Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 24 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JUNE 24, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being seven in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Richard Massie Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett John Schlereth Fred Perkins David Jones Ida Boles (Acting Chairman) William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Betty Sipes (One Open Position) Pat Benton June 24, 1986 Item No. A - Z -4658 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Robert Perez Same 7418 Mabelvale Pike Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Commercial /Dog Grooming 0.24 acres Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Multifamily, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal before the Planning Commission is to rezone a single lot to "C -3" for a small -scale commercial use, dog grooming. The property is located in a neighborhood that is primarily residential with some vacant land on the south side of Mabelvale Pike. There does appear to be one nonconforming commercial use on the east side of Lewis Road. The zoning is "R -2," "PRD" and "MF -18" with no nonresidential classification in the vicinity. Along Mabelvale Pike, there is a mix of single family residences and multifamily uses with an apartment project currently under construction on the "MF -18" tract to the south. Also, there are some apartment units along Lewis Road. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 3. Mabelvale Pike is identified as a collector on the Master Street Plan, but at this time, it is unknown whether additional right -of -way is required. Engineering will provide the necessary information to make that determination. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. June 24, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff does not support the rezoning, because if granted, it would create a spot zoning and could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood. The area is predominately single family with a few small multifamily developments. It appears that the existing land use pattern has not disrupted the livability of the neighborhood, and the area should continue as a mix of residential uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 27 -86) Staff recommended that the item be deferred because the necessary notification of property owners had not been accomplished. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 24., 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 24 -86) Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred because notification of property owners had not been completed. A motion was made to defer the issue to the July 22, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. NAME: J and J Piano and Organ Company "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4669) LOCATION: Northeast Corner of University and "H" Streets DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Olin J. Asbury McClelland Consulting Engrs. 2228 Cottondale Lane Mr. Steve Atherton Little Rock, AR 72202 900 West Markham Phone: 663 -7005 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371 -0272 AREA: 1.732 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: 11R -2" PROPOSED USE: J and J Piano and Organ Company /Nichols Furniture Company A. Development Objectives (1) To acquire the proposed site and build a structure to accommodate a combination business /display of pianos and furniture and warehouse space. (2) To preserve the structural integrity of the athletic field. B. Development Proposal (1) The construction of one building containing 20,000 square feet. Z -4669 - Continued (2 ) Use of space will be as follows: a. Piano display ................... 4,000 S.F. b. Nichols Furniture . ............. 8,000 S.F. (4,000 square feet on each of two levels) C. Two -story ....................... 3,000 S.F. d. Electronic organ display / warehouse /expansion space ....... Northern 5,000 S.F. (3) Twelve, parking spaces are required. C. Analysis Staff is not supportive of this plan. The proposed retail uses could lead to strip commercial development along University, which is currently composed of mainly office and multifamily uses. Staff has also had preliminary discussions regarding a commercial use on an abutting site. Thus,. whatever is developed on this site will be crucial to future uses along University Avenue. Access should be limited to the northernmost drive and only if parking is redesigned to abut the street. There should be 34 feet of street from the median to curb. The handicapped ramps and access to the loading dock must be approved by Traffic. The main drive should be 24 feet at least. It is recommended that the sidewalk be located at the property line away from University to not at the curb. D. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. Z-4669 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The main issue to be discussed was identified as land use. A revised plan was submitted by the applicant. Sewer Comments - Sewer available; however, may be somewhat expensive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant requested a 2 -week deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (6- 24 -86) The Planning Commission announced the public hearing on item B. The Chairman asked for a determination of the parties presently involved in this case as to objectors and supporters. There were approximately eight persons present representing the neighborhood opposed to the proposal. After a brief discussion between several of the present parties, it was determined that two members of the Planning Commission would be abstaining from participating in this matter leaving