Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 23 1986( LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSI ON MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 23, 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 Prev io us Meeting The minu tes of the July 22 1 1986, and August 26, 1986,meetings were ap proved as mailed. III.Members Present: Members Ab sent: City Attorney: William Ketcher Walter Rid dick III Jerilyn Nicholson Bi ll Rector Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes � Fred Perki ns David Jones Dorothy Arnett Ida Boles Steve Giles / Septemb er 23, 1986 Item No. A -Z-4694 Owner: Donald C. and Ruby W. Bland Donald C� Bland Applicant: Location: 1922 West 12th Street Request: Rezone from 11 R-4" to "C-3 11 Purpose: Office and Commerical Size: Existing Use: 0 .. 11 acres Multifamily (Vacant) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING� North -Duplex, Zoned "R-4" South -Commecc ial, Zoned "C-3 11 East -Duplex, Zoned 11 R-4" West -Commercial, Zoned "C-3 11 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1 .. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone a singl e lot to 11 c-3 n for a mi x of office and co mmerical uses. The exact nature of those uses is unkno wn at this time. The site is lo cated at the northeast co rner of West 12th and Summit in an area that has been heavily impacted by previous rezoning actions. In the immediate neighb orhood, the zoning pattern consists of 11 R -4 , 11 11 R-5 , " u 0-2 , 11 11 0-3 , 11 11 c-3 , " "c-4 11 and " I -2 11 withthe land use being very simil ar. Some of the existing "C-3 11 sites are either vacant or being used for some type of no ncommercial use . Based on the cu rrent zoning in the ne ighb orhood, it ap pears that some type of nonresidential rezoning is appropriate for the property in question. 2.The site is a ty pical residential lot with a large twostory st ructure on it. 3.There are no right-of-way re quirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.. Engineering has expressed some concerns with bothaccess to the site and parking. No ot her comments havebeen received from the reviewing agenc ies. 5.There are no le gal issues. Sep tember 23, 1986 It em No. A -Continued 6.There is no documented history or neighborhood positionon the site. 7.The property under consideration is the only corner atthe intersection of West 12th and Summit that is stillzoned for residential use. The other three corners are zoned either "O-3" or "C-3" so commercial rezoning for the northeast corner appears to be a reasonable option. Because of the site's location and its relations hip to nearby residential uses, staff is reluctant to support "C-3" and suggest that "C-1 " is more appropriate because of it being the neighb orhood commerical district. The one major issue associated with this prop erty is parking. The mix of uses will be based on the lots ability to provide the necessary parking and the own ers should be aware of that situation. The parking requirements from the Zoning Ordinance are 1 space per 400 square feet for of fice and 1 space per 300 square feet for commerical with some personal service uses requiring 1 space per 200 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of "C-1 " and not "C-3" as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was not present. The Commission determined that the notice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the bylaws. A motion was made to defer this matter until August 26. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86) St aff recommended that the item be de ferred for 30 days because of the notice issue. A motion was made to defer the request to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent. PLANNING COMMIS SION ACTION: (9 -23-86) Staff recommended that the item be deferred for 30 days. A motion wa s made to defer the request to the October 28 , 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 23, 1986 Item No . B -Z-4695 Owner: Valentine Hansen and Valentine Pardo Applicant: Valentine Hansen Location: North Van Bur en and "C" Street northwest corner Request: Rezone fr om "R-3" to "C-1" Purpo se: Commercial or Office 0.13 acres Size: Existing Use: Sin gle Family and Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East -Duple x, Zoned "R-4" West -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1.The request is to rezone a si ngle lo t to "C-1" for anunspecified comm erc ial or office use. The pr operty islocated at the northwest corner of North Van Buren and"C" Street in a ne ig hborho od tha t is pr imarily zonedfor resi dential use, either si ngle fa mily or tw ofamily. The la nd use is almost exclusively singlefamily residential, especially north of "B" Street. To the south of "B" Str eet the zoning is more mixed as is the la nd use. Between "B" Street and West Markham the zoning includes "PCD, 11 11 0-3, n "C-3" and "C-4 " with thecommerical zoning being concentrated between West Markham and 11 A" Street. The surrounding ne ig hborhood is a sta ble residential area and allo wing a commerical zoning at this loca tion co uld crea te some pr oblems for the nei ghborhood. 2.The site is a 45" x 123" lo t with thr ee str uctures onit. Two of the build ing s are used for residentialpurposes and the thir d one, located on the corner, is areal estate offic e. 3.There are no ri ght-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with thi s re quest. Septemb er 23 , 1986 Item No. B -Continued 4.Engineering reports that parking is inadequate for arezoning from "R-3" to "C-1." Also, if parking isprovided, the access point should be shown and ap provedby the Traffic Engineer. