HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 26 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 26, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved asmailed.
III.Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Jerilyn Nicholson William Ketcher Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes Fred Perkins David Jones Jim Summerlin Ida Boles
None
Mark Stodola
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Z-4562
NAME: First Baptist Church "Long-Form PRD -Planned Residential District" (Z-4562)
LOCATION: West side of Hinson Road, lying between Pebble Beach Subdivision and Windsor Towne Homes
OWNER/APPLICANT: Various By Floyd Fulkerson for First Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:
A Planned Residential District to develop a 11 7-acre site for church use as a sanctuary and ancillary activities.
A.Development Objectives/Historical Backgro und
B.
(1)To provide expanded facilities for the church andits ministeries. First Baptist Church hasexperienced dramatic growth in membership inrecent years. Membership has increased from 2,650in 1974 to 3,955 in 1985. Since 1983, the Churchhas been forced to hold dual Sunday Schools, dualworship services and remote parking in an attemptto alleviate crowded conditions. It has beenpredicted by their long-range pl anning committeethat by 1991 the Church would be completely out ofspace. Expansion at the present location wasdetermined to be impractical. The Church has beenat its present location since 1974, when it movedfrom a downtown location at 12th and Louisianawhere it was originally established in 1858.
Ex isting Conditions
This site is located in western Little Rock on 117 acres that is nestled between two residential developments, Pebble Beach Subdivision on the north and Windsor Court Towne Homes (condominiums) on the south. The predominant land uses in the area consist of both detached single family and attached multifamily structures. Forming the eastern boundary of the site is a sliver of land involved in a previous density transfer (Z-2848-E) and then Hinson Road, a major arterial street that is planned to connect northward with Taylor Loop Road, which intersects with State Highway No. 10. To the west of the site, lies acres of undeveloped property on which there has been some talk of future development.
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
c.
The land itself, currently includes an abundance of mature vegetation which cons ists of hardwood and evergreen trees. It has been characterized by the applicant as possessing a "distinctive topography" with slopes on the north one-half of the site varying between 6 and 10 percent, and between 10 and 19 percent on th e southern one-half. The soil is rocky and both the floodplain and floodway are apparent on the property. There are about 15 out-parcels within the site that are not owned by the applicant.
Two existing streets, Montvale and Valley Park Drive, abut the property on the north. The Master Street Plan indicates that Montvale should be extended as a collector running through the site to connect with Beckenham Drive. Also, an arterial street is planned near the western boundary of the property.
Proposal
(1)Phase I
(a)Sanctuary -Will seat 4,000 persons, have achoir area for 300, music rehearsal area andhave approximately 46,000 square feet and be75 feet in height. Use will be for worship,Bible study and musical present ations.
(b)Educational Space -Two, four-story buildingsadjoin the sanctuary. Each building will be100,000 square feet and 50 feet high. Useswill be for Sunday School, Bible study, andother educational ministeries meeting throughthe week.
(c)Fellowship Hall -Will serve 1,000 people forfamily dinners, banquets and other relatedmeetings. It will be equipped with kitchenand food service program and consist of50,000 square feet with a height of 25 feet.
(d)Administrative Area -Church administrativeoffices/support services such as a printshop. These will be housed in the samebuilding as the fellowship hall.
(e)Parkin� -Eleven hundred spaces with ampleprovisions for the handicapped.
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
(f)Water Retention System -2.5-acre lakeproposed to handle retention requirements forthe entire property. The area around thelake will be developed in a park-likeatmosphere. The floodway along Hinson Roadwill be adhered to and improved. All finaldetails and calculations will be inaccordance with the City Drainage Ordinance.
2.Phase II
(a)Additional Sanctuary and Educational SpaceParking -Parking will be provided asdictated by the growth of worship an deducational attendance.
(b)Christian Family Life Center -The firstfloor will consist of 40,000 square feet andbe 35 feet high. Uses to include gymnasiumfor exercise classes, volleyball, basketball,skating and jogging track with a seatingcapacity of 1,250. Also to include exerciserooms, game room, ceramics, arts and crafts,dressing rooms and equipment, three racquetball courts, a testing room for evaluation ofthe physical condition and health ofindividuals, space for Bible study and childcare and olympic-size swimming pools with sixlighted tennis courts.
(c)Football /Soccer Field -Seating for 1,200people and to be used for soccer matches bystudents of the Arkansas Baptist SchoolSystem. May also be used as a football fieldfor Arkansas Baptist High students. Thefield will be lighted and used occasionallyfor evening soccer or football games. Anoutdoor running track will be available forjoggers and walkers who live in thecommunity.
(d)Park/Softball Fields -Two softball fieldswith park and playground area for children.Use will be by the church and its expandingoutdoor recreation ministry. The field willbe lighted and set back 450 feet from thenorth property line.
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
(e)Amphitheater -There will be seating for upto 1,250 people, and it will be usedperiodically for Sunday evening worshipservices, picnics and retreats. The areawill have a 60-foot radius with parkinglocated at the retreat center. Theamphitheater will set back 450 feet from thenorth edge of the property.
(f)Retirement Housing -To include 100 unitsranging from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet andcomposed of one and two-bedroom uni ts.Housing types will be a mixture of duplexesand row housing.
(g)Independent Elderly Living Unit -To include100 units housed on six floors, andconsisting of 900 square foot units withkitchen facilities. A cafeteria will beprovided. This will be designed as analternative to retired individuals who don'tdesire to live in retirement homes. Thefirst floor will contain 20,000 square feetand height is to be 75 feet. Parking willinclude 58 spaces.
(h)Retreat Center -There will be a maximum of36 units with two double beds and individualtoilet facilities. The center will alsocontain two dormitory rooms for 20 people ineach room with gang showers and toiletfacilities. The center will also havekitchen and dining room facilities for 150and several meeting rooms.
The use is to be for retreats and conferences on some weekends and during the week for spiritual development and maturity. There will be 100 parking spaces. The size of the facility will be 225' x 75.'
(i)Other Information
Buffers -A minimum of 100 feet of undisturbed, heavily wooded buffers will border the site. Also, there will be a 20-foot buffer around all out-parcels.
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
D.
( j )
Access -Hinson Road will be widened to accommodate acceleration, deceleration, and left turn lanes. Internal circulation will be provided by private streets, except for Montvale Drive. Valley Park Drive will be used for fire access only.
Landscaping -Plans-for each phase will be included.
Signage -An identifying tower or cross will serve as a landmark for the facility. There will also be a lighted sign near the main entrance to the campus on Hinson Road. Small direction signs will be used on Montvale Drive and on the internal private drives. There will be signs on all the buildings. All signs will be in compliance with the City of Little Rock Sign Ordinance.