only five voting members inasmuch as the Planning Commission attendance was seven for the day. The Commission discussed whether or not a hearing of the issue is appropriate when a quorum cannot be obtained and final action could not result. Mr. Olan Asbury addressed the subject. He further identified that he had participated in neighborhood meetings involving most of the property owners interested in this matter. A further general discussion followed involving both sides of the issue. The Commission determined after that discussion that it would hear the case Z -4669 - Continued and listen to objectors as well as commentary from Mr. Asbury. This in light of the fact that only five votes would be possible. Mr. Walter Riddick then presented comments representing MY. Peyton Rice, an adjacent owner, and stated that he desired to continue this matter today and not be heard at this time although the general opinion of others was to hear the case. Mr. Riddick offered specific objection to the planned unit development action based on the plans for the neighborhood, those being the Heights /Hillcrest Plan adopted by the City Board of Directors, the additional effect of strip zoning along North University and adverse involvement within a current severe floodplain. He added comments to the effect that he opposed substantial development of any kind other than scattered single family development inasmuch as nonresidential development would impact the flood prone area. The Planning staff was then requested to present its comments and recommendation. Mr. Greeson addressed the issue. 'The staff recommendation was maintained at denial of the request the basis for denial being strip zoning, potential for other properties adjacent along North j University and violation of the Heights /Hillcrest Plan. Mr. Greeson did offer the thought that there, were several potential options for this PUD in the manner of conditional placement of the use on the property. The Chairman then turned the matter to the objectors and asked for comments. Mr. Carl Glenn, a neighbor, offered his thoughts on the subject. Ms. Madigan, a representative of the Little Rock Garden Club, offered comments opposing the encroachment upon University Avenue and this undeveloped area. The basis of her argument being that it would disturb the existing open space. Karen Corbin offered objections to the proposal based on the loss of habitat for certain neighborhood wild life. She further indicated that this was a good resource property for the adjacent school. Mr. Tom Ramsey, the owner of properties at 5800 Evergreen, objected to additional commercial intrusion into the area which could eventually lead to a loss of investment value by office owners in the area. After receiving these comments, the Planning Commission entered into a general discussion involving many of the previous spokespersons as well as Mr. Asbury. At the end of this lengthy discussion, the Chairman made a request of Mr. Asbury to determine whether or not he would accept a June 24, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued deferral of this item to July 22 rather than the normal deferral to July 8 inasmuch as the July 8 agenda was a rather heavy filing with approximately 43 items. The applicant stated that he was agreeable to the July 22 date. The Chairman then asked for the motion on the application as filed. The motion was made and seconded for approval as submitted. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote, therefore, involving the Planning Commission bylaw which requires an automatic deferral. The rehearing is to be set for July 22 at 1 p.m. The vote on the motion was: 4 ayes, 1 noe, 2 abstentions, 3 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. C - Z -4660 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: J. F. Holmes Same West 36th and Shackleford Road Northwest Corner Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4" Office Warehouse 2.67 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Industrial, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The rezoning request is to reclassify the property from "R -2" to "C -4" for an office warehouse on the northern one -half of the site. Plans for the southern one -half are unknown at this time. The land use in the area is still primarily residential with several large undeveloped tracts to the east and south. Directly to the north of this parcel, there is a nonconforming warehouse and on Old Shackleford Road, there is a nonconforming auto repair operation. The warehouse is a fairly recent addition to the neighborhood with construction being initiated prior to the area being annexed to the City. In addition to those two uses, there is an industrial facility south of Brodie Creek. The area has not experienced any recent zoning changes. The most significant rezoning in the vicinity occurred approximately two years ago and involved lands east of Shackleford Road. The rezonings were primarily for "OS" Open Space and multifamily so it appears that the area still has some residential appeal. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. June 24, 1986 Item No. C - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed to the City in 1985 as part of the referendum decision. Staff has received several informational calls regarding the request. 