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no do cumented neighbor hood position on thesite. The property has been used for both office and commerical uses ov er the years so it has some non con forming statu s. 7.The request is in con flict with the adoptedHeights/Hillcrest Plan and st aff do es not su pport the"C-1" rezoning. Over the years, att empts have beenmade to allow nonresidential zoning to encro ach northof "A" Street. In ea ch of those in stances, st aff hasbeen opp osed to the re zonings. "A" Street has alwaysbeen viewed by the staff as an ap propriate line betweennonresidential and residential uses that should bemaintained at all costs. Several years ag o, an "O-1"request was filed for the lot at the southeast co rnerof "C" and North Van Buren to al low for a co nversion ofa residential structu re into an office. That rezoningwas denied by both the Pl anning Commission and theBoard of Directors. This particular request, if approved, co uld have a very adverse imp act on theneighborhood and est ablish undesirable precedent forthe area. Also, with the three buildings on the lo t,the site is not a vi able commercial tr act of land. Andfinally, the property is not co mpletely restricted to aresidential use only, because the str ucture on thecorner has noncon forming status it can co ntinue to beoccupied by an office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommen ds den ial of the "C-1" rezoning as re quested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86) There were no objectors in att endance. The ap plicant was not present. The Commission determin ed that the notice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the byl aws. A motion was made to defer this matter until August 26. The motion passed by a vo te of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 ab sent .. September 23, 1986 It em No . B -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86) The staff info rmed the Commission members that the necessary notification materia ls had not been submitted and recommended that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the September 23, 1986, me eting. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-23-86) St aff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had requested the rezoning be withdrawn from consideration but had not submitted anything in writing. After a brief discussion, a motion wa s made to withdraw the item. The motion wa s approve d by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 23, 1986 Item No. C -Continued 4.In lieu contributions for street improvements on ChicotRoad wi ll be required. 5.There are no lega l issues. 6a There is no documented history or neig hborhood position on the site. 7a This area was annexed into the City as part of the South Central Island. At the time of annexation, the City also rezoned properties in the isl and based on the South Central Island plan which was developed by the staff. The plan's goal for commercial zoning was to concentrate it at intersections of a major street and to recognize the more viable commercial uses. A majo rity of the existing nonresidential zoning found along this section of Chicot Road was accomplished through the South Central Island planning effort wh ich onl y recognized the northeast corner of Mabelvale Pike and Chicot for commercial development. The proposed rezoning is contrary to the plan and in conflict with the existing zoning patterns. Because of thos e reasons, staff is op posed to the request and this would be the staff's position relative to any type of nonresidential rezoning. The rezoning could have a very adverse impact on the neig hborhood and establish undesirable precedent for the area . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86) The applicant, Charles Offutt, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Offutt spoke and described his business as a s peci alized sign painting company and said that there was no w alk-in traffic. He said that he could no longe r afford his current location, and with the property in question, he could live there and work out of an accessory structure in the rear yard. Mr. Of futt went on to say that the detached building had been used for various nonresidential activ ities o ve r the last few years. At that point, there was a long discussion about the property having so me ty pe of n onconforming use status. The Com mission instructed the staff to research this issue and contact the Zoning Enforcement Office about the nonconforming status possibility. A motion was then made to defer the request to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent. September 23, 1986 Item No. C -Continued PLANNING COMMI SSION ACTION: (9-23-86) The applicant, Charles Offutt, was present. There were no o bjectors. Mr. Offutt addressed the Commission and said that he was able to obtain letters from seven neighbors and three businesses in the immediate area. The letters indi cated that there had been a paint shop housed in the accessory building located at 10115 Chicot Road until February of 1986. Mr. Offutt also had a letter from Franklin P aint Company stating that they had made a nu mber o f delive ries to the property under consideration. There was a long dicussion about the letters and other issues. Mr. Offutt went on to discuss so me problems he was having w ith the City's Enforcement staff in knowing exactly what type of information he was required to provide. There were additional comments made by several Commissioners and the Planning staff� A motion was then offered that interp reted Mr . Offutt's evidence as establishing a nonconforming status for .. the prop erty at 10115 Chicot Road and that the request be deferred un til the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The item is to be remo ve d from consideration should the nonconformity issue be reso lved prior to October 28, 1986). September 23, 1986 Item No. 1 -Z-1894-B