Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 27 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD MAY 27, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 9 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes Fred Perkins David Jones Ida Boles Jim Summerlin City Attorney: Pat Benton May 27, 1986 Item No. A - Z -4634 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Billie Jean Barkley Walter Hyde 9202 Stagecoach Road Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Beauty Shop 1.7 acres Existing Use: Single Family and Beauty Shop .qTTRRnTTNT)TNG T,ANn MqR ANTS 7.nMTN('. North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue before the Commission is to rezone the property to "C -3" for an existing beauty shop. The shop was in operation prior to being annexed, but some time after coming into the City expansion took place which is not permitted because of being a nonconforming use. After that was determined, the owners were issued an enforcement notice, and then filed the rezoning request. The site is located on Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) south of Baseline Road in the Otter Creek area. The land use is primarily vacant or single family on large tracts. There are some nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the intersection of Baseline Road and Stagecoach Road. The zoning is "R -2" with some multifamily to the south and commercial at the intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach. 2. The site is a level piece of ground with a single family residence on it and the building is being used for a beauty shop. 3. Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) is identified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. The existing right -of -way is deficient for an arterial so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. May 27, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 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 site. The property was annexed into the City in 1980. 7. The adopted Land Use Plan for the Otter Creek District recommends a multifamily use for the property not commercial as is being requested. The plan shows commercial uses to the north of this tract and concentrated at the intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach. Staff believes that the plan's concept should be maintained and does not support the "C -3" request. The rezoning of this tract to commercial could lead to the stripping out of Stagecoach which would create an undesirable development pattern. The "C -3" parcel on the east side of Stagecoach was accomplished with staff support because of being a large tract and having frontage on both Baseline and Stagecoach. (The application for Z -4325 was filed prior to the adoption of the Otter Creek Plan but was not acted upon until the plan had been completed. During that time period, an amended rezoning plan was submitted based on input from the staff and the Otter Creek Property Owners' Association. The southern portion of the parcel is not identified on the plan for commercial use.) Staff feels that a "C -3" rezoning of this site could have a greater impact on the area than allowing the "C -3" tract on the east side to extend south of the commercial line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 22 -86) The applicant, Walter Hyde, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hyde described the area and said that there was only one building on the site and not two as stated in the staff writeup. He said that a carport was enclosed to provide the space for the beauty shop. There was a long discussion about the possibility of a nonconforming use and structure. Kenny Scott, of the City Staff, addressed the enforcement action because of the sign. He said that his office had no information on the nonconforming status of the property. Betty Jean Hyde then spoke and said that equipment had been stored on the site but not in use since 1962. May 27, 1986 Item No. A - Continued Tommy Evans then addressed the Commission and said that he was speaking for the Hyde's. He said that the beauty shop was an asset for the community and would not cause any problems. There was a long discussion about the various issues. The Commission voted on the "C -3" request as filed. The vote was 0 ayes, 4 noes, 3 absent and 4 abstentions (Jim Summerlin, Jerilyn Nicholson, Betty Sipes and Richard Massie). Because of failing to receive a majority vote, the rezoning was deferred to the May 27, 1986, meeting. (Commissioner Massie requested that the Planning Staff study the area along Stagecoach south of Baseline Road and review the existing Otter Creek Plan.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 27 -86) The applicant, Walter Hyde, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hyde spoke and discussed other possible zoning classifications that would allow the beauty shop to continue. He indicated that he was flexible and did not necessarily want commercial zoning. There was a long discussion about utilizing a PCD or rezoning to "O -1" with a conditional use permit for the beauty shop. A motion was made to amend the application to "O -1" with a conditional use permit for the beauty shop and waive any additional filing fees and further notification of property owners. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. B - Z -4644 Owner: Francis K. Wood and Telka K. Connerly Applicant: William H. Asti Location: 1900 Block of South University Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Auto Speciality Shopping Center Size: 10.0 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 - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 10 -acre site from "R -2" to "C -3," and the proposed use is an auto speciality shopping center. It appears that certain uses that are to be included in the center will require conditional use approval also. The property is located on South University just south of the commercial strip between West 12th and West 19th /Boyle Park Drive. The site abuts single family residences on three sides, and on the east side of University, there is a large vacant tract which is owned by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. At the northeast corner of the property, there is a commercial use zoned "C -3." The remaining portion of the land is surrounded by "R -2" zoning. The property in question appears to be removed from what would be considered a more desirable commercial location and has significant issues that need to be addressed, such as access and its relationship to the single family neighborhood. For an auto related use such as being proposed, the site has very inadequate access because there is no median cut along University in that area, and direct access at this time is only from the north. May 27, 1986 Item No. B - Continued 2. The property is vacant and has been significantly modified over the years because of some site work. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received some information calls regarding the rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. Staff feels that the site is not a viable commercial location, especially because of the access issue and does not support the request. Another major concern is that a "C -3" rezoning could have some adverse impacts on the surrounding single family neighborhoods which appear to be very stable. A use such as is being proposed could disrupt the livability of those neighborhoods because of generating excessive noise levels and needing bright lights. The Boyle Park District Plan which this location is a part recognizes 7 that the site is not a single family area and recommends an office use for the property. The intent of the plan was to provide some development potential for the site with a use that would not create heavy traffic loads. Because of being in conflict with the plan, the access question and the potential impact on a single family neighborhood, the "C -3" reclassification should not be granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 22, 1986) The applicant, William Asti, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to allow the City's Traffic Engineer to review the access issue. Mr. Asti indicated they had no problems with the deferral and presented some information to the Commission. A resident of the neighborhood then spoke. He said he opposed the "C -3" rezoning and objected to the deferral request. Mr. Asti made some additional comments. A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the May 13, 1986, meeting. The ,notion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes 0 noes and 5 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86) The applicant, William Asti, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Asti discussed the possibility of utilizing "C -2" for the site and providing substantial buffers. Several of the Commissioners questioned Mr. Asti about why he was unable to meet with the City staff to address the various issues. It was pointed out that the request was deferred at the April meeting to allow Mr. Asti to work with the City staff. There was a long discussion about another deferral and other issues. At this point Mr. Asti asked what would be appropriate zoning for the site and agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the May 27, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING-COMMISSION-ACTION: (5- 27 -86) The applicant, William Asti, was present. There were no objectors. Henk Koornstra of Traffic Engineering addressed the Commission about University Avenue and a median cut for the property in question. He said that the cut would be an undesirable distance between Berkshire and West 19th /Boyle Park Drive. He went on to say that additional widening would be required for more traffic lanes and dedication of right -of -way would be needed. Mr. Koornstra also indicated that he could not support a median cut for UALR. There was a lengthy discussion about the various traffic issues. Mr. Asti then spoke and discussed the "C -3" request with a conditional use permit for some of the anticipated uses. He said that the development needed the median cut and that "C -2" was a possible alternative. The Commission discussed the need for open space and ways of developing the property. Mr. Asti made some additional comments and then agreed to withdraw the "C -3" rezoning. A motion was made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z -4656 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jim Adams S ame Baseline Road and I -430 Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Industrial 4.22 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" West - I -430 Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone 4.2 acres to "I -2" for an unspecified industrial use. The tract in question is situated on the north side of Baseline Road directly east of I -430. The site is located in an area that is primarily undeveloped and zoned "R -2" Single Family The "I -2" zoning to the north is the location of an AP &L Substation. To the east, there is an Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department complex with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses further to the east on Baseline Road. The land use pattern that has occurred is primarily due to the development in the area taking place while still outside the City, so there are a number of nonconforming uses. 2. The site is vacant, wooded and below the grade of the I -430 road surface. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. Baseline Road is identified as a minor arterial, and the survey indicates 80 feet of right -of -way is in place which is adequate for a minor arterial. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. May 27, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site, and the property was annexed to the City in 1980. 7. This location is part of the Otter Creek District Plan, which does not identify the site for industrial use. After carefully reviewing the plan and the request, staff feels that the land use plan should be maintained and does not support the "I -2" rezoning. The Otter Creek Plan provides for industrial uses in other areas that are more suitable, and many of those locations are already zoned for industrial development. Those areas are primarily along I -30 between Mabelvale West and Alexander Road, Stagecoach Road, southwest of Otter Creek Road and east of Mabelvale Pike. The locations are very adequate and can accommodate any real industrial growth in the larger area for the next 10 to 15 years. Another point is that neither the Otter Creek Plan or the I -430 Plan recommend an industrial corridor along I -430, and this rezoning could establish a precedent for that type of land use pattern. There appears to be no strong justification for the rezoning at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I -2" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jim Adams, was present. There were no objectors. Staff modified its position and recommended approval of the "I -2" rezoning and suggested a plan amendment for a larger area to show