7. Staff feels that the area is not a viable heavy commercial /light industrial location and does not support the rezoning to "C -4." The I -430 Plan identifies the site for residential, and it should remain that way. Because of some recent rezoning requests on Shackleford south of Colonel Glenn Road, the staff is in the process of expanding the industrial area at Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads to accommodate additional light industrial development, such as warehousing. That general area is more appropriate than the property in question for a number of reasons, including better access to I -430. Should this rezoning be granted, it is very conceivable that an industrial strip along Shackleford from north of West 36th to south of Colonel Glenn Road could be established and that would be very undesirable for the entire area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 27 -86) The applicant was represented by Roger Mears. There were no objectors. Mr. Mears discussed the request and the area. He said that West 36th and Shackleford Road were major streets and that the intersection was appropriate for commercial zoning. Mr. Mears then reviewed a court order through an annexation suit that designated. property to the south as "C -3." There was a long discussion about the court order and several other matters. Additional comments were made by Mr. Mears and the staff. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 10, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The Planning Commission requested the staff to research the court orders.) June 24, 1986 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86) The applicant was present and represented by Roger Mears. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff modified its position and recommended approval of the amended application to "I -1." Mr. Mears then spoke and discussed the request. He said that the owners were concerned that an industrial rezoning was inappropriate for their use. There was a long discussion about some of the issues and at that point Mr. Mears described the proposed use for one of the lots as a wholesale activity and said that the owners would be agreeable to "C -3," 11C -4" or "I -1." Mr. Mears made some additional comments and explained that a plat for the property would provide any additional right -of -way for both West 36th and Shackleford Road. A motion was then offered to amend the request to "I -1," defer it for 30 days to the July 8, 1986, meeting, and to waive any additional filing fees. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (The applicant was instructed to renotify the necessary property owners prior to the July 8 hearing.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 24 -86) The applicant was represented by Roger Mears. There were no objectors. Staff reviewed the request and recommended approval of "C -4" for the northern tract and "C -3" for the southern piece. Mr. Mears agreed with the staff's position and amended the application. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended request to "C -3" and "C -4." The vote - 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z- 4092 -B Owner: Robert M. Cearley, Jr. and Chester D. Phillips Applicant: Robert M. Cearley, Jr. Location: Fairview and Pleasant Ridge Roads Request: Rezone from "MF -12" to "MF -18" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 6.2 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "PRD" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -6" West - Vacant, Zoned "PRD" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the tract from "MF -12" to "MF -18" for a multifamily project. The site is located in the Woodland Heights /Summit Road area just north of the Pleasant Forest Subdivision. The land use in the area includes single family, multifamily, noncomforming commercial uses and several sizable vacant parcels. The zoning pattern is similar with "R -2," "MF -6," PRD and "0-3." The multifamily developments in the neighborhood range in densities from 12 to 18 units per acre so the proposed density is appropriate for the area. Also, the newly adopted Highway 10 Plan recommends a multifamily use for the property. The site is currently platted into lots so the status of the plat will have to be resolved prior to the development being initiated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "MF -18" as requested. June 24, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 24 -86) Staff indicated that the item needed to be deferred because notification of property owners had not been completed. A motion was made to defer the request to July 22, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z- 4243 -B Owner: Watson & Taylor Applicant: Same By: Robert M. Wilson, Jr. Location: 1200 Barrow Road Request: Rezone from "C -4" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 2.5 acres Existing Use: Vacant Buildings SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single "C -3" South - Vacant East - Vacant West - Comme r STAFF ANALYSIS: Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and and Commercial, Zoned "C -4" and Single Family, Zoned "C -3" cial, Zoned "C -3" The proposal is to rezone the property from "C -4" to "C -3" to permit retail uses. The site is developed with a number of buildings that were to be used primarily for mini storage units. The project extends to the "C -3" portion on the west and it was decided to provide some leasable commercial/ retail spaces in the structures located closer to John Barrow Road. Rezoning from "C -4" to "C -3" or the mix of uses will not have an impact on the neighborhood and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. (The Commission requested that the owner meet with the City Traffic Engineer to review the project's driveways.) June 24, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z -4627 Owner: Julia M. Ash Applicant: Etta Phillips Location: 2703 Rock Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "R -5" Purpose: Multifamily /Three Units Size: 0.16 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3 South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal is to rezone the site from "R -3" to "R -5" and to convert the existing structure into three units. The property is located south of East Roosevelt and approximately 1 1/2 blocks west of I -30. The immediate neighborhood is primarily single family with several churches and some vacant lots. Along East Roosevelt there are some commercial uses with a high percentage of the "C -3" land vacant or occupied by a residential use. In the area, there are also some large multifamily projects that were developed by the Little Rock Housing Authority. They involve sites on the west side of Cumberland and a location on the east side of Cumberland, north of East 30th, which is a conventional multifamily project. The area to the west of Cumberland is developed primarily in a duplex arrangement. Besides the one public project, the neighborhood east of Cumberland has been able to remain single family for the most part with very few single lot rezonings. The lots along Rock should remain "R -3" with the potential for a duplex through a conditional use permit. Rezoning to "R -5" could have a negative impact on the neighborhood and should not be encouraged. � June 24, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 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. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff's position is that the lot should remain "R -3" and be utilized for either a single family residence or a duplex. An "R -5" rezoning would create a spot zoning if granted, and would not limit the proposed remodeling to three units. The rezoning of the property could create problems and establish an undesirable precedent for the neighborhood. It is the staff's understanding that the structure was, used for a duplex at one time and possibly have a nonconforming status. If that cannot be documented through the Zoning Enforcement Office, then a conditional use permit would be required for increasing the structure from one to two units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R -5" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Etta Phillips, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Phillips spoke and said that a proposal was to remodel the structure into three units including the small efficiency apartment at the rear of the building. There was a long discussion about the proposal. Julia Ash, the owner of the property, then addressed the Commission. She also described the proposed use and said that the residence was too big to be used for a duplex. After some additional comments, Ms. Phillips requested a vote on the "R -5" as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 7 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. The rezoning was denied. June 24, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z -4673 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: George M. Wells Location: Taylor and "R" Street, NE Corner Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 0.32 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C -3 South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone two lots from "R -2" to "C -3" for some commercial uses. The site is located within the Heights commercial district and has "C -3" zoning on three sides. The two lots in question and two others are the only "R -2" lots between Polk and University, north of Cantrell to Kavanaugh. It is anticipated that the remaining "R -2" lots including the one to the south of the property in question will be rezoned in the future. The rezoning is compatible with the area and supported by the Heights /Hillcrest Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, George Wells, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Wells made a brief statement. The Commission then voted on the request as filed. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z -4676 Owner: Professional Land Company Applicant: Same Location: Baseline Road and Hilaro Springs Road, SE Corner Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Shopping Center Size: 9.35 acres Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND UPE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2 South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Public and Industrial, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal before the Planning Commission is to rezone approximately 9.4 acres to "C -3" for a shopping center. The specifics of the development are unknown at this time because no plan has been submitted. The property is located at the southeast corner of Hilaro Springs Road and Baseline with frontage along both streets. The immediate area is zoned "R -2" with a large number of nonconforming uses, especially along the north side of Baseline Road. There is a commercial center located at the northwest corner of Scott Hamilton (Hilaro Springs) and Baseline that has several different uses in it. To the east of Scott Hamilton, there is what could be described as a commercial strip on the north side of Baseline. South of Baseline the major uses include a school, church, multifamily project and a mobile home park. At the southeast corner of Hilaro Springs and Baseline there is a vacant service station with a used car lot, and further to the south on Hilaro Springs there are several nonresidential uses. There are still a number of single family residences in the neighborhood which are well maintained for the most part. June 24, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued 2. The site is primarily vacant with several single family structures along the Hilaro Springs Road side. 3. The Master Street Plan identifies Baseline Road as a principal arterial and Hilaro Springs as a minor arterial, so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because a survey reflects a 60 -foot right -of -way for both roads. Because of being located at an intersection, the amount of right -of -way will have to be determined by the City Engineering staff. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed into the City in April 1985 as part of the referendum area. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The location in question is part of the Geyer Springs East District Plan which was recently adopted by the City. The Land Use Plan recognizes the existing commercial uses on the north side of Baseline Road, but does not recommend increasing the amount of commercial land to include the southeast corner of Hilaro Springs Road and Baseline. The Plan suggests a mix of residential uses for the property and staff supports that type of development pattern versus nonresidential. The immediate area south of Baseline Road has a number of single family residences and a "C -3" rezoning could have an impact on those locations. Because of this development pattern, it appears that the site is better suited for a low to medium density multifamily project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION: The applicant, Bob Moore, was present. There were no objectors. Staff modified its position and recommended approval of "C -2" for approximately the northern one -half of the site. Mr. Moore said that he was one of the developers of the project and that they own the entire 9.3 acres. He then described the proposal and indicated that "C -2" reclassification was acceptable. John Ayers, architect for the project, then addressed the Commission. He discussed the proposed shopping center and said that "C -2" was a June 24, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued reasonable rezoning for the development. There was a long discussion about the area and the site. Mr. Morgan agreed to amending the request to "C -2." The Commission voted on "C -2" rezoning as amended. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z -4678 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Hurley - Whitwell Realty, Inc. Steven E. Whitwell Kanis and Shackleford, SE Corner Rezone from "0 -3" to "C -3" Commercial /Eating Place 0.5 acres Existing Use: Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office, Zoned "0 -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "0 -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "0 -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The request is to rezone the tract from "0 -3" to "C -3" to allow a restaurant. The property is located at the southeast corner of the Kanis Road and Shackleford Road intersection. The area is part of the I -430 corridor that has experienced substantial rezoning changes over the last 5 to 7 years. Most of the immediate area has been rezoned to either an office or commercial district with some multifamily zoning on the east side of I -430. There is also some "R -2" land along Kanis to the west of Shackleford. The land use is a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, primarily office, with a large percentage of land still vacant. The site under consideration is part of an area between I -430 and Shackleford south of Kanis that is zoned either "0 -2" or 110 -3." Along Shackleford south of I- 630 /Financial Parkway, the commercial zoning has been restricted to the west side of Shackleford Road and a majority of that land is either undeveloped or used for offices. There is some "C -3" land east of I -430 and it is part of the Baptist Medical Center's campus. The zoning pattern that has developed over the years is working and provides for both commercial and office growth. I } June 24, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued 2. The site is approximately one -half acre in size and occupied by a vacant commercial building. 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. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the property. The site was annexed into the City with the structure in place. 7. The I -430 Plan recommends office use for the southeast corner of Kanis and Shackleford Roads and staff does not support the "C -3" request. The Plan identifies the southwest corner for commercial development and the amount of "C -2" at that location was increased recently by a comprehensive rezoning for a larger tract. Shackleford provides a reasonable line between the existing zoning, office and commercial, and staff feels that it should be left undisturbed. The zoning of the property in question could lead to additional commercial rezonings on the east side of Shackleford and also further to the east on Kanis which would create an undesirable development pattern. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Steve Whitwell, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Whitwell discussed the "C -3" proposal and described the general area. He said because of the existing development and zoning patterns in the vicinity, the "C -3" would not have an impact. Craig Burns representing the Farm Bureau then spoke. He said the Bureau was against the rezoning and pointed out that the Farm Bureau had just purchased two acres immediately east of the site in question. Mr. Burns indicated that the Farm Bureau was concerned with litter, security, sewer and parking overflow onto their property. He also said that there was no need for additional restaurants in the area and the rezoning could lead to a strip effect. At that point, there was some discussion about rezoning to "0 -2" and applying for a conditional use permit for the restaurant. Mr. Burns said June 24, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued that the Farm Bureau would be opposed to the "0-2" with a conditional