Dev elopment Timetable
Late 1986 -beginning of preliminary site work
Spring 1987 -construction of 250 car parking lot
1989 -Phase I construction with completion to be in 1981
1991-92 -Construction of Phase II
Engineering Comments
(1)The applicant should furnish a traffic impactstudy on Hinson and adjoining neighborhoodcollectors.
(2)Two entrances will be needed on Hinson Road. TheCity Engineer and Traffic Engineer are concernedabout adjoining collectors and high trafficgenerating activities. They suggest that the high traffic generated be placed as close to Hinson Road as possible. If the stadium is down-sized and no intermediate or high school is to be located on the site, the north-south collector should be maintained. If an intermediate or high school or other high traffic generator is to be located near the proposed north-south collector, the north-south collector should be connected to
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
E.
the adjoining Subdivisions. The east-west collector should be maintained, with the applicant dedicating the required right-of-way.
Analysis
Due to the definite impact on the surrounding area and the varied amount and complexity of issues involved, staff suggested to the developer that this item be filed in accordance with the Planned Unit Development process, so that certain aspects of the proposal could be tied down. The actual filing has been done in a similar fashion as some other large projects in which the Commission approved the developmental concept only, conditioned upon the return of the applicant for review of the specifics of each phase. In this instance, First Baptist Church has been requested to provide specifics for Phase I and gain conceptual approval only for Phases II and III. This means that the uses will be identified for Phases II and III, but the actual intensity of the uses are uncertain. When specific plans for each of the later phases are worked out, the applicant will renotify the neighborhood and return to the Commission. He will not, how ever, be allow ed to significantly increase the numbers that are specified if this is approved.
Upon initial review of the project, staff identified several issues to be resolved/discussed. They include:
(1)Montvale Collector Extension
Of utmost importance to staff is the maintenanceof this street on the Master Street Plan. It willserve as the only collector for a mile between twoarterials. It is badly needed to tie large areasof developing tracts together and to preventpossible future damage to the public in relationto emergency access and increased traffic. Thereis a great public need for this collector toprevent existing collectors from functioning asarterials, which is evident on Brookside Drive andPebble Beach Drive. Staff has faced this issue repeatedly. Most of the public do not want collectors through their neighborhoods. They must, however, be built somewhere in western Little Rock to provide adequate cross-flow between areas and to prevent increased traffic problems or bottlenecks from developing on streets that are not designed to carry such a capacity of traffic. It is better to plan and develop collectors at
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
certain points throughout an area to relieve pressure, than to have it built to standards that are inadequate to carry the capacity of traffic that the area demands. In other words, regardless of whether Montvale is physically built as a collector, there will still be a demand for one in the area. Excess generation of traffic is softened by tying collectors together. Other things in the public interest to consider are ease of police, fire and sanitation access and the fact that areas of steep terrain need good connecting streets. Staff would rather see the recreational uses eliminated than lose the collector street.
(2)Height of Structures
The applicant has been asked to maintain a 35-footheight throughout the site, submit profiles ofbuildings and provide some indication of thenatural existing elevation and proposed finishedelevation and to reduce the independent elderlyliving unit building from six stories.
(3)Phasing
Due to the location of the Master Street Planthrough the site, staff recommended changes in thephasing of the original plan. Since the need forthe church and related parking is most immediate,staff recommends this as Phase I and Lot 1.Phase II would consist of retirement housing inthe southeast corner toward Hinson Road, theretirement housing in the central area of thesite, the Christian Life Center and IndependentElderly Living Unit and stadium. Phase III wouldinclude the soccer field, amphitheater and retreatcenter. Ever ything west of Montvale would be aseparate lot also.
(4)Plan Modifications
Staff originally requested moving the retreatcenter to a central location and placingrecreational uses and elderly housing toward therear of the project. The idea was abandoned sincethe applicant preferred that the elderly beintegrated into the activity life of the community
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
and that the retreat center be located on the hilltop with hiking trails around it. Staff realized the sensitive nature of the topography and that the applicant may have problems shifting the buildings around.
Staff also recommended that the softball fields and stadium be eliminated or scaled down and that the applicant propose locations for accessory commercial refreshment stands.
(5)Landlocked Parcels/Other Ownerships
Staff determined that the location of theseparcels in the buffer areas was acceptable sincethe parcels are zoned for single family. Theapplicant, however, must indicate on the site plana legal access easement of at least 20 feet forsmaller parcels and 40 feet for the largerparcels. Also, the applicant was asked to removethe softball field from an out-parcel sincedesigns over someone's ownership cannot beapproved.
(6)Buffer/Treatm ent of Specific Areas
Staff originally questioned the 10-foot easementon the north that intrudes into the proposed100-foot buffer, but since it is existing(Riverside Cable TV), staff decided that thebuffer area did not need to be increased. It isrequested that a minimum of 100 feet be retainedaround the site, all on-site utilities be placedoutside the buffer area, and that a sedimentationand erosion plan be submitted so that raw, loosedirt from a hill mass will not seep into drainageareas and cause problems for the neighborhood; andthat a specific treatment plan on all exposed cutsbe submitted.
( 7)Sewer
( 8)
There is still a sewer density restriction on thissite which is a part of Sewer District 222.
TOR
There is a portion of property on the eastern edgeof the site that was involved in a Transfer of
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
Development Rights. The restrictions and covenants on that portion need to be lifted.
(9)Other Issues
There is a statement in the write-up that says, "other educational ministeries" will be meeting throughout the week. The applicant needs to clarify what "other" means and provide clarification on whether this involves a school or day-care and give its size and the operation. Al so, staff requests information on the traffic volume at peak times. The applicant is asked to include all comments from the reporting agencies on a revised plan.
F.Staff Recommend ation
Approval, subject to comments made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Numerous persons were in attendance. The majority were in opposition to the proposal, although there were some residents present in favor of the request.
Staff gave a presentation that involved four of its members: Mr. Gary Greeson, Planning Director; Mr. Richard Wood, Chief of Current Planning; Mr. Jim Lawson, Chief of Advanced Planning; and Ms. Bernadette Bettard, Subdivision Administrator.
The PUD and regular zoning procedures were explained. It was pointed out that this subm ittal was somewhat less than what was usually received in a long-form PUD due to time constraints and a 10 to 15 year time frame, resulting in a failure of the app licant to provide all of the required dimensions and details relating to building location, parking, landscaping, etc. The project was described as being "in fixed form, but not in detail." It was staff's opinion that the proposal would be developed at a lesser density than that which is legally allowed by the existing zoning, since "MF-6" allows 702 units per acre.
