Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 25 1986LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD NOVEMBER 25, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: William Ketcher Walter Riddick III Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Fred Perkins Ida Boles Betty Sipes David Jones City Attorney: Steven Giles November 25, 1986 Item No. A -Z-3108-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: A.B. Farquharson Same 9923 West Markham (West of Oak Lane) Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Commerical 0.74 acres Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -Office, Zoned "O-3" South -Single Family, Zoned "R-4"East -Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West -Office, Zoned "O-3 11 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to re zone the tract from "R-2" to "C-3"for an unspecified commercial use. The pr operty islocated ap proximately one-t hird mile west of I-430along a corridor that is zoned primarily for officeuse. The zoning in the area includes "R-2," "R-4,""R-5," "O-2," "O-3," "C-3" and "PCD." In ad dition tothe "C-3" reflected on the accompanying sketch, thereis some "C-3" located at the northea st corner of WestMarkham and I-430 that is developed with a mix ofcommercial uses. The la nd use pattern in theneighborhood is re sidential, qua si-pu blic, office andsome commercial. Also, some of the ex isting "O-2" la ndto the west is vacant. This section of West Markham isdeveloping as a quality office corridor, and newrezonings in the area should continue to reinforce thatconcept. 2.The site is ap proximately 320 feet deep and occupied bya single family residential unit. 3.There are no right-of-way re quirement s or Master Street Plan issues associated with this re quest. November 25, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 4. Engineering reports that: On -site detention is required. . Only one driveway allowed on to West Markham. No other comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In 1977, a request was filed to rezone the property to "0 -3" (E -1). The zoning was approved by the Planning Commission but denied by the Board of Directors. At that time, there was a right -of -way issue involved because this portion of West Markham had not been widened, and the owner did not dedicate the additional right -of -way. 7. Staff's position is that the "C -3" rezoning could lead to a commercial strip along this section of West Markham and could have adverse impact on the existing residential uses to the south and east. For those reasons, staff does not support the commercial rezoning at 9923 West Markham. The need for additional commercial land or space can also be questioned because there are several structures at the southeast corner of West Markham and Oak Lane, zoned "C -3," that are vacant. And finally, recent attempts to rezone properties for commercial uses in the area have either been denied by the City or withdrawn from consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 28, 1986) Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the rezoning to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) The applicant, A.B. Farquharson, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Farquharson spoke and described the property in question and other uses in the area. He also discussed the existing "C -3" to the east at the intersection of Oak Lane and West Markham. There was some discussion about the neighborhood and the existing zoning pattern along West Markham. Mr. Farquharson made several additional comments and then amended his request to "O-3." A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. B - Z -4735 Owner: Union National Bank Applicant: Bobby J. Kelley Location: East 10th and Kirspel Northeast Corner Request: Rezone from "R -3" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial /Parking Size: 0.34 acres Existing Use: 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 - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone two lots from "R -3" to "C -3" for a commercial use. Currently, the lot at the corner of East 10th and Kirspel is zoned "C -3" and occupied by a vacant building. In the past, that structure has been used for a number of commercial uses including a restaurant. It is the staff's understanding that the applicant would like to open another eating establishment and provide adequate parking. The applicant has mentioned the possibility of removing the existing building and redeveloping all three lots with the structure being placed on the two lots being considered for rezoning and providing parking on the third lot. The neighborhood is zoned primarily for residential uses with the exception of several sites along West 10th and one "I -2" lot to the north on Kirspel which is vacant. The nonresidential zoning which is found to the east of the 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 potential impacts on the neighborhood. Both of those were for commercial reclassifications. 2. The site is two residential lots, each one being 35' x 140,' and both are vacant. November 25, 1986 Item No. B - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. As with the previous commercial rezoning requests in the neighborhood, staff is concerned with the potential for adverse impacts and does not support the "C -3" rezoning proposal. Allowing the existing commercial zoning to expand to the north is undesirable and could create some problems for the immediate neighborhood which is fairly stable. The current nonresidential zoning in the area is misplaced and should have never been accomplished because those locations have not helped the area. If the applicant wishes to upgrade and redevelop the site, there is another option available that will allow use of the lots without rezoning them. The Board of Adjustment has the power to approve parking on land zoned for residential uses such as is the situation in this case. Staff is more comfortable with this approach because it provides for a more detailed review and restricts the use to parking only. Through this review, the residences to the north and west can be offered some protection by ensuring adequate buffering and screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9- 23 -86) 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 defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) Staff recommended that the item be deferred for thirty (30) days. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the request. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. C - Z -4750 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Soumek Sithihao Same 3515 West 30th Rezone from "I -2" to "R -3" Single Family 0.32 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Industrial, Zoned "I -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "I -2" STAFF ANALSIS: The issue before the Planning Commission is rezone two lots from "I -2" to "R -3" to permit a single family residence to be constructed. This action was filed after the necessary building permit was not issued because the "I -2" District does not permit single family units. The property is located south of Roosevelt Road and west of the Pulaski County governmental facilities. The zoning is primarily nonresidential with a similar land use pattern. The large "I -3" tract to the west is vacant, and the "R -3" to the northeast has a public use on it. The pocket between West 30th and West 32nd has a number of single family residences, and there are some residential uses on the north side of West 30th. On West 31st, there is a small industrial use, and some of the lots are vacant. An additional residential use with the necessary zoning will not impact the area, and staff supports the request. A somewhat irregular zoning pattern will occur if the