "R -2" to "O -3" Office .48 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" 1. The request is to rezone two vacant lots to "0 -3" for a small scale office development. Tentative plans submitted to the staff indicate that the two lots in question will be combined with one of the "C -3" parcels to the south and developed with a single office building. It appears that the design concept is to orient the office activity away from the residential neighborhood. In the past, efforts have been made to rezone the site to a commercial classification because of the existing "C -3" which is somewhat misplaced at an entrance to a residential subdivision. The two lots under consideration have been vacant for a number of years, and it can be questioned whether there will ever be any residential development on them. Because of the existing situation, an office rezoning could be the most appropriate way of putting the lots to use and buffering the residential area from the "C -3." The property abuts residential use on two sides and there are two residences across Wanda Lane. 2. The site is two typical residential lots that are vacant. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. March 26, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. The traffic engineer reports some concern with the parking and access. 5. There are no legal issues. In 1983, an application was filed to rezone the "C -3" tract and the two lots in question to "C -4." The request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. A petition with over 100 signatures was submitted opposed to the rezoning. Another request was made to rezone the two lots in question to "C -3" in 1984. The neighborhood was against the rezoning and presented a petition with 112 names. The Planning Commission voted down the rezoning request. With both applications, the staff recommended denial. 7. Staff's position is that an office classification is more suitable for the location and should have less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is encouraged by the proposed development because of utilizing one of the "C -3" lots. It is highly recommended that the remaining "C -3" parcel be incorporated into the site plan and create one unified �- tract. This would remove the potential for an inappropriate "C -3" use at the corner and possibly eliminate the need for any curb cuts on Wanda Lane. With the proper setbacks and building design, this could be accomplished. Setbacks will be critical because of the property abutting residential lots on two sides. Because of this situation, staff recommends that the "O -1" district be utilized for this location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "0-3" and approval of "0-1." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Perry Gravitt, was present. There were eight objectors present. Staff informed the Planning Commission that a petition with 100 names opposed to the request had been submitted prior to the meeting. Mr. Gravitt spoke first and said that he was surprised about the petition because there appeared to be no opposition generated in the meetings that he had with the neighborhood. He went on to say that an effort had been made to reach a compromise with the residents. Steven Cobb representing the neighborhood spoke and discussed the petition. He said that the March 26, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued residents had problems with the previous owner and the neighborhood still feared the possibility of an undesirable commercial use. Mr. Cobb said that there was some support for the proposed site plan. There was a long discussion about utilizing the "PCD" process for the site. D. Murray discussed the intersection of Wanda Lane and Frontage Road. She indicated that location had one of the highest rates of accidents in the City. A motion was then made to convert the request to a short -form "PCD" and to waive any additional filing fees. Mr. Gravitt agreed to amending the application to a "PCD." The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. L u March 26, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z -4412 Owner: Estate of A. Holloway Applicant: Al Johnson Location: 1000 Fair Park (West 10th and Fair Park SW Corner) Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3" Purpose: Car wash Size: 0.38 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Office, Zoned "C -3" East - Single Family and Office, Zoned "R -3" and "O -3" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The request is to rezone the property to "C -3" to allow a car wash. The site is situated at the corner of a minor arterial and a collector so it does have some potential for nonresidential use. The property is located along a section of Fair Park from I -630 to West 12th that has both a mixed land use and zoning pattern. The existing zoning includes "R -3," "R -6," "O -3, "C -3," "C -4" and a PUD. The land use is very similar with some industrial uses to the west at West 10th and Taylor Streets. This property abuts "C -3" on the south and "I -2" on the west with "R -3" across both West 10th and Fair Park. At the southeast corner of West 10th and Fair Park, there is a lot zoned "O -3. 2. The site is vacant and flat. There are no unique physical characteristics. 3. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because Fair Park is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. The recommended right -of -way for a minor arterial is 801. West 10th is a collector but all necessary improvements are in place. March 26, 1985 - Item No. 4 - Continued 4. The traffic engineer must approve all curb cuts and traffic circulation. No other comments have been received as of this writing. There are no legal issues. 61 There is no documented history or neighborhood position on this site. 7. Staff's position for this segment of Fair Park has been one of encouraging comprehensive development or redevelopment in a coordinated manner such as provided in the PUD process. A one or two lot rezoning to "C -3" does not offer that approach, and the staff does not support this request. This is consistent with previous staff recommendations for rezonings in the immediate area along Fair Park. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors have supported the staff in those instances. The Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan identifies the location for mixed use such as office and /or commercial, and staff recognizes that type of land use pattern. Our concern is that Fair Park is somewhat unique and potential projects should be well thought out and carefully planned. The PUD on the east side of Fair Park is an example of this. New development along Fair Park should be at least one -half block in size to avoid excessive curb cuts and a stripped out appearance. Staff realizes that the zoning is very mixed, including "I -2 ", but feels that some of it is misplaced and that type of pattern should not be continued. There is no doubt that this particular location has nonresidential potential, but it should be achieved by a more planned approach and not through a "C -3" rezoning. Approval of this request could set an undesirable precedent for the remainder of this section of Fair Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the "C -3" request. March 26, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Al Johnson, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Johnson indicated that he was representing the Holloway estate. He said that there was no neighborhood opposition and then discussed the staff's comments concerning Fair Park and the immediate area. Mr. Johnson said the site was very adaptable for a car wash. He also indicated that primary access would be from West 10th and that the proposed car wash would be automated and open 24 hours with employees present during peak hours. Mr. A. Holloway spoke and said they needed to sell the property because of taxes which included a substantial improvement tax for the West 10th Street project. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the "C -3" request as filed. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1985 `,. Item No. 5 - Z -4418 Owner: MCHOwe Company Applicant: Peters k Associates Location: Merrill Drive at Market Street Request: Rezone from "C -4" to "C -3" Purpose: Retail Size: 4.1 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C -4" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" East - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C -3" and "C -4" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS The property is located in an area that is heavily developed with office and commercial uses. The proposal for this site is to develop a mall type shopping facility utilizing the existing "C -3" tract to the west and the property in question. The "C -4" in the area is the result of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance adoption. For the most part, the existing uses are more of a "C -3" nature with the exception of a large auto dealership to the east. There appears to be no outstanding issues, and staff supports the request. (Note: traffic circulation shall be coordinated with the traffic engineer.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. U March 26, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z -4419 Owner: Dwight Jackson Applicant: Same Location: 2812 Commerce Street Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 7,000 square feet Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 11 The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone the one lot at 2812 Commerce Street to "C -3." No specifics have been provided at this time, but it appears that the use will be some type of small retail establishment. The immediate block is occupied by single family residences or vacant lots, and the zoning is residential. The land use in the area is residential with "R -3" being the predominant zoning classification. To the south, there is some "I -2" in place and to the north there is both "C -3" and "C -4." Some of the "C -3" adjacent to East Roosevelt is vacant which is a more appropriate location for a commercial use. With the "C -3" lots to the northeast on the frontage road, one is vacant and the southern one is occupied by a billboard. Probably the most significant land use to impact neighborhood is I -30, but because of the property's location, that does not create a good justification for a commercial rezoning. Even being on the frontage road the lot is somewhat removed from more viable commercial locations. 2. The site is occupied by a single family residence and an accessory building in the rear. The lot is 50' x 140' feet. March 26, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan requirements. 4. The traffic engineer has expressed some concerns about the parking and the access. There have been no other ocmments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 51 There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 71 Staff believes that the location is inappropriate for a commercial reclassification and does not support the request. The property is a single residential lot with improper size for a quality commercial use or development. The existing structure has no setback on the south property line, and this could have an impact on the residence to the south if the property was rezoned. The "C -3" rezoning would probably be misplaced because of the makeup of the immediate block and its distance from East Roosevelt, the more logical area for a commercial use. Staff also questions the �. desirability of continuing nonresidential encroachment into older residential neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Dwight Jackson, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Jackson said that the existing structure would be removed and a building for a small retail outlet would be constructed. He said that he owned the property to the north and presented a proposed design concept utilizing some of that land. Mr. Jackson said that a majority of the residents supported the proposal. Beverly Jackson then addresed the Planning Commission. She said that the proposed use would benefit the neighborhood. Ms. Jackson discussed the size of the new building and how the site plan would work. There was a long discussion about several issues, including utilizing a portion of another lot for the project. A motion was made to defer the item for 45 days to allow the owner to get with the staff and resolve the various problems. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1985 Item No. 8 - Z -4422 Owner: Donald Kirk Applicant: Same Location: South of 9805 West Markham Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Health Club Size: 0.44 acres + Existing Use: Two Single Family Units SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal is to rezone the property in question to "C -3" to permit a health club. The plans submitted show an addition to the existing building that will occupy some of this area along with additional parking spaces, a service driveway and landscaping. The proposed addition is for the health club with approximately 70400 square feet and some additional retail space with approximately 3,100 square feet. The entrance to the health club will be through the existing building to the north. In addition to the rezoning request, the shopping center recently received a variance to permit a canopy on the west side and a drive up window for a restaurant on the east to encroach into the front yard setback. This will have some effect on circulation within the shopping center and should be taken into consideration when addressing the "C -3" request. 