additional industrial locations. Mr. Adams spoke briefly. A motion was made to recommmend approval of the "I -2" request as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z -4662 Owner: F.W. Shephard Applicant: W.P. Putnam Location: Colonel Glenn Road between Shackleford and I -430 Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -1" Purpose: Commercial and Industrial Uses Size: 9.55 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the site to "I -1." The proposal is to divide the property into three tracts with a heating and air conditioning service proposed for one of the parcels. The land in question is located on the north side of Colonel Road between Shackleford Road and I -430. The area has a mixed land use pattern which includes residential, commercial and industrial. The zoning is just as diverse with "R -2," "MF -12," "0 -2," "C -2," "C -3," "I -1" and "I -2." There are also a number of nonconforming uses in the vicinity especially along Colonel Glenn Road east of Shackleford. A high percentage of the land zoned for something other than single family residential is undeveloped, including two industrial pieces on Colonel Glenn Road and Stagecoach Road. 2. The site is vacant and relatively flat. The property has approximately 765 feet of frontage along Colonel Glenn Road. 3. Colonel Glenn Road is identified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan which normally requires a right -of -way of 100 feet. Based on the survey, the existing right -of -way is deficient so dedication of additional right -of -way will be necessary. May 27, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued 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 or history on this site. 7. The I -430 District Plan currently shows the intersection of Colonel Glenn and Stagecoach Roads, excluding the northwest corner for light industrial uses. The staff is now proposing a substantial amendment to the I -430 Plan to increase the industrial area. The contemplated change would add land between Talley Road and Shackleford Road, approximately one -half mile south of Colonel Glenn Road. The amendment will also recognize a recent "I -1" rezoning on the east side of Colonel Glenn Road but does not propose any change for the property in question, which is identified for multifamily development. The proposed amendment is the result of several rezoning requests to "I -1" along Shackleford. Currently, a 20 -acre site is zoned "I -1" and another 35 acres are in the process of being rezoned to "I -1." Of those 55 acres, only 25 have a definite use proposed. There is also a vacant "I -2" tract on Colonel Glenn Road just west of Brodie Creek. Because of the plan modification and the existing industrial tract, staff feels that the area will be able to accommodate industrial growth for a number of years and does not support the request. The goal of the plan is to now encourage industrial development along Shackleford Road, a less visible location and not Colonel Glenn Road. Additionally, it was hoped that the land use plan for Colonel Glenn Road would help clean it up and avoid another Asher Avenue. Staff is also concerned that if industrial rezonings are granted along Colonel Glenn Road that a mix of marginal uses will begin to develop and that would not be desirable for the area. Some redevelopment is needed for Colonel Glenn Road, but a general upgrading should also take place at the same time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the 'I -1" rezoning as requested. May 27, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Bill Putnam, was present. There were no objectors. Staff reminded both the Commission and the applicant that "I -1" was a site plan review district so prior to any development taking place the City would have to review the proposed site plan. Mr. Putnam spoke and described the area for the Commission. He went on to say that he approached staff about "C -4" or "I -1" for the site and "I -1" was suggested. Mr. Putnam said that the property would be divided into three tracts with a plumbing shop proposed for the western 2 1/2 acres. At that point, Mr. Putnam presented some photos and made some additional comments. Joe Russell, the proposed user of the western piece, said that the building would be warehousing and some retail. There was a long discussion about "C -4" and other issues. A motion was offered to recommend approval of "I -1" for the entire tract. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. B May 27, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z -4663 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Kanis Properties Partnership Ralph Bozeman North of Kanis and West of Bowman Rezone from "0-3" to "C -3" Shopping Center Size: 7.05 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF -12" & "MF -18" South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" East - Vacant & Single Family, Zoned "R -2" & "MF -18" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the "0-3" tract to "C -3" and then construct a shopping center on the entire piece with 39,000 square feet in the first phase and 28,300 square feet in the second phase. The existing "C -3" is vacant. The property is located on Kanis west of Bowman Road in an area that has experienced some rezoning changes over the last year. These locations include the "MF -12" and "MF -18" to the north, "C -3" on Bowman and a "PCD" on the south side of Kanis. The land use includes a developed single family subdivision to the west, and along Kanis there is a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Some of the land is undeveloped, including the "MF" areas to the north and the "C -3" parcels on the south side of Kanis to the west. Most of the commercial zoned land in the general area is still vacant so it does not appear that a real demand exists for additional "C -3" property. 2. The site is vacant. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. May 27, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued 4. Wastewater Utility reports that there is no sewer service readily available to the site. No other comments have been received as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. Both the "0 -3" and "C -3" parcels were rezoned in September 1979. In addition to the rezoning issue, there was also an annexation petition involved with the property. At the time of the Planning Commission public hearing, staff requested that the rezoning should be deferred because of the tracts being within the I -430 Plan area. The Planning Commission proceeded to act on the request and attach a condition that the "F" Commercial parcel be designated "C -3" because under the proposed ordinance (adopted in 1980) a site plan review was going to be possible. 