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Contin ued
Mr. Jim Lawson explained street and use plans for the area. He stated that Beckenham, the plan for the south end of the property, would be built as the land develops, and tie in to a north/south arterial which is called the west belt and will tie in to Highway 10. Montvale is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector. He cautioned that it is imp ortant to have connecting streets that feed traffic into arterial streets in residential areas for better traffic circulation. The Land Use Plan, he explained, shows single family attached on a portion of the site and single family detached for the remainder.
The applicant's requ est for deferral was discussed. It was agreed that the application would be deferred, but that the issues would be discussed.
Staff's recommendation was stated as approval, subject to:
(1)Submission of more details on Phase I and II before theplan goes to the Board meeting.
(2)The endorsement of the specific approval of the usesand locations of all subsequent phases, which have beenrevised to include 13, with final details to be broughtback to the Commission.
(3)All structures on higher elevations only be limited to35 feet.
(4)The support of two access points on Hinson Road.
(5)Maintaining the Montvale collector.
(6)Modification of Phase 8 so that land-locked parcels notbe included in the softball field.
(7)Reduction of softball fields to one, with no lights orPA system.
(8)Submission of sedimentation and erosion plan.
(9)Explanation of "other ministries."
Mr. Calvin Hagan, a deacon and long-range planning study committee member, was the initial spokesman for the church. He apologized for not following proper procedure and stated a willingness to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns. He stated that theirs was a Christian Life Ministry that ministers to the whole family, not only on
·---
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
Sunday morning, but throughout the entire week. The ministry has been working so well until there is a definite need to plan for expansi9n as evidenced by the present Sunday morning parking of about 85 to 100 cars at Coy's Steakhouse. He also stated that they had already responded to neighborhood concerns by removing the stadium and reducing the high rise. Also, the front 37 acres could legally support a church now, but the church preferred to present the comprehensive plan to the neighborhood, instead of doing it parcel by parcel. He felt that a deferral was needed so that more of the neighborhood concerns could be addressed. Mr. Hagan explained that an elementary school with a maximum of 500 students was planned.
Mr. Greg Simmons of Peters and Asso ciates presented the results of a traffic study. He felt that the present zoning generated 4,000 vehicle trips per day, while the proposed plan would generate only 1,750 at peak hours. Also, single family homes ge nerate 10 to 11 trips per day while retirement units generate 3 trips per day. The study did not include any consideration of the impact of Montvale or Beckenham. Both the commissioners and some of the neighborhood felt that it was very necessary to include this information.
Mr. Chris Barrier represented 20 of the families. Their single-most concern was the building of uncertainty and conflict into the proposal. They felt that if these uncertainties were built in, then protection should also be built in. He called three property owners to give practical views of the situation. They were: (1) Mr. Bo b Tyler, an environmental scientist of 13 years with the State Highway Department. He felt that more consideration should be given to the impact on the area when Hinson becomes a through street to Highway 10, since Pulaski Academy currently creates traffic problems at certain times of the day. (2)Mr. James Rengers, lives adjacent to Taylor Creek.He expressed concerns about runoff from the massive amount of pavement proposed. He felt that the holding pond would not help those at the lower en d since it was at a higher elevation. (3) Ms. Linda Phidke lives near the corner of Montvale and Pebble Beach. She was concerned ab out traffic.
Engineering addressed the questions raised. Also, the Commission responded to a question about traffic gen eration. The maximum amount of trips per day generated on the total 117 acres is approximately 422. The "MF-6" portion would generate a maximum of 222 trips a day and the back portion 200.
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
Other residents spoke also. Mr. Elvin Ray was concerned about present on-street parking by Fellowship Bible Church. Mr. Bill Morris represented about 50 families abutting the development. He stated that 300 persons had signed a petition in opposition. The reasons for this varied, but there was unanimous sentiment that the project was being hurried. Mr. Morris requested that the project be deferred for more than 30 days since the church had in excess of 30 days to prepare it.
The minister of the church felt that 30 days was reasonable. He felt that some members of the neighborhood would not be pleased no matter how long it was delayed, since he had been told to do the project out at the Johnson's Ranch instead of the proposed site when he approached the neighborhood about what he could do to resolve some of their concerns.
Mr. Merle Lewis, the architect, stated that they would try to address the traffic answers and detention requirements.
The issues to be resolved were identified as the impact of traffic on Montvale and Hinson, parking, retention plans and whether due process had been followed.
A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vo te of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue discussed involved traffic. Mr. Greg Simmons and Mr. Ernie Peters reported that their study showed that the Montvale collector was not needed. It was determined that further traffic information should be presented before the next public hearing.
AMENDMENT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (11-26-85}
Based upon the traffic projections submitted by Peters and Associates and consultation with the Public Works Department, staff recommends that approval be given to removal of the Montvale collector from the church's site plan. The traffic volumes projected by Peters and Associates does not justify the requirement of a collector street. Also, removal of the collector would reduce the impacts of the development upon existing and future residential areas adjoining the site. However, if the westerly phases of the church property are not developed as
\ ..... /
November 26, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
specified and the property is sold for residential development into lots, the collector street should be required as shown on the Master Street Plan. Residential development as a subdivision would make the collector necessary to provide for adequate traffic flow, ease of movement between residential areas, and efficient provision of City services such as garbage ·pickup and fire protection. If the City Board approves removal of the collector street for the church development, the Master Street Plan can be appropriately amended.
With regard to the proposed softball fields, based upon consultation with the Parks and Recreation Department, staff recommends that the two ballfields be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) lights not be higher than 50 feet; (2) yellow sodium lights with visors be utilized; (3)no public address system be provided; (4) seating forthe ballfield be shown on the site plan; and (5) the finaldesign of the ballfields be reviewed and approved by theCity Parks and Recreation Department.
PLANNING COM MIS SION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were three attorneys that represented various parts of the neighborhood in attendance. They were: Chris Barrier, Philip Kaplan and John Lessel. Mr. Bill Morris also spoke in behalf of the neighborhood. Their main argument was that the neighborhood's interests were not represented at this meeting, thus the proposal should be deferred. They felt that a previous agreement between the church and the neighborhood had not be adhered to; therefore, the legal interest of the neighborhood was not represented at the meeting. The attorneys felt that the church had renigged on the agreement. The church felt that they had not.
A debate was held on whether the item should be granted a deferral and whether or not the Commission should consider a private agreement between the two parties. City Attorney Mark Stodola felt that there was enough "dictum" in the Ordinance to support Commission consideration.