Owner: Natural Resources Drive Partnership Jo hn McClellan Applicant: By: Olan Asbury Location: East Side of Natural Resources Dr. Request: Rezone from "O-2" to "O-1" Purpose: Office 2.25 acres Vacant Size: Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Vacant, Zoned "O-2 11 South -Office, Zoned "O-3" East -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"West -Vacant, Zoned "0-2" PLANNING CONSIDE RATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone the site from 110-2 11 to "O-1" for various office uses. The owners of the property in question are also proposing to re plat the land in to three three -quarter acre tr acts for sm all sc ale office develo pment. In the 11 0-2" District, the minimum lot size is two acres so the rep latting ca nnot be accomplished with the existing "O-2" zoning. The site is located along the I-430 Corridor on the east side of I-430 and north of West Markham.The iITL�ediate area is primarily zoned for nonresidential uses 11 0-2,11 "O-3"and "C-3" with the exception of a st able si ngle family neig hborhood to the east which is zoned "R-2.11 The land use pattern includes office uses bo th on the no rth and south sides of West Markham with a commerc ial development located at the northwest corner of West Markham and Natural Resources Drive. Also , there are some vacant tr acts alo ng Natural Resources Drive zoned for office development and the residential area to the east. Because of the site's lo cation and existing land use pattern, an office classification or zoning is suitab le for the property. September 23, 1986 Item No. 1 -Continued 2.The site is vacant and wooded with a depth of 150 feet. 3.There are no right-of-way requirem ents or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no adverse comments receive d from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no lega l issues. 6.The prop erty was rezoned to "O-2" approximately twoyears ago, and before that, it was zoned "MF-6." Thesite has a long history , and the residentialneighborhood to the east has always been involved withany rezoning change or development proposal. 7.Staff recognizes that an office use is reasonable butfeels that the "O-2" zoning shou ld not be changedbecause it is a site plan rev iew district. There areprimarily two reasons for this position and they arethe prop erty's relationship to the single fam ilyneighborhood and the depth of the site. The dep th, 150feet, could create some problem s and make it adifficult site to deve lop without impacting theresidential area to the east. The site plan reviewrequired in "O-2" would address those potential issuesand provide some extra protection for the neighborhoodwhich is important in this situation. Staff couldsupport the "O-1" rezoning if the proposed platprovides some protections fo r the residential area suchas a platted rear building line or an undisturbed greenspace. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "O-1" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff modified its position and recom mended approval of the "O-1" as requested because it was determined that the replat of the property could provide some protection such as a platted rear building line and an undisturbed buffer area. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "O-1" as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ! September 23, 1986 It em No. 2 -Z-3592-E Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Ex isting Use: Gene Ca rter J.E. Hathaway West of Shackleford and South of Kanis Rezone from "MF-12" and "MF-18" to "0-3" Office Development 44.0 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Vacant, Zoned "O-3" and "C-2" South -Vacant, Zoned "OS" East -Vacant and Office, Zoned "O-3" and "C-2"West -Vacant and Single Fa mily, Zoned "R -2," "MF-12"and "OS" STAFF ANALYSIS: The purpose of this rezoning is to provide for future expansion and protection of the Koger Office Park. The subject properties were part of a larger rezon ing accomplished within the past year, which incl uded zoning to accomplish the present "MF-12 11 and "MF-18" zoning, as well as the adjacent "OS," 1 'MF-12, 11 north "O-3," and "C-2" zoning. The proposed use of the properties in volved in the current rezoning will be compatible with the surrounding areas. The I-430 District Plan ca lls for the subject properties to be"MF" or single family. However, addition of mo re officeuses in this area would rep resent an extension of an areaimmediately to the east which is shown as Suburban Office on the I-430 Plan. Al so, additional office uses will beconsistent with the office corridor concept of the plan.It is not expected that rezoning of the properties foroffice use will eventually lead to requests fo r comm ercialzoning since the properties are internally loca ted. TheKoger development has been ca rried out in an excellent way,making it esp ecially ap propriate to provide fo r itsexpansion and protection as an imp ortant element of theI-430 office corridor. ( September 23, 1986 It em No. 2 -Continued The Sandpiper Subdivision to the south is protected by a 200-foot "OS" strip. The ap plicant has suggested the possibility of a height restriction on the southern 400 to 500 feet of the present "MF-12" tracto The height limit would be three stories. Future plans by Koger call for the possible subdivision of this section into three-quarter to one acre of fic e tracts. In orde r to provide for a height restriction, sta ff prefers that the southern 400 feet of the "MF-12" tract be rezoned to "O-1" (Quiet Office), instead of rezoning the prop erty to "O-3" and placing a height limit on the plat or in a restrictive cove nant. The "O-1" District has a 35-foot height limit. The suggestion to restrict the height limit is ap propriate because it would provide additional