use permit. Mr. Whitwell then spoke again. He discussed the issue at length and requested a vote on "C -3." There was a long discussion about "0 -2" and "C -2." At that point, Mr. Whitwell amended the application to "C -2." A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C -2" request as amended. The vote: 5 ayes, 2 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. The motion failed and the item was deferred to the July 8, 1986, meeting. June 24, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z -4679 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Paul C. Watson, Jr. Same 3723 West 11th (At Oak) Rezone from "R -3" to "R -5" Multifamily /Four Units 0.14 acres Duplex SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The proposal is to rezone the lot from "R -3" to "R -5" and to convert the structure from a duplex to a fourplex. The property is located in a neighborhood that is primarily single family and zoned either "R -3" or "R -4." To the south there is some "C -3" zoning and several commercial uses that are found along West 12th. The site in question abuts "C -3" on the rear property line. In addition to those uses, there is a large quasipublic use, the Florence Crittendon home, and there are some multifamily uses north of West 10th Street in the immediate neighborhood. The area is not exclusively single family and it appears that increasing the number of units on this lot is a reasonable option if accomplished through a process that provides for additional review and places some limits on the density. 2. The site is a typical residential lot 46' x 130' and occupied by a two story structure. 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. June 24, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. Staff is concerned that "R -5" is not restrictive enough to ensure some protection for the neighborhood and suggest that a PRD be utilized in this situation to allow the increase in units. The PRD process provides a more thorough review of the proposal and places limits on the number of units which should be three or four with this lot. It appears that an adequate area for parking is available to meet the requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "R -5" and suggest that the PRD process be used to increase the density. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Paul Watson, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Watson spoke and said that the building had been a duplex and that he wanted to convert it into a fourplex. He said that the structure was large enough to accommodate the additional units. Bruce Smith, a resident of the neighborhood, then spoke against the request. He said that it was not suitable for four units and that there were problems with parking. Mr. Smith indicated that adequate parking needed to be provided first and then some more units could be feasible. There was a long discussion about utilizing the PRD process and the parking situation. Mr. Watson asked several questions and agreed to following the PRD procedure. A motion was made to defer the request and refile it as a PRD and waive any additional filing fees. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z -4680 Owner: Applicant: Location: Ronald L. Clark Russell H. Clark Look Street j us t east of South University Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 0..15 .acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS (The applicant has submitted a written request for a 30 -day deferral to the July 22, 1986, meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 22, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. June 24, 1986 Item No. 9 - Z -4681 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock Joe D. White West Markham and Timber Ridge SE Corner Rezone from "R -2" and "0 -3" to II C -311 Commercial 7.1 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" South - Vacant, Zoned "0 -3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "0 -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The request is to rezone the tract of land from "R -2" and "0 -3" to "C -3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property is situated in the Rock Creek Parkway area at the southeast corner of West Markham and Timber Ridge Drive. A majority of the land in the immediate area is still vacant including the "C -3" on the north side of West Markham. The growth that has occurred in the area is primarily residential, both single family and multifamily. The most recent nonresidential rezoning request in the area was west of Timber Ridge (Z- 3292 -A) and it was denied by the Planning Commission. The nonresidential development is back to the east along the Shackleford Road corridor. In addition to the residential units, there are two industrial type uses found in the immediate vicinity. On the west side of Timber Ridge, there is a contractor storage yard and to the east, on the south side of West Markham, there is an AP &L facility. Because of the development and zoning patterns in the area, it appears that the property in question has some potential for a commercial development. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. June 24, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued 3. Engineering will need to provide the specifics for any additional right -of -way dedication because of the property's location, the intersection of Timber Ridge, West Markham and the future I- 630 /Parkway connection. West Markham is classfied as a collector and Timberridge is a residential street. 