Finally, a motion to defer the item to December 17 was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.
A motion for a resolution to send this item to the City Board on December 17 was ma de and passed by: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCk
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Revisions and Explanations of Changes Made in the October 24, 1985 Project Summary
PART ONE: REVISONS IN TkE PIANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
1.Listed below is an estimated timetable in which the phases ofthis project may be built. These estimates are subject to revisondue to the future growth of the church and its ministries.
Phase Number
II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
Description Parking Sanctuar y/Educational Water Retention Lake Chapel Educational Building Christian Family Life Retirement Housing Park/Softball Fields Elderly Living Unit Amphitheater Retreat Center Deleted Storage Building
Est. Starting Date 1986-1987 1989-1991 1989-1991 1993-1995 1993-1998 1993-1998 1995-2000 1993-1998 1995-2000 1995-2000 2000-2005
1993-1998
2.Phase II --Paragraph two of the October 24, 1985 projectsummary describes the educational building as a space that "willbe used for Sunday School, Bible Study, and other educationalministries that will meet throughout the week." This statementhas been further defined as 11 Sunday School, Bible Study, and oneor two hour Bible Study type meetings that will meet at varioustimes during the wee k."
3.Phase VIII Park/softball fields. The church plans to havetwo softball fields, but because two outparcels have not beenacquired at this time, the submi tted plan only reflects onesoftball field. After these outparcels are acquired, the churchwill ammend this plan to include the second softball field. Thesoftball fields will be lighted, and have bleacher seating for 50people at each field. There will be no public address system.
4.Phase XII Retirement Housing. This retirement housing hasbeen deleted so that a second entrance on Hinson Road can be
,'-added.
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Total Daily Tri?>
Church Develoarent Residential Develoment Street Sunday Weekday Plan A Plan B Weekday Weekday
Hinson Road 3464 1267 4200* 3768* Montvale Road 733 458 650 1040 Vallev Park Drive 0 0 0 950
Total Trips Durinq Peak Hour
Church DeveloJ:ment Residenti al Develoorrent Sunday Weekday Plan A Plan B Street Weekday Weekday
Hinson Road 1400 127 420* 380* Montvale Road 205 46 65 100 Valley Park Drive 0 0 0 100
*Including traffic from Montvale Road and Val ley Park Drive via Pebble BeachDrive or Beckingham Drive.
Assumptions:
1.Trip Generation Rates from Institute .Q.f Trans:portation Engineers .'.rr..i.QGeneration Report, 1983; or Institute .Q.f Transportation Enqineers ParkingGeneration Rewrt. 1985.
2.Church devel opment assumes ful 1 development of 117 acre site as sh own onSite Plan.
3.Re sidenti al development assumes 80-acres of R-2 single family detachedhousing with a density of 3 dwelling units per acre (240 units): and
4.37 acres of MF-6 res identi al condominiums with a density of 6 dwelling unitsper acre (222 units}.
(_ ( ( .------------;"-----------------'-------------------------------------------------------------,
r-·--·---'�--
PROPOSED PLANNED FIRST BAPTIS T
LEWIS ARCHITECTS INC.
Q PETERS & ASSOCL'\TF.S
ENGINEERS, INC.
LIiiie Rock. Arkanu,
:;19 BISHOP STREET
ROCK , ARKANSAS /' ----·--· ·-·-...
LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS
SITE PLAN FIGURE
( (
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH -LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
LEWIS ARCHITECTS INC. 819 BISHOP STREET · • LITTLE ROCK , A·RKANSAS
.--------. __ ··-·--·-·----. ---··-----
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
(
Q PETERS & ASSOCLUF.S
ENGINEERS, INC. TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR CHURC H
DEVELOPMENT -SUNDAY FIGURE
Lillie Roel. Arl�tllH
( ( ( -----------------------------------------------------------------------------"'-------,
LEWIS ARCHITECTS INC.
{Q} PETERS & ASSOCIATF.S
ENGINEERS, INC.
WIiie Rod. Arlan100
ROCK , ARKANSAS
819 BISHOP STREET LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR CHURCH
DEVELOPMENT -WEEKDAY FIGURE
( (
.-------------------------------------------------------------------------,,_. ----------------.
/[J PETERS & ASSOCL�TF.S
ENGINEERS. INC.
UU11 Rock, Arkottt11
800
---------;;;;;o-•�· . --------·---·· ··--·-·
--·····--., :·--------------\----
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN "A" -WEEKDAY FIGURE
November 26, 1985
Item No. B -File No. 615
NAME: Main Street Project "Long-Form PCD" (Z-4563)
LOCATION: From 12th Street to 14th Street between Louisiana and Scott
AGENT: ARCHITECT:
David Fitzhugh David Cowlin and B.L. Gaskin BCC LW Architects Madison Financial Corp. 16th and Main P.O. Box Drawer 3019 Little Rock, AR 72202 374-4743 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6671
Area: 3.08 acres No. of Lots: 21 Ft. New St.:O feet
ZONING: "HR" and "GB" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USES: "0-3" and "C-3"
A.Development Ob jectives
1.To create an office and commercial onclavecomprised of renovated existing buildings withfree-standing and infill new construction, allknitted together by common paving materials,landscaping and streetscape elements.
2.To respect the Main Street facades of thebuilding.
3.To inwardly orient the project opening to andcentered on a new pedestrian alley with symbolicgateways at either end of 13th Street.
4.To unify the project by complying with theStreetscape Ordinance.
5.To include part of the project in a CBID.
November 26, 1985
Item No. B -Continued
B.Proposal
1.The prov1s1on of office and commercial uses infour phases on 3.08 acres.
2.To achieve a sense of place and provide greatersecurity, the project proposes to narrow 13thStreet between Main and Louisiana and incorporatethe north/south alley running parallel to thesestreets allowing parking on 13th Street andpedestrian use of the alley.
C.Project Data
D.
1.Commercial
a.Renovated structures:Initial commercial use General business and retail
Sales Restaurant
b.New construction:Infill commercial New building commercial (would like option build office)
Total
2.Business
a.Renovated structures:
3.Parking -263 spaces
Engineering Comments
to
-18,3004,581
4,000
9,000
35,881
53,657
88,538
S.F. S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
1.Coordinate all parking lot and closed streetgeometrics with the Traffic Engineer.
21% 4%
4%
10%
41%
59%
100%
2.Remove or fill tanks with material acceptable withthe Traffic Engineer at old service station at14th and Louisiana.
November 26, 1985
Item No. B -Continued
E.
3.Close alley one-half way south of 13th withbarricade of trees and shrubs and place ahammer-head turnaround south of barricade.