7. Staff's position regarding this rezoning is that there is an adequate amount of commercial land in the area, and the need for additional property has not been demonstrated to justify this request. Because of this and the rezoning being in conflict with the I -430 Plan, staff does not support the "C -3" reclassification. The I -430 Plan identifies the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads for commercial development, and some rezonings have already taken place within that area. In the immediate vicinity, a majority of the commercial sites are vacant, including the "C -3" to the west on the south side of Kanis. At this time, there is sufficient commercial land to accommodate the needs of the area for the next 5 to 10 years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Ralph Bozeman, was present. There were two persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the case. Mr. Bozeman spoke and said that only four acres were involved with the rezoning from "0 -3" to "C -3" because the southern one -third of the tract was already zoned "C -3." He explained to the Commission that he had met with some of the homeowners in the Point West Subdivision and reviewed the development proposal with them. Mr. Bozeman said that commercial zoning was appropriate for the site and presented a proposed site plan. He also said that he was willing to May 27, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued provide a 30 -foot landscaped area and a 6 -foot fence as requested by the residents of Point West. There was a long discussion about several items including utilizing a PCD for the site. Virginia Vollmer of the Point West Subdivision then spoke. She asked if it would be possible to attach conditions such as approval of a site plan, landscaping, a fence and adequate lighting to the rezoning. Ms. Vollmer said that there were concerns about what would happen if the property changed ownership. Another resident asked several questions and reinforced what Ms. Vollmer had discussed and said that the Point West homeowners wanted to see a development plan. Mr. Bozeman indicated that he had no real problems with the PCD or providing some protection for the residents to the west. There were several other comments made and staff said that a PCD appeared to be a reasonable solution. A motion was made to amend the request to a PCD, defer it for six weeks to the July 8, 1986, meeting and to waive additional filing fees. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (Renotification of the property owners was not waived.) May 27, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z -4664 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: McClellan Optimist Club Ronnie Hall Garver and Garver I -30 West of Vimy Ridge Road Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Storage 2.86 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North Vacant and Public, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Railroad Track, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the tract to "I -2" for storage and construction of a small office structure. The property is located between I -30 and the MOPAC Railroad tracks in an area that has experienced some rezoning changes along the I -30 Frontage Road. The site is located within the Otter Creek Plan area which does not identify land for industrial development, but because of the location, staff feels that "I -2" is reasonable especially being adjacent to the railroad tracks. In the immediate vicinity, there is a community park with a senior citizens center, and the reclassification should not have an impact on those uses. The preliminary plat has been filed that shows a private drive and access easement from I -30 to the site under consideration. The Wastewater Utility has stated that there are two sewer lines joining in a "Y" pattern crossing the site. The owner needs to be advised that easements for the sewer line could limit possible construction activity. Engineering will provide information on the floodway and floodplain in this area. Should the property be impacted by a floodway, the owner will be requested to dedicate that portion to the City and rezone to "OS." May 27, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I -2" with any floodway land being rezoned to "OS" and dedicated to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hall said that the McClellan Optimist Club was the owner of the property and accepted the staff's recommendation of "I -2" and "OS" for the floodway. A motion was made to recommend approval of "I -2," "OS" for the floodway and dedication of the floodway to the City. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z -4658 Owner: Robert Perez Applicant: Same Location: 7418 Mabelvale Pike Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial /Dog Grooming Size: 0.24 acres Existing Use: 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 .nix 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. May 27, 1986 Item No. 5 - 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: 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. May 27, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z- 4649 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: First Baptist Church of Highland Park Charles A. Johnson, Jr. 3824 West 18th Street Rezone from "I -2" to "R -3" Parking Lot for Church 0.15 acre Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Church Parking, Zoned "R -3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: This request is before the Planning Commission as the result of action taken by the Board of Adjustment. The First Baptist Church of Highland Park, located at the northwest corner of West 18th and Oak, was granted a variance to use four lots for off - street parking, including the site under consideration. As part of the approval, the Board of Adjustment attached a condition that the church downzone the lot from "I -2" to "R -3." Staff feels that the "I -2" zoning is inappropriate for the location and supports the reclassification to "R -3." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R -3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 } Item No. 7 - Z -4651 Owner: James William and Mary Jane Watkins Applicant: Same Location: Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4" Purpose: Hardware Store and Outside Storage Size: 1.08 acres Existing Use: Vacant Commercial Building (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "0 -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant, Quasi- public Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The request is to rezone the tract to "C -4" for a hardware store with outside storage or what the Zoning Ordinance refers to as a home center. The property is nonconforming because construction of the existing building was initiated prior to the area being annexed to the City. The structure is completed and unoccupied at this time. The site is located at the intersection of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads which is west of Bowman. The developed properties are primarily single family residences which are well- maintained. There are also three nonconforming uses in the immediate vicinity. Across Lawson Road from the property in question, there is a small grocery store, and to the west on Colonel Glenn Road, there is a volunteer fire department and an auto repair garage. Some of the land is still undeveloped, including the "0 -3" and "C -2" parcels on the north side of Colonel Glenn. 2. The site is occupied by a single commercial building with paved areas for parking and storage. 3. Lawson Road is classified as a principal arterial, and Colonel Glenn Road is identified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. The survey indicates a 40 -foot right -of -way for both Lawson and Colonel Glenn Roads, which is normally sufficient for a minor arterial. May 27, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued For a principal arterial, the Master Street Plan recommends at least 100 feet of right -of -way. Engineering will have to provide the specifics for additional right -of -way because of the property being located at an intersection. 4. The Wastewater Utility reports that there is no sewer readily available to the site. No other comments have been received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property was annexed to the City in April 1985, through the State Supreme Court upholding the annexation referendum. 7. The I -430 District Plan does not identify the site in question for a commercial use and the staff does not support the "C -4" request. The plan shows a large area between I -430 and Bowman on both sides of Colonel Glenn for commercial development, and staff feels that is adequate for the area, and most of that land is already zoned appropriately. The I -430 Plan also recognizes the north side of Colonel Glenn west of Bowman for suburban office, the area currently zoned "0 -3" and "C -2." Staff did not support the "C -2," and the plan was not amended to show any commercial west of Bowman Road. The property under consideration does have a nonconforming status, and to help protect the residential neighborhood, it should remain that way. Plans must be maintained to provide protection for single family uses in those areas that are experiencing growth /development pressures, real or otherwise. Staff is concerned that this rezoning if granted could have an impact on the neighborhood and establish a precedent for additional commercial requests at undesirable locations. The I -430 Plan currently provides for commercial development in more viable areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" rezoning as requested. May 27, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The owner, Jim Watkins, was represented by Tom Ferstl. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Ferstl spoke and discussed the history of the site. He said that it was an ideal location for a commercial use and several marketing studies done on the property had indicated that. Mr. Ferstl said that there had been County involvement and through that action 40 feet of right -of -way from the centerline had been dedicated for both Colonel Glenn and Lawson Road. A motion was made to recommend approval of °C -4" as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z -4660 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: J.F. Holmes S ame 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. May 27, 1986 Item No. 8 - 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: 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.) May 27, 1986 Item No. 9 - Z -4661 Owner: William and Carol Blankenship Applicant: Same Location: #15 Lark Place Request: To grant a special use permit for a family care facility Purpose: Family Care Facility Size: 0.2 acre Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request before the Planning Commission is to grant a special use permit for a family care facility which the Zoning Ordinance defines as being: A facility which provides resident service in a private residence to six or fewer individuals who are not related to the resident household. These individuals are handicapped, disabled or in need of adult supervision to provide service and supervision in accordance with their individual needs. Such facility shall receive a special permit for location within "R -1," "R -2," "R -3" Single Family Districts and "R -4" Two Family Districts. It is the staff's understanding that the owner's plan is to provide care for elderly individuals who are somewhat immobile. This type of use should not have an impact on the neighborhood. The development criteria for a facility of this type are: A. This use may be located in a single family dwelling. May 27, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued B. Medical or counseling needs must be provided off -site. C. No physical changes in the residence are permitted which would provide other than sleeping accommodation. D. Drives and parking shall not exceed that required by ordinance for a single family residence. E. This use shall be permitted to run with the title to the land and be transferable; however, the title holder must occupy the residence as his /her principal residence. The lot and residence are of significant size, so meeting the above criteria should not present any problems. There are three persons residing there and it has five bedrooms, so adequate space is available to accommodate additional people without overcrowding and still maintain a healthy living environment. Because of a recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission now has final authority over special use permits unless an appeal of the decision is made to the Board of Directors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a special use permit be granted for the family care facility at #15 Lark Place. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to approve the special use permit as requested. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Other Matters - Allev Abandonment NAME: Block 14, Midland Hill Addition LOCATION: All of the remaining alleys in the block between Ridgeway, Alpine Court, Crystal Avenue and West Markham Street OWNER /APPLICANT: Randy Breece REQUEST: To abandon all of the right -of -way and join with adjacent lots for reuse as private yard areas STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way This right -of -way has not been in use by the general public, especially since the north 100' has been closed for several years. The south entry off West Markham Street had physical access limitations. Access to the properties surrounded by the alley is by way of a private access easement between adjacent structures. 2. Master Street Plan There are no requirements. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets All abutting streets are to City standards. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Most of the several alley components are either filled, cut, inaccessible or unimproved. Currently, only one abutting owner has use of this right -of -way. 5. Development Potential None, except in conjunction with the redevelopment of abutting residential lots. May 27, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 6. Neiqhborhood Land Use and Effect All abutting lots are built upon as residential and used as such. The effect of this abandonment will be to preclude access and development of the interior of the block in an adverse fashion. 7. Neiqhborhood Position All of the abutting owners are participants in this petition. There is no known objection. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities All utilities and drainage easement rights should be retained. 9. Reversionaty Rights This right -of -way will be equally distributed between the abutting owners based on their frontage. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues a. The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of alley right -of -way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. b. The abandonment will eliminate the potential for the extension of rights -of -way to West Markham Street which could prove hazardous to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of these several alley segments as requested with the following conditions: May 27, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 1. That the owner file a subdivision replat of the affected lots and right -of -way including the two abutting lots on West Markham Street. The purpose of this plat will be the restructuring of both access to the internal lot in the middle of the block numbered 18 and provide for a legal frontage for that lot on West Markham Street. 2. That the plat and subsequent construction provide no through traffic between West Markham Street and Ridgeway or Crystal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86) The Planning staff briefly discussed the status of this petition inasmuch as several of the petition signatures have been removed by specific requests of Attorney Steven Quattlebaum. The staff suggested that the petition no longer has a formal status before the Commission. The applicant, Mr. Randy Breece, was in attendance and offered comments on his proposal. There were several objectors present. The issue of the petitioners withdrawing names was discussed at length. The attorney for six objectors which are the persons whose names were removed, presented a letter of withdrawal. The City Attorney Pat Benton, offered comments to the effect that the petition is flawed once the names are withdrawn and under the State Statute which establishes the procedure all of the abutting owners are -required to sign. A general discussion then followed whereby the Planning Commission received comments from both sides of the issue. Those offering comments were: Mr. mason Lawson, Mr. Steve Quattlebaum, Mr. George Wimberly and Mr. James Ryan. The comments of these several speakers ranged from flooding damage due to Mr. Breece's current construction work, to West Markham Street access and unknown land use issues. The chairman declared the hearing closed. A motion was made to remove the item from the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes. May 27, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 27 -86) The applicant, Randy Breece, was present. Staff recommended approval of the revised petition and brought the Commission up -to -date on the matter. Mr. Breece then spoke and discussed the issue. W.P. Hamilton, attorney, addressed the Commission and indicated that he was representing several owners in the area. He said that some of them objected to the closing and requested a deferral. Mr. Breece made some additional comments, and there was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was offered to recommend approval of the alley closure as filed and that other landowners who abut the alley could become part of the petition at any time. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 27, 1986 Item No. 11 - Public Hearing on a Master Street Amendment for a Refinement of the South Loop Alignment This is a Master Street Plan Amendment for a route refinement for the South Loop. The new alignment was generated by a consultant at the request of the City in order to offer a better, more specific alignment. Previously, the Master Street Plan offered only a general corridor plan. This plan alignment lies primarily south of the previous route and extends from the I -30 /I -430 interchange on the west to Highway 65 on the east. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Don McChesney gave a presentation on an amendment to the Master Street Plan involving a principal arterial known as the South Loop. He gave a background statement on the work performed by PATS and by the consultant retained by the City of Little Rock. He explained that three alternative alignments have been discussed and that the southerly route had been recommended by PATS. He recognized that there was some controversy over the alignment, but he recommended adoption of the new alignment by the Planning Commission. After some discussion by the Planning Commission, the motion was made and seconded to recommend to the Board of Directors, the realignment of the South Loop to correspond to the recommended alignment approved by PATS. The item was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 27, 1986 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m. Cha rman 74 Date Secret y