protection for the ad joining Sandpiper Subdivision. STAFF RECOM MENDATION: St aff recommends approval of "O-3" zoning for the present "MF-18" site and the northern portion of the present "MF-12" site. Staff recommends that the southern 400 feet of the present "MF-12" tract be rezoned "O-1" instead of "O-3." PLANNING COM M ISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There was one person in atte ndance who expressed an interest in the case. Mr . Hathaway spoke and discu ssed the area involved, 44 acres and the new collector street that wa s under construction. He said that Koger will be buying the land for future exp ansion of their existing office park. Mr. Hathaway said that he had met with the Sandpiper Prop erty Owner's Association and they had no objections to the rezoning p roposal. He went on to say that the current ownership agr eed with the staff rec omme ndation including "O-1" for the south 13 acres of the "MF-12" tract and amended the request to "O-1" and "O-3." The "O-1" line presented by Mr. Hathaway would be several feet less than 400 ' but staff did not have any problems with that. Ed Montgomery, representing the Sandpiper Prop erty Owner's Association, said that his gr ou p was pleased with Koger and pre ferred office development over multi famil y. A motion was made to recommend ap proval of "O-1" and "O-3" as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 23, 1986 Item No. 3 -Z-4720 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Joe A. Forrester Location: 8800 Chicot Request: Rezone from Purpos e: Auto Sales Siz e: 2.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant and SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Com me rcial, Zoned "C-3" Sou th -Com mercial, Zoned "C-3" Road "R-2" Single to "C-4" Family East -Single Fam ily and Com mercial, Zoned "R-2" and If c-3 II West -Railroad Tracks, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone the site to "C-4" for an auto sales lot. The tract of land is located in the area where the properties fronting Chicot Road are zoned for so me ty pe o f nonresidential uses with the ex cep tion of two lots on the east side of Chicot at Azalea Driv e and a site north of the railroad tracks, bu t that particular location is being used for a nonresid ential use. The existing zoning pattern has been in place for a number of years withou t creating any problem s for the area. This request to "C-4" should not change that because of the prop erty's location and being adjacent to the railroad tracks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: St aff recommends approva l of the "C-4" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no ob ject ors. A motion wa s made to recommend approval of the "C-4" request as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 23, 1986 Item No. 4 -Z-4721 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Duggar Johnson Same 2501 Bishop Rezone from "R-4" to "C-3" Eating Place 0.14 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Residential, Zoned "R-4" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East -Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West -Single Family, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property from "R-4" to "C-3" for a small ea ting estab lishment. The site is located one block west of the intersection of Roo sevelt and High which has been zo ned for co mmercial uses for years. A high percentage of the existing "C-3" zoning found al ong High Street was acco mplished under the Urban Renewal Program and through a plan. The existing zoning has been maintained over the years and provides for adequate co mmercial development. Allowing the rezoning as is being proposed co uld have an impact on the neighborhood and could lead to an undesirable zoning pattern alo ng Roo sevelt. Also, the property is a fairly small lot and does not le nd it self to a viab le commercial development. 2.The site is a typical residential lot , 50' x 140', andit is vacant. 3.There are no ri ght-of -way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no adverse comments rec eived from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. ( September 23, 1986 Item No. 4 -Continued 6.There is no documented history or neighborhood positionon the site. 7.The prop erty is not a good commercial location, andstaff cannot support the rezoning to "C-3." Com mercialreclassification of this lot could have an adverseimpact on the residential neighborhood to the south andestablish a precedent for strip zoning along Roosevelt.The exi sting zoning lines should be maintained, becausethey have allowed for reasonable development in thearea without disrupting it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Dugga r Johnson, was present. There were tw o objectors in attendance. Mr. Johnson allowed the obje ctors to speak first. Mrs. Nora Cole, representing the neighborhood, said that the residents were opposed to the rezoning request. Mrs. Cole went on to say that the use would be a nuisance and create traffic problems. She then described the existing com mercial area to the east and High and Roosevelt. Mrs. Cole said that the area was a nice neighborhood made up of primarily working people and that they wanted to leave it that way. W.M. Hill said that he was against the rezoning and that it would ge nerate too much traffic. Mr. Hill indicated that he would rather see a residence constructed on the lot. Mr. Johnson, the owner, then addressed the Com mission. He said that the lot was vacant and that he had purchased it approximately four years ago. He went on to describe the proposed use, a sm all ice cream/dairy bar that would have no sit down customers. At this po int, there was a lengthy discussion about right-of-way and Roosevelt Road. Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, described possible im provements to Roosevelt and the need for addi tional right-of-way. Because o f the right-of-way issue dedication of an additional 15 feet, Mr. Johnson requested that the item be withdrawn. A mot ion wa s made to withdraw the request without prej udice. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 a bsent. September 23, 1986 Item No . 5 -Z-4722 Owner: App licant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ralph F. and Catherine A. Houser Ralph F. Houser 9021 Loetscher Lane Rezone from "R-2" to "R-4" Duplex 0.75 acres Single Family SURROUND ING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSID ERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to"R-4" to permit a duplex or a two-family structu re. Itis the staff's understanding that the existingresidence will be converted into a duplex should thisapplication be approved. That is all that can be donewith an "R-4" classification because the definition oftwo-family is "two attac hed dwelling units on one loteach occupied by no t more than one family." The siteis situated in an area that is primarily re sidentialwith a mixed develo pment pattern al ong Baseline Road tothe north. The majority of the area is zoned "R-2" andthat in cludes nonresi dential uses on Baseline Road. Tothe south of the pro perty, there is some "R-5" zoningwith the majority of the lots occupied by multifamilyunits. That zoning was ac co mplished ap proximately 10to 12 years ago and has not had a visible impact on thesingle family area. 2.The site is .75 acres in size with the re sidencelocated at the rear of the lot. There is al so an access ory building si tuated behind the house. 3.There are no rig ht-of-way re quirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated wit h this re quest. ( ( Sep tember 23, 1986 Item No. 5 -Continued 4.There have been noreviewing age ncies 5.There are no lega l 6.There is docume n.tedthe site. adverse comments received from the as of this writing. issues. history or neighborhood position on 7.The recently adopted Geyer Springs East District Planidentifies the area directly to the north for mixeddensity residential and the prop erties including thelot under consideration for continued single familyuse. Staff feels that a duplex use provides areasonable transition betw een a medium densitydevelopment and a single family neighborhood an dsupports the "R-4" request. The rezoning or use willnot have any im pact on the area because of the size ofthe lot and the limited number of uses permitted in the"R-4" District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends ap proval of the "R-4" rezoning. PLANNING COMM ISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion wa s made to recommend approval of the rezoning. The motion was approved by a vo te of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ( Se ptember 23, 1986 Item No. 6 -Z-4728 Owner: Terry Benef ield William H. Darby, Jr. 4013 Baseline Road Applicant: Location: Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3 11 Purpose: Commercial/Retail 0.5 acres Size: Existing Use: Vacant Structure SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Vacant, Zoned "R-2° South -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East -Single Family, Zoned "R-2"West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSID ERATIONS: 1.The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezonethe property from "R-2" to "C-3 11 for an unsp ecifiedcommercial/retail useo This section of Baseline Road,west of Hilaro Springs/Scott Hamilton, is so mewhatunique because there are still so me well maintainedsingle family structures along the south side. Thelots are fairly deep so the residences have been placedon the tracts with very generous front yard se tbacks.With that type of arrangement, the im pacts fromBaseline Road and the tra ffic are not as great as foundalong other portions of Baseline. In the immediatearea, the land use is primarily single family on thesouth side with several small nonresidential uses. Inaddition, there is a school and a multifamily projectadjacent to the sc hool. On the north side, the la nduse is more mixed, and it includes a la rge vacant tr actto the northwest of the property in question. Thezoning is "R-2" with the ex ception of a "C-2" parcel atthe sou theast corner of Baseline and Hilaro SpringsRoad. 2.The site is approx imately one-half acre in size andcontains one residential structure. ( Septem ber 23, 1986 Item No. 6 -Continued 3 .Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial onthe Master Street Plan which requires a minim umright-o f-way of 100 feet. The survey reflects anexisting right-of-way of 60 feet, so dedication ofadditional right-o f-way will be necessary. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing agencies as of this writing. 5 .There are no lega l issues. 6.The property was annexed to the City in April 1985, aspart of the referendum area. There is no documentedneighborhood position on the site. 7.This particular location is part of the Geyer SpringsEast Plan which recommends the area for mixed densityresidential and no com mercial. Staff's position isthat the plan's recommended land use should bemaintained especially in this situation, because aresidential use is a viable option and does not supportthe proposed "C-3" reclassification. The planidentifies the intersection of Baseline and ScottHamilton, the northw est and northeast corners forcommercial use and also a large area to the west alongBaseline for commercial deve lopment. In addition tothose locations, the City recentl y rezonedapproximately 10 acres to "C-2" for a shopping centerat the southeast corner of Baseline and Hilaro Springs.The residential uses along this segment of Baselinehave not been impacted