4. There have been on adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received several informational calls about the request. The site was zoned to 110 -3" as part of the overall Rock Creek Plan for the area. 7. Staff's position is that a commercial rezoning is reasonable for the site because of the location and the proposed alignment of the I- 630 /Parkway connection. The new alignment has been shifted to the northeast and is different than what the zoning sketch reflects. Because of the new location of the roadway, some of the existing "C -3" will be situated to the southwest of the intersection of West Markham and the I -630 extension with the property under consideration abutting some of the "C -3." Also with the new alignment, the net gain of commercial land will be less than four acres if the request is granted. The rezoning, if approved, would leave an office area between the commercial property and the single family subdivision to the south which should reduce the potential for any impacts. To provide additional protection for the single family neighborhood, staff feels that a "C -2" commercial reclassification for the site would be more appropriate because it is a site plan review district. And finally, staff encourages the owner of the "0 -3" tract to the south to pursue a rezoning to "0 -2" to also have benefit of site plan review prior to any development taking place on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the "C -3" rezoning, but recommends approval of "C -2" for the property. _ une 24, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN: The owner was represented by Dickson Flake. There were approximately 30 objectors present. Mr. Flake introduced several other persons in attendance and said that the rezoning was initiated because of the road improvement district for the I- 630 /Parkway Extension. He went on to say that there were only two property owners within 200 feet and that the existing "0 -3" directly north of the Timber Ridge Subdivision would remain with some additional protection, such as requiring a site plan review. Mr. Flake then described the area and presented some photos. He also said that because of the I -630 extension commercial land use was appropriate for the intersection and that's where it should be concentrated. Ann Kamps then spoke against the rezoning and indicated that the group present was representing a large area including the Timber Ridge and Point West Subdivisions. She also presented a petition with 200+ signatures and a letter. Elizabeth Shores said that there would be a negative impact from the rezoning and said that no demand existed for retail or commercial space. She asked that the plan be maintained and not rezone the property. Dr. Joe Murphy voiced his opposition to the rezoning and discussed the Board of Directors' action on the Bowman Road rezoning case. Tracy Jones described the AP &L substation and said that the commercial zoning could cause too many problems. Tammy Holbert also spoke against the rezoning and said it was a threat to the livability of the neighborhood. Dr. Murphy discussed the parkway and the plan for the area. Mary Ann Rauls addressed the Commission and discussed the rezoning attempt for the "0 -3" property to the west. Joe White, engineer for the road district, spoke and answered questions. Chip Murphy then discussed the cost of the intersection and addressed several other points. Additional comments were made by both Ms. Rauls and Dr. Murphy. At that point, there was a discussion about the quorum situation and the vote because of Commissioner Massie having to abstain. The City Attorney indicated that Commissioner Massie had a potential conflict of interest because of his involvement with the plan for the area in question. Dickson Flake then spoke again and requested a vote on the commercial rezoning and amended application to "C -2." He said that the rezoning would create a value for the road and was not the same as the Bowman Road case. A motion was offered to recommend approval of "C -2' as amended. The vote 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent, 1 abstention (Richard Massie) and 1 open position. The motion failed and the item was deferred to the July 8, 1986, meeting. June 24, 1986 Item No. 10 - Areas 2, 3 and 4 - Extraterritorial Plan The more detailed plans for Areas 2, 3 and 4 have been completed for the Extraterritorial Plan. These plans are a more specific delineation of the Extraterritorial Plan recently approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The plans have been reviewed by the Plans Committee, and their comments have been incorporated. The Plans Committee recommended approval of the plans with a resounding positive vote. The plans were discussed at a Citizens' Forum meeting on June 5, 1986. There were approximately 20 persons present. An alternative scheme for the Shackleford Dairy property was presented and is currently being reviewed by the staff and the consultant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The area plans were reviewed by Gary Greeson and Jim Lawson of the Planning staff. The Commission then heard comments from the general public. Because of a quorum problem, no vote was taken. The item was deferred to the July 8, 1986, meeting. DAat¼.Lc ;?LJ; @b PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER fl g t I :l 3 4-15 6 ? R 9 /t) 'I---- J.Schlereth v � / // v • v / • / / / ,/ R.Massie / " / / i/ tJ / / • / ./ � I� " B.Sipes " -rl /} J.Nicholson . _A II I 7/ w.Rector / I� ,/ / / • ,/ / / / � / ,/ w.I<etcher /I .. ,1 / I/ L,, / ,/;1 D.Arnett / ./" II / / O. J. Jones / / / / / • � ,/ ./ / / v' V I.Bo1es ,/ / / / ,/ --. ,/ ,/ ,/ �/ / � i/ F.Perkins / ,/ / �/ / " / / y / / ,/ / VAYE @ NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTAIN � June 24, 1986 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4 :15 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date