Analysis
Staff is generally supportive of the project, but it is awaiting specific comments from the Capitol Zoning District staff relative to uses, structural involvement, parking, street closures and design elements. Everything south of 13th Street is in the Capitol Zoning District. 163 parking spaces are needed.
F.Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Ron Newman of the Capitol Zoning District and the applicant were present. Mr. Newman suggested that the lot in the southwest corner be eliminated from the proposal and felt that parking was sufficient for the overall project. Staff requested one-lot final plat for the various lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. David Fitzhugh of Madison Savings and Loan and the architect, represented the application. Mr. Ron Newman of the CZD was present. One concerned property -owner was in attendance.
Staff reported that Henk Koornstra, the traffic Engineer, requested that the plan be modified to allow for no exiting in the intersection of Louisiana and 13th Street and no backing into Main Street. Staff reported that the applicant had failed to file the petition to close the alley between 12th and 14th Streets and the plan shall be revised to delete the western most parking lot as requested by Mr. Ron Newman. Mr. Newman explained that he had requested deletion of the parking lot because of its encroachment into the immediate residential area.
The main issue discussed involved a title dispute. Mr. Robert Traylor, President of Arkansas Real Estate Development, Inc., stated that he owne d some apartments near 13th and Louisiana and he was not notified of the incorporation of his property within the project. He currently has a lawsuit pending against a Ms. Camino who
\,-·'
November 26, 1985
Item No. B -Continued
sold the property after default. He claims to have repossessed the property.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that Ma dison Guaranty was the owner. The City At torney present advised against any Commission action on the property until after the dispute was settled, which would be in the next two or three months. Mr. Fitzhugh requested action on the proposal provided he delete the disputed por tion. Due to the possible loss of parking spaces, the Commission felt that staff needed to reevaluate a revised proposal so as to ascertain possible impacts to the area.
A motion for deferral for two weeks was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISS ION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted. Staff felt that the plan, which left out the disputed parcel, was fine. However, the applicant forgot to delete the southwestern parking lot. A motion for approval, subject to: (1)a franchise for use of the alley and(2)deletion of the parking lot was passed by a vote of:9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent.
(
Q PETERS & ASSOCIATF.S ENGINEERS, INC.
Uni• !tock. NbnsH
(
\;
,�. ,,
--.• -:--. __ ·. -. --. -_ --. -��---'-�'�\ . :----\ l
WINDSOR COURT ' \ -··-·-·-------.------r�!..-:::.:--..:...... __ ��:-==---
24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
(
TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN "B" -WEEKDAY FIGURE
November 26, 1985
Item No. l -Continued
significant rezoning change that has occurred in the immediate area is directly to the east of the property in question and involves large tracts zoned "O-2," "O-3" and "C-2." Development is taking place on the "O-3" parcel, but the other sites are still vacant. There are no significant multifamily projects in the area, but two developments were recently approved by the City. One is located east of I-430 and the second one is to the northwest of the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads.
2.The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The propertydoes have some significant topography on it withcertain locations increasing in elevation between 60and 90 feet.
3.The Master Street Plan identifies the three newcollectors through the property, so some dedication ofright-of-way for those streets will be required. Oneis an extension of the existing Executive Center Drivethat will connect with Bowman Road. Another collectoris proposed to tie into Hickory Hill Road and a thirdone is located along the east side of the property inquestion from Kanis to Peachtree Drive. Thepreliminary plan submitted by the applicant shows thenorth/south collector and the extension of ExecutiveCenter Drive, but shifted more to the south whicheliminates the need for a connection with Hickory Hill.The third road is proposed north of the existingExecutive Center Drive from Shackleford to thenorth/south collector. Dedication of right-of-way willbe required for both Kanis and Bowman Roads.
4. There have been no adverse comments reported by thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.A rezoning application for most of the property inquestion was filed in June 1985. After being on thePlanning Commission agenda for three months, the itemwas withdrawn without prejudice at the request of theapplicant. A representative of the Sandpiper PropertyOwners Association was present and asked that therequest be withdrawn with prejudice. The representedindicated that the applicant should have to wait a yearto refile. Some of the property recently came into theCity through the annexation referendum that was upheldby the State Supreme Court.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 1 -Continued
feet west of the Sandpiper Addition with the balance of the land remaining "R-2" to Bowman Road. He indicated that the Sandpiper residents could support that type of buffer. Mr. Hathaway went on to discuss the staff recommendations for Tracts 3 and 5. He said that the sale was based on the total acreage and that there were no specific plans at this time. He told the Planning Commission that the requested rezonings of Tracts 3 and 5 were appropri ate because of the proposed street system and the land use in the area. Mr. Hathaway said that the new owners will build the roads and commit to filing a preliminary plat. Ed Montgomery, representing the Sandpiper Property Owners Association, said the new proposal was an improvement because there would be no multifamily traffic through Sandpiper. He said Sandpiper would prefer to have single family lots as a buffer, but could live with the 200 foot "OS" strip. There were some additional comments made about the I-430 plan and the proposed "C-2" rezoning. Mr. Hathaway said that "C-2" provides for some controls and the land will not be messed up. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the request as submitted with a 200 foot "OS" strip along the southern boundary to just west of the Sandpiper Addition with the balance left as "R-2" to Bowman Road and that a preliminary plat be filed. After some discussion, the motion was amended to include a "OS" strip along the entire southern boundary to Bowman Road with the buffer being 200 feet wide adjacent to Sandpiper Addition. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 2 -Z-4570
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Reque,st:
Purpose:
Size:
Tommy L. Moore
Sarne
2720 South Cedar
Rezone from "R-3" to "I-2"
Existing Use:
Warehouse/St orage
.21 acres
Residence
SUR ROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Quasipublic, Zoned "O-3"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"-Commercial, Zoned "C-3"-Quasipublic, Zoned "0-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the property to "I-2" for sometype of warehouse and/or storage use. The site islocated at the northwest corner of Cedar and West 28thStreets less than one block north of Asher Avenue. Inthe immediate vicinity, the zoning is very mixed as isthe land use especially south of West 27th. North ofWest 27th the neighborhood is primarily single familywith "R-3" zoning, but there are certain locations thatare zoned "R-4" and for nonresidential uses. Thepattern that has developed over the years in this areais a "C-3" commercial strip on the north side of AsherAvenue and a large "I-2" industrial area to the south.There is an "I-2" site at the northeast corner of Asherand Pine, but the property has a commercial use on itnow.
2.The property has one large two story structure on it.
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Planrequirements associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 2 -Continued
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position or historyon the site.