by the other types of la nduse/development found along Baseline and should not beencroached on by ap proving this request. Also, therezoning to "C-3" would create a very undesirable spotzoning if granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: St aff recommends denial of the "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COM MISSION ACTION: The applicant, William Darby, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Darby said that the site had been used for a f ur niture store until January 1985, and then presented a land use map which reflected a number of commercial uses in the area. There was a long discussion about the Geyer Springs East District Plan and the immediate area. Mr. Darby indicated that an existing key shop, Pridgen Lock ( ( September 23, 1986 Item No. 6 -Continued and Key, would relocate to the lot in question if the rezoning is granted. There were some comments made abou t utili zing the Short-Form PCD for the proposed use or rezoning the lot to "C-1." Mr. Darby said that he was agreeable to "C-1" and amended the request to re flect so. Staff indicated that they were opposed to the "C-1" rezoning also. A motion was made to recom mend approval of "C-1" as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. (The Planning Com mission supported the rezoning because "C-1 11 is more restrict ive, the use is not objectionable and because of possible changes to the "C-1" District). A second motion was of fered that requested the Plans Committee to review the "C-1" and Of fice Districts. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent. Sep tember 23, 1986 Item No . 7 -Z-4729 Owner: Ap plicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Troy Hood 12,903 I-30 Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4" Sales and Service of Vehicles 10 .. 0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -I-30 Right-of-Way, Zoned "R-2" South -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East -Vacant, Zoned "C-4" West -Commercial, Zoned "C-4" STAFF AN ALYSIS: The request is to rezone a ten-acre site from "R-2" to "C-4" for an auto related use. The prop erty is located along I-30, east of Alexander Road, in an area that the Otter Creek Plan identifies for mixed commercial and industrial uses. The nonresidential zoning in the immediate vicinity is either "C-3" or "C-4" with the property hav ing "C-4" land on the east and west sides. The land use is very sim ilar w ith so me of the tracts still undeve loped and a number of the uses are nonconform ing. There are no outstanding issues assoc iated wi th this request and st aff supports the rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends ap proval of "C-4" as filed . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : The ap plicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recom mend ap proval of the "C-4" rezoning. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ( September 23, 1986 Item No. 8 -Z-4730 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: W.D. Brown Same Asher Av enue and Lewis Street Southwest Corner Rezone from "I-2" to "C-3" Convenience Store with Gas Pumps 0.52 acres Service Station SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Commercial and Industrial, Zoned "C-3" South -Industrial, Zoned "I-2" East -Industrial, Zoned "I-2" West -Commerc ial, Zoned "I-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The pr oposal is to rezone the property from "I-2" to "C-3" and construct a new convenience store with gas pumps. The site is currently occupied by a service station, and it will be removed to allow for the new development, which will include one building and a large canopy str ucture. The la nd use in the area is very mixed with the zoning being primarily "C-3" and "I-2." Most of the industrial uses are situated south of Asher with the commercial uses found primarily adjacent to Asher Avenue. This part of Asher ca n only benefit from any redevelopment such as the old Safeway Store at Elm and Asher, and sta ff supports the "C-3 11 rezoning. There is a possible ri ght-of-way issue associated with this request, and that is additional right-o f-way de dication for Asher Avenue. The amount of de dication is un known at this time, and the speci fics will be available by the time of the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomm ends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as requested. ( Septem ber 23, 1986 Item No. 8 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no object ors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ( Sept ember 23, 1986 Item No. 9 -Z-4731 Owner: Capitol Hill Properties, Inc. Same Applicant: Location: West Mar kham and Batt ery Street s Rezone from "I-3" to "MF-24" Request: Purpose: Mult ifamily 4 .. 5 acres vacant Size: Ex isting Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Vacant, Zoned 11 !-3 11 South -Vacant, Si ngle Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3," "R-5" and "I-3" East -Vacant and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "I-3" West -Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3" nR-5 11 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.. The request is to re zone a 4. 5 acre tr act from II I-3 11 to "MF-24" for a multifamily project .. The property is located in a sm all residential pocket between Cantrell Road and West 3rd Street and to the northwest of the State Capitol Complex. The land use includes si ngle family, multifamily, office, co mmercial and some industrial to the north of the site in question. The zoning pattern is just as diverse with "R-3." "R-4," 11 R-5," 11 0-3,11 "I-2," and "I-3.11 There are several multifamily projects in the iTILmediate vici nity including the "R-5" directly to the west, adjacent to West Markham, and it ap pears that those uses have not had an impact on the area. Provided that so me issues such as acce ss can be resolved, a multifamily use of the land is reasonable. This will create new housing units close to the ce ntral core of the City which is very desirable and needed. 