2. The site is occupied by two residential structures. The shopping center itself has two separate buildings and a parking area. March 26, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. The traffic engineer has expressed some concerns with both parking and access. No other comments have been received as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The shopping center site was originally rezoned to "F" Commercial ( "C -3 ") in August of 1962. At that time, the property in question was left as a buffer for the residential neighborhood to the south. The neighborhood has supported the idea of an "R -2" buffer in the past. 7. Staff is concerned with circulation, parking, over building the site and the potential impact on the residential area directly to the south. Because of these, staff does not support the rezoning request. Also, the "R -2" buffer should be maintained because it has provided some protection for the residences to the south. This position is consistent with previous actions on the property. Both the over building and circulation issues are justified because of the existing situation and the recent variance approval. Traffic movement on the site is somewhat inadequate and the proposed canopy and drive up window could add to this problem. Another concern is parking which will not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for both the existing and proposed uses. The owner has stated that the health club will be primarily a night time use, so he has suggested a shared parking arrangement. Staff's position is that the required parking spaces should be provided. The proposed expansion is too much for the site and should not be advocated by the approval of the "C -3" rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Merle Seamon and Keith Kirk. There were two to three interested residents present. Mr. Seamon indicated to the Planning Commission that they had met with the neighbors, and there was some support for the request. He submitted photos and several letters of support from nearby residents. Mr. Seamon then discussed March 26, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued details of the planned project which will be an addition to the existing building primarily for a complete health club facility. There was some discussion about the parking and ordinance requirements. Mr. Seamon confirmed that with the addition the parking would not required numbers. Keith Kirk spoke briefly about several aspects of the project. Steve Waldron, a resident to the southeast of the site, discussed several concerns, including parking and drainage. He said that there was a significant drainage problem in the area primarily caused by the shopping center. He requested that some type of solution be found for the drainage problem. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 9, 1985, meeting to allow the Subdivision committee to review the site plan and resubmit the project as a "PCD." The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. March 26, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z -4421 Owner: John W. White Applicant: Financial Centre Development Co. Location: Autumn Road North of Hermitage Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 2.1 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" East - Church, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 11 The request is to rezone the 2.1 acres to "C -3" for unspecified commercial use. (The property is currently outside the city limits, but an annexation petition has been filed.) The site is located in an area that is either single family residences or vacant land. On Autumn Road, south of Hermitage, there is some minor commercial development. To the east on Hermitage Road is the Financial Centre area that is primarily developed for office uses. The zoning pattern to the east (1 -630 and Shackleford area) is a mix of 00-2, "0-3" and "C -31" but that is somewhat removed from this particular location. The zoning in the Autumn Road vicinity is "R -2" and "C -3" at the northeast and southeast corners of Autumn and Hermitage, but a large portion of it is unclassified. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. It appears that some dedication of additional right -of -way will be required for Autumn Road, The Master Street Plan issue associated with this request is the Rock Creek Parkway extension from I -630 to the west. Information provided by Engineering indicates that the proposed alignment is just south of the property (Lot 24) and that Autumn Road will be terminated at the parkway extension. March 26, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued Engineering has provided the following: Boundary street improvements on Autumn Road. Depending upon other development from Birchwood to the south end of the property (Lot 24) road will be either 27' or 361. (This will be discussed at the meeting.) No other adverse comments have been reported by the reviewing agencies as of this writing. There are no legal issues. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on this site. 7. The I -430 District Plan does not identify this location for commercial use, and staff does not support the request. The plan shows the immediate area north of Hermitage for continued single family use, with the south side of Hermitage being reserved for major office development. Staff is against the "C -3" rezoning, but feels the site could accommodate some low to medium density housing. The existing "C -3" directly to the south and the "C -3" at the southeast corner of Autumn and Hermitage was accomplished through a court decree and without input from the staff or the Planning Commission. That action occurred in September 1984 and rezoned Lots 25, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the West Highland Subdivision to "C -3." The rezoning of those lots was in direct conflict with the adopted plan for the area and should not provide the justification for the additional commercial intrusion by approving this request. The proposed alignment of the parkway extension will impact the "C -3" parcel to the south because of the necessary right -of -way. Preliminary plans indicate that the roadway will utilize approximately one -half of the "C -3" property at the northeast corner. Because of this and a more substantial "C -3" involvement, approximately 9 acres to the south, the parkway could define the areas of nonresidential and residential zoning in the Autumn Road vicinity. Also, Lot 24 is currently fronting on a residential street and somewhat removed from the intersection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request. March 26, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION: The applicant, Bruce Davis, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the request to the April 30, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 25, 1985 There being no further business before the Commission, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. C Ja/�i /merman be retar 4 416 (5 /g"5-- Date