7.Because of the location, the property appears to havelittle residential potential, but staff questions thedesirability of rezoning such a small tract to "I-2."The area is made up of commercial and quasipublic usessuch as churches and the St. Francis House, with "0-3"or "C-3" zoning. An "I-2" rezoning does not appear tobe compatible with this pattern and could have animpact on the immediate area because this portion ofAsher Avenue is beginning to be cleaned up, and theundesirable uses are leaving the area. Also, beingsomewhat removed from Asher Avenue does not lend itselfto being a viable "I-2" location. With "0-3" and "C-3"zoning on four sites, staff feel s that the property is better suited for a commercial use. The StephensSchool Plan does not id entify any ind ustrial uses inthis immediate area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Tommy Moore, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Moore spoke briefly and agreed to amending the request to "C-3". The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the application as amended to "C-3"." The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 3 -Z-4571
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Richard A. Hinkle
Fred Perkins
810 West 2nd Street
Rezone from "C-4" to "C-3"
Office with some expansion
0.16 acres
Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Office, Zoned "C-4"-Office, Zoned "C-4"-Office, Zoned "C-4"-Parking, Zoned "C-4"
STAFF ANALYSIS
This rezoning request to "C-3" is before the Planning Commission because of plans to expand a nonconforming use by adding a second floor. The property is used for an office and it is zoned "C-4" which does not permit a professional office by right. The existing zoning is the result of adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1980 which converted the old "G" commercial district to "C-4." A "C-3" rezoning is more compatible with this part of downtown and staff supports the request. There are no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of "C-3" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of "C-3" as filed. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent an d 1 abstention (Fred Perkins).
November 26, 1985
Item No. 4 -Z-4572
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Pleasant Valley Inc.
Ronnie Hall
Riverfront Drive at Turtle Creek Lane
Rezone from "O-2" to "MF-24"
Multifamily
10.9 5 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Multifamily, Zoned "PRD"-Vacant, Zoned "O-2"-Arkansas River, No Zoning-Vacant, Zoned "O-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the property in question to"MF-24" to allow approximately 250 units. The site islocated in the Riverdale area of the City and adjacentto the Arkansas River. The northern portion of theRiverdale, north of Turtle Creek Lane, is beingdeveloped for multifamily units at a density of about20 units per acre. To the south of Turtle Creek Lane,the zoning is primarily nonresidential with "O-2,""O-3," "C-3" and "I-2." There are also two tracts zoned for medium to high density residential uses, "MF-18 and "R-6." The land use is mixed with the residential to the north and nonresidential to the south. Based on the existing development patterns in the area, a multifamily rezoning and use are appropriate for the property.
2.The site is vacant and flat.
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Planrequirements associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments from the reviewingagencies as of this writing.
5.Future Educational Building --The PUD indicates thepotential location of future educational buildings that areattached to the educational buildings shown in phases two andfive. These buildings woul d be cantilevered over the parking lotssometime after 2000.
6.Access --The access paragraph on page six of the October 24,1985 project summary is revised to include a second entrance onHinson Road shown on the November 20, 1985 PUD. This revisionalso shows the location of Beckenham, an East-West collectorstreet that is shown on the master street plan. The MontvaleDrive connection to the North has not been included in the plan bymutual agreement between the neighborhood and the church. Thecity staff and public works department, after reviewing submittedtraffic studies, are also recommending that Montvale be omitted.
PART II: CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORHOOD RES IDENTS
1.Undisturbed Buffer --The undisturbed buffer paragraphs onpage six of the October 24, 1985 project summary are modified toinclude the following: "the church will implement a planting plan that will consist of a heavy planting of evergreen trees in the 100 foot undisturbed buffer on the North-East corner of the property. The church will also incorporate an earth berm that is shown on the plan that will be topped by landscaped shrubs."
The eastern border of the property will be landscaped, with a ,.___, concerted effort being made not to remove any trees from this area.
2.Junior/Senior High School or College --The church is willingto include in the bill of assurance that we will not have aJunior/Se nior High School or College at this location.
3.Montvale Drive --The church agrees with the residents thatMontvale Drive is not desirable and has not shown this street onthe PUD.
4 .Water Retention --Water retention data has been sub mittedto the City Public Works Department. The retentio n pond will notonly handle this project's runoff, but will also reduce peak flowscurrently coming across the property. The ch urch's full-timemaintance staff will insure that the lake is clean, control waterfluctuation levels in the lake, and spray the lake regul arly tocontrol mosquitos.
2
November 26, 1985
Item No. 4 -Continued
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The property was originally zoned "MF-18" but it wasrezoned to "O-2" in 1981. That rezoning includedapproximately 40 acres with a majority of the landbeing zoned "MF-18" and the balance "R-6" prior to therezoning action. There is no documented ne ighborhoodposition on the site.
7.The proposed multifamily project is compatible with thearea and staff supports the use but at a lower density.Staff feels that the "MF-24" density is too high forthe site and suggests "MF-18" as being more app ropriateand which also maintains the density level in the area.An "MF-24" development could possibly overbuild thesite and require a hi gh percentage of land to beutilized for buildings and surface areas. With therequested density, the property would los.e many of thenecessary amenities such as green areas and lower thelivability of the project. The Heights/Hillcrest Planoriginally showed a multifamily use for the location,but was amended to office after the "O-2" rezoning tookplace.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends an "MF-18" reclassification as being more appropriate for the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Burton Speights, was present. There was 1 objector in attendance. Staff modified its reco mmendation to support to "MF-24" rezoning based on a site plan, but suggested that the item should be deferred because of a notification question. Mr. Speights discussed the notification issue. He said that a second notice was mailed which corrected the first notice and that he personally notified all of the property owners by phone. Mark Stodola, City Attorney, spoke on the notification issue. Peter Hoover, representing one of the property owners, asked that the request be deferred because of the notification question and to have more time to review the proposal. He also asked if signs were ever posted on the property. Ronnie Hall, an engineer, said that he was not sure if the signs were ever placed on the property. There was a long discussion about the va rious issues. A motion was then made to defer the request to the December 17, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 5 -Z-4573
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Ex isting Use:
James F. Tice
Same
1903 Hinson Loop Road
Rezone from "O-3" to "C-4"
Office and Glass Shop
0.35 acres
Vacant Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Commercial, Zoned "R-2"-Commercial, Zoned "R-2"-Multifamily, Zoned "R-5"-Vacant, Zoned "O-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the property to "C-4" for anauto glass shop. The site is located on Hinson Loop Road which is a substandard street with an average traffic flow. The land use is very mixed and includes a day-care center, multifamily, office, some commercial and a contractor's storage yard. A number of the uses are nonconforming because of the area being annexed into the City after the uses were established. Also at the north end of Hinson Loop on both sides, the land is vacant. The zonings in the immediate area are "R-2," "MF-18," "R-5" and "O-3." The "O-3" tracts are the ones that are primarily undeveloped.