2.The site is vacant and wooded. 3.There are no right-of-way requirem ents or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. ( September 23, 1986 Item No. 9 -Continued 4.There have been no adve rse comments received from thereviewing age ncies as of this writing. 5.There are no legal issues. 6.There is no documented history or neighborhood positionon the site. 7.This location is part of the Heights/Hillcrest DistrictPlan area which identifies the site for industrial use.Staff feels that the "I-3" zoning is misplaced andsupports the "MF-24" reclassification. A majority ofthe uses permi tted in the "I-3" Di strict could have agreater im p act on the neighborhood than the proposeduse. Every effort should be made to rezone theexisting "I-3," especially west of the railroad trackto a district that is more compatible with theneighborhood such as a residential use. The one issueof concern associated with this rezoning is the accessto the property because circulation and the streetsystem is some what inadequate in the immediate area.It is the staff's understanding that the owners arelooking into several alternatives because they haveother prop erties in the neighborhood. Access will becritical to making this a viable project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "MF-24" request as filed. PLANNING CO MMISS ION ACTION: The applicant requested that the item be deferred for 30 days. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 abs ent. ( ( September 23, 1986 Item No. 10 -Z-4733 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: W.A. Owings Maury Mitc hell Stagecoach Road West of I-430 Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Commercial 2.52 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Commercial, zoned "R-2" South -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East -Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone a tract of land from "R-2" to "C-3" for a convenience store. The property is located on Stagecoach Road just west of the I-430 Inter change and co ntai ns approximately 2.5 acres. The land use found al ong this section of Stagecoach Road is very mixed and includes uses that range from residential to a salvage yard. This type of development patt ern is particularly true for the north side with a nu mber of small comm ercial and industrial uses. The south side is still primarily single family with some large vacant tracts. The Otter Creek District Plan identi fies this area along Stagecoach Road for mixed commercial and industrial uses. A "C-3" reclas sification is ap propriate for this type of la nd use pattern, and staff supports the "C-3" zoning for a portion of the property. The rear one-third of the site is located in the floodway, so staff recommend s that the floodway area be rezoned to "OS" and dedicated to the City. Stagecoach Road is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of right-o f-way will be necessary. The survey ref lects an exi sting right-o f-way of 60 feet, and the normal standard for a principal arterial is 100 feet, so possibly an ad ditional 20 feet will be required. ) September 23, 1986 Item No. 10 -Continued STAFF RECO MMEND A TION: St af f recommends approval of "C-3" and "OS" for that portion of the site in the floodway which is also to be dedicated to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The appli cant, Maury Mitchell, was present. W.A . Owings, the ow ner, was als o in attendance. There were no obje ctors. Mr. Owings spoke and ag reed to rezoning the floodway to "O-S" but had problems de dicating it to the City. He said that dedicating the la nd would be a taking without compenstaion and that possibly the Fourche Creek Drainage Project would af fect the amount of floodway area. There were several comments about the floodway issue and the City's policy regarding it. A motion was then made to recommend approval of "C-3" and "O-S" for the floodway wi th the Board of Directors resolving the floodway dedication issue. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The Planning Commission instructed the staff to work with City Engineering on the floodway issue. ) September 23, 1986 Item No. 11 -Z-4734 Owner: Applicant: Location: Reques t: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Robert Naylor Ronnie D. Hall 1901 and 1905 West 10th Rezone from "R-4" to "O-3" Office 0.23 acres Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Multifamily, Zoned "R-6" South -Industrial, Zoned "I-2" East -Mult ifamily, Zoned "O-2" West -Single Family, Zoned "O-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone two residential lots from "R-4" to "O-3" for future office use. The property is currently occupied by two residences, and it is unkn own at this time if those resid ential structures will be rehabilitated for offices or removed at so me point. Over the ye ars, a very mixed zoning pattern has developed because of a high number of rezonings in the immediate area, which includes the Children's Hospital and some other institutional uses. This particul ar site abuts "O-3" on the east and "I-2" to the south with "R-6" across West 10th and "O-2" to the east across Battery. Other zoning districts found in the neighborhood are "R-5," "C-3," and "C-4." The land use includes residential, of fice, commercial and industrial. Because of the existing zoning patterns, the proposed rezoning will not have an impact on the area, and staff s upports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: St aff recommends approva l of the "O-3" as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion wa s made to recom mend approval of the "O-3" request. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ) September 23, 1986 Item No. 12 -Z-4735 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Union National Bank Bob by J. Kelley East 10th and Kirspel Northeast Corner Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3" Commercial/Parking 0.34 acres vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South -Airport, Zoned "I-2" East -Single Family, Zoned "R-3" and "I-2" West -S in g 1 e Fam i 1 y , Zoned n R-3 1' PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezonetwo lots from "R-311 to "C-3" for a commercial use.Currently, the lot at the corner of East 10th andKirspel is zoned "C-3" and occupied by a vacantbuilding. In the pa st, that str ucture has been usedfor a numb er of commercial uses including a restaurant.It is the staf f's understanding that the ap plicantwould like to open another eating estab lishment andprovide adequate parking. The ap plicant has me ntionedthe possibility of removing the existing building andredeveloping all three lots with the str ucture beingplaced on the two lots being considered for rezoningand providing parking on the third lot. Theneighborhood is zoned primarily for residential useswith the exception of se veral sites along West 10th andone "I-2" lot to the north on Kirspel which is vacant.The nonresidential zoning which is found to the east ofthe site is "C-3" and "I-2." Some of those properties have commercial or industrial uses and others are vacant. The most recent rezoning requests, Z-4058 and Z-4409 were denied by the City because of potentialimpacts on the neig hborhood. Both of those were for comi-nercial reclassifications. 2" The site is two residential lots, ea ch one being 35' x 140,' and both are vacant. )' Sep tem ber 23, 1986 Item No. 12 -Continued 3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master StreetPlan issues associated with this request. 4.There have been no adverse comments received from thereviewing age ncies as of this writing. 5.There are no lega l issues. 6.There is no docu mented history or neighborhood positionon the site. 7.As with the previous commercial rezoning requests inthe neigh borhood, staff is concerned with the potentialfor adverse im pacts and does not support the "C-3"rezoning proposal. Allowing the exi sting commercialzoning to expand to the north is un de sirable and couldcreate some problem s for the im mediate neigh borhoodwhich is fairly stable. The current nonresidentialzoning in the area is misplaced and should have neverbeen accomplished becau se those locations have nothelped the area. If the applicant wishes to upgradeand redevelop the site, there is another optionavailable that will allow use of the lots withou trezoning them. The Board of Adjustm ent has the power toapprove parking on land zoned for residential uses suchas is the situation in this case. Staff is morecomfortable with this approach because it provides fora more detailed review and restricts the use to parkingonly. Through this review, the residences to the northand west can be of fered some protection by ensuringadequate bu ffering and screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the necessary notification materials had not been submitted and recommended that the item be deferred. A motion was made to d efer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ) September 23, 1986 Item No. 13 -Discussion of Staff Time Conflicts in Meetings and Processing of Cases The staff of fered a general overvi ew of the calendar conflicts for the various staff persons. The staff also introduced a proposed calendar structure which would include realigning the meeting dates to provi de for seve n or eight annual Planning meetings and a reduction in the number of Zoning and Subdivision hearings. This calendar was discussed by the Commission and received favorable co mment. The staff instructed the Commission that no action was requested at this time, however, they should give some consideration to this proposal inasmuch as the 1987 calenda r preparation has begun and that calenda r of meeting dates w ill be offered fo r adoption in the month of November. ) September 23, 1986 Item No. 14 -Discussion of Subd ivision Enforcement ------------------------------- The staff offered no discussion on this item at this time but will pursue the matter at some point in the future. ) Sep tember 23, 1986 Item No. 15 -Discussion of Setting a Public Hearing Dat� for the Zonins Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance Am�ndment Packa ge A brief discussion of this proposal was held. The Commission determined that the date sug gested of October 28 would be appropriate for the initial public hearing and d irected staff to proceed with the appropriate le ga l ads. Staff advised the Commission that an additional mail out would be accomplished to all interested parties. oAT&Sef>/. 23 fl6r::i . , PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS . ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER W.Riddick, III-- J.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sipes J.Nicholson w.Rector w.Ketcher D.Arnett O. J. Jones I.Boles F.Perkins fJ ✓ ✓ ✓ t/ v v v /I II I v If I / 6 (_ ✓ / ✓/ ✓ ✓ / / I / i/ ✓ ✓ I ✓I ✓;· I l 3 !l/-5 I ;/ / v' y'/ / v ✓ t// I I,. / 1/ / ✓/ ✓ / ✓- ,/ I ,// ✓ ✓ ii 1/ ✓ � ,/ ✓/ ✓✓ / � ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓I ✓✓ v ✓AYE El NAYE AADSENT �ABSTAIN � � '7 R 9 /0 JI , // / t/ ✓✓ / / ✓✓ 1,,,/ / , /// v· ✓✓· / / ✓ ,I 1/ V .... / / ✓ v ·/v /✓ ✓ ✓✓ ,/ ✓ v_;-;• , ✓ v � / v ✓✓ v'/ / ✓✓ ✓ ✓-v' � / ✓ v ,,.-, IZ ✓// / ✓- ✓ �-✓ ✓ VT ✓ n ·,-✓ ---., September 23, 1986 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Chairman C Date Se Zreet a r