2.The site is flat and vacant.
3.Hinson Loop Road is classified as a collector whichnormally requires a 60-foot right-of-way. The surveyindicates a right-of-way of 50 feet so some additionaldedication will be required.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 5 -Continued
6.The property was annexed into the City in 1979 andrezoned to "O-3" in the early 1980's. There is nodocumented neig hborhood position on the site.
7.Staff feels that this is not a viable "C-4" locationand does not support the request. The zoning Ordinancestates in the purpose and intent section for "C-4" that"appr opriate locations for this district are alongheavily traveled major arterials" and Hinson Loopcannot be classified as such. The site is currentlyzoned "O-3" which is an appropriate classificationbecause of the trends in the area, and the SuburbanDevelopment Plan which shows a mix of multifamily andoffice uses. To the east of Hinson Loop Road, the area is developing with quality office projects and some multifamily. That appears to be the type of development pattern that could be extended to Hinson Loop Road. Long-term some upgrading in the area is needed and staff believes that a "C-4" rezoning would not add to that possibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, James Tice, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Tice spoke and discussed the proposal. He indicated that he was not sure why he needed the "C-4" but said that there would be some on-site installation. Mr. Tice also said that the use would not generate a lot of traffic. There was a long discussion about the request and the possibility of rezoning the property to "C-3" with a conditional use permit for the pr oposed use. Mr. Ti ce said that he did not have any problems with the "C-3" zoning. A motion was then made to recommend the "C-3" rezoning with a conditional use permit and to waive additional filing fees and notification. After a long discussion the first motion was withdrawn. A second motion was made to amend the application to "PCD," waive any additional filing fees and to defer action on the request until December 17, 1985. Mr. Tice agreed to amending the application. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 6 -Z-4574
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Tony V. Bowling
Same
10400 I-30
Rezone fr om "R-2" to "C-4"
Outdoor Sales of Portable Buildings and Other Items
.51 acres
Mobile Home and Auto Sales
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Residential, Zoned "R-2"-Interstate Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2"-Interstate Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2"-Residential and Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the property to "C-4" to permit the sale of various items. The rezoning application was fi led because of an enforcement notice issued by the Zoning Office. The site was annexed into the City, with a sales lot on it which then became a nonconforming use. The use was then expanded without proper zoning, thus initiating the current action by the City's Enforcement Office. The property is located on the I-30 frontage west of Base Line and Mabelvale Pike which has a mix of uses. The zoning is still primarily "R-2" but there is some "I-2" to the west. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for strip development which "C-4" is the appropriate classification for and staff supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff ·recommends approval of the "C-4" request as fi led.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as fi led. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 7 -Z-4577
Owner: Various Owners
W.B. Putnam
Fourche Dam Pike
Applicant:
Location:
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-1"
Purpose: Industrial Warehousing Development
87.2 acres Size:
Existing Use: Pecan Grove
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North South East West
-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2"-Airport Expansion, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDER ATIONS :
1.The request is to rezone approximately 88 acres east ofthe Airport to "I-1" Industrial Park District. TheZoning Ordinance states:
"The "I-1" Industrial Park District is established to provide for modern, efficient and well designed indu strial facilities within a 'park like' setting. As the City's most restrictive industrial district, the "I-1" zone is designed to conform to high development standards while providing for a full array of industrial and related uses. Siting of buildings, parking, landscaping and the location of this district in relation to adjacent residential and commercial areas will be of particular importance in determining the appropriateness of allowing the "I-1" district at a given location. Stringent enclosure, screening and locational requirements are applied to the storage area of materials and merchandise."
The property is located between Fourche Dam Pike and East Roosevelt in the area that is being impacted by the expansion of the airport which is currently underway. On the west will be the relocated Fourche Dam Pike and beyond that a major runway. That project has already had an effect on the neighborhood because of the property acquisition program and construction
November 26, 1985
Item No. 7 -Continued
especially to the west and northwest. The proposal is to develop the property for one large user and have tracts available for some smaller projects. The use is to be primarily industrial warehousing. Because of what is taking place in the area, it appears that industrial use for the property is reasonable if properly developed.
2.The site is currently a pecan grove with some verylarge trees on it. In the northwest corner of theproject, there is a single family residence with someother structures.
3.Fourche Dam Pike on the north side of the property isclassified as a collector on the Master St reet Plan.It appears that some dedication of right-of-way will berequired because the standard for a collector is 60feet and the existing right-of-way is 40 feet. At thistime, it is unknown whether the new alignment ofFourche Dam Pike will change the status of the street.Engineering will address this issue at the publichearing.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The property was annexed into the City in 1985 by thecourt's action upholding the annexation referendum.Staff has received some informational calls regardingthis rezoning.
7.Because of the property's location and the airportexpansion, staff supports the "I-1" request. The typeof use is appropriate because of being close to theairport which has already had a great impact on thearea, especially with the current expansion plan. The"I-1" district does require site plan review which willbe beneficial in this situation because of theremaining residential areas. This will require acomprehensive plan to be formulated prior to anydevelopment taking place. Also, traffic impact on theresidents should be minimal because the preliminaryplan shows only one street accessing the site and thatis from the new alignment of Fourche Dam Pike to thewest. With the residential uses on three sides, staffdoes recommend a 100-foot "OS" strip on the north,south and east sides and to create an adequate buffer.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 7 -Continued
This area is part of the East River Island Plan which identifies the location for re sidential us es. For large tracts in the plan area, this approach was used to encourage actions that provide for some type of site plan review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "I-1" with a 100-foot "OS" strip on the north, south and east sides.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Bill Putnam, was present. There were 10-12 objectors and some other interested persons in attendance. Mr. Putnam spoke briefly and said that he was representing the owners of the land. Rick Ro use then addressed the Commission and said that he was opposed to the rezoning. He was concerned with traffic, noise, increasing the flooding pr oblems and the potential impact on the Rose Meadows Subdivision, the neighborhood directly to the south. There was some discussion about access to the site. Carolyn Biggs also objected to the rezoning. She said that there would be problems with heavy truck traffic. Ms. Biggs also said that the neighborhood did not have ti me to organize or meet to discuss the proposals. E.M. Crow discussed the area and land use. He said that there were some problems with drainage. Warren Sullivan spoke about future trends in the area and asked for more time to review the rezoning. Mr. Su llivan also said that he did not see any rezoning signs on the property. Mr. Putnam addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the necessary si gns were posted and described the locations. He said that he saw no problems with the "OS" areas and the strip on the south side adjacent to Rose Meadows could be increased on 180 feet. Kenneth Nelson and Bill Sisco, both discussed various issues including noise and drainage. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the "I-1" re quest with a 180 foot "OS" strip on the south and a 100 foot "OS" strip on the north and east side. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Dorothy Arnett).
November 26, 1985
Item No . 8 -Z-4578
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ronald L. Clark
Russell H. Clark
1201 South University
Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Tire Display Store/Retail
0.8 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North -Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4"South -Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and"C-3 East -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"West -Commercial, Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The request is to rezone the property to "C-4" to allowa Goodyear store. This will be the Goodyear store thatis currently located at Park Plaza, but will have torelocate because of the future plans for Park Plaza.The site is situated at the southeast corner of. West 12th and University, a major intersection with a very heavy traffic flow. There are a num ber of nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity with a large single family neighborhood to the southeast. The zoning includes "R-2," "O-2," "0-3," "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" with "C-3" being the predominant nonresidential classification. The "C-4" that is directly north of the property in question is currently vacant, but some type of building is planned for the near future. Because of the site's location, it does lend itself to the use that requires high visibility such as Goodyear store, but at the same time it is a piece of property that has some unique circumstances that should be reviewed prior to the project being built.
2.The site is currently vacant and drops off dramaticallyfrom the University Avenue frontage to the east.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 8 -Continued
3.There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Planrequirements associated with this reques t.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neig hborhood position or historyon the site.
7.Staff's position is that the use is approp riate for thelocation, but has some reservations about "C-4" for theproperty. The use is not the issue but rather how thesite is utilized and developed because of ab utting somesingle family lots to the ea st and also some potentialaccess problems. Staff is concerned that a "C-4"rezoning does not provide the nece ssary review toensure that there will be no impact on the residentialneighborhood and the site ca n accommodate the proposeduse. The location gives the pr operty good visibility,but it also ma kes the site somewhat difficult to workwith. Because of these concerns, staff is recommendingthat the request be converted to a conditional usepermit to allow for additional review of the site plan.The use, auto parts sales with limited motor veh icleparts instal lation, is a conditional use in "C-3." Onefinal item is the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan whichshows commercial use for the property in ques tion sothere is no conflict with the adopted plan for thearea.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the request be amended to a conditional use permit and that the action be deferred on it until December 17 to allow the Subdivision Commit tee to review·the site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Russell Clark, was present. There were 3 objectors in attendance. Staff infor med the Planning Commission that the required notices were not sent by certified ma il. Mr. Clark spoke briefly and said that he had met with some of the residents of the nei ghborhood. Mr. D. Wright objec ted to the "C-4" rezoning and sai d he was concerned with ce rtain uses pe rmitted in the "C-4" district. There was a long discussion about the various issues and utilizing a conditional use permit for the property.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 8 -Continued
Mr. Clark agreed to amending the application to a Conditional Use Permit. A motion was made to amend the request to Conditional Use Permit and waive any ad ditional filing fees. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 9 -Other Matters -Ordinance Amendments
Name:
Request:
STAFF COMMENTS:
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Package/Public Hearing
Approval and recommendation of package of amendments as reviewed by Committee and Commission.
This 5th year review for amendment contains 60+ changes with all but a few contained in th e Zoning Ordinance section of the proposed ordinance.
The Planning staff endorses the package as have the many reviewing agencies and individual agencies. Should there be additional recommendations fr om outside sources, we will identify those at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning staff offered a brief overview and update of the amendment package. A general discussion was held followed by a motion to recommend approval of the package as presented. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
November 26, 1985
Item No. 10 -Other Matters
A: Bylaw Amendment Package Adoption
The below inserted recommended bylaw change will accomp lish an amendment discussed previously with the Commission. This amendment primarily has to do with waiving requirements for supplemental notice, waiving publication of legal notice, waiving posting of notice on the property and ad ditional filing fees. These modifications are proposed in those instances where an application is proposed for amendment. The Planning staff recommends that this amendment package be adopted and included within the current bylaw.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning staff offered brief comments concerning the proposal. A brief discussion then followed. A motion was made to adopt the proposed bylaw amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
SEE ATTACHED AMENCJ,1ENT
{ ·\......,.;
PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENT
ARTICLE IV, MEETINGS
Section A, insert a new subsection 6, reading as follows:
(6)Notice of Amended Rezoning Applications -If an
application for rezoning is amended to a more
restrictive zoning classification by the applicant
or the Commission at a Commission meeting, the
Commission may, by majority vote of the members
present at the meeting, waive the requirements for
supplemental notice to property owners within two
hundred (200) feet of the tract, waive publica-
tion of a legal notice, waive posting of a
notice on the property, and waive the filing
fee. However, if an amendment is made to a less
restrictive zoning classification, the Commission may
defer or require refiling of the application, and
notice shall be required to property owners within two
hundre d (200) feet. Publication of a legal notice
and posting of the property shall also be required.
The Commission may waive the filing fee in such case,
by majority vote of members present at the Commission
meeting.
DATE 'tJav. o?t,, lf£'2 •
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R 0
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER l/4l /!; I 2 3 14 5 1', 7 R 9 /0
J.r ,,.,-·lin v" ./ ./ ,/ ,/ / ,/ v y a/ ./' .,,,,
J.Schlereth v a/ ,,/ ,/ / ;I ,/ .I a/,/ v /
R.Massie � ,/ ,/ ,/' ,/ .,/ ,/ � .,/,/ V /
13.Sioes ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ / I ,/ � ,/,/ a/ t/
J.Nicholson v ./ ,/ ./ � 7 ,I ,/ a/v / ,I
' ,/ ,/ A .t' i !J ,/ 1.J II LI 'w.Rector ./
w.Ketcher ,/ .I ,/ V ,/ J � ,/ ,/ ,/v/ A
D.Arnett ,/ v' ,/ v � ti v I �v a/ v
D.J. Jones ii' • ./ y ,/ v" ,/ ,/ ,/,,/ v V
I.Boles ,/ II IJ Ii / A A ,/ IJ II II l!Ji F.Perkins ,/ ,/ v j ,I ' ,// ,/,/
VAYE • NAYE A ABSENT ':e..ABSTAIN
) ,., ( )
.,,,,_..,
November 26, 1985
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at �aLl-Q_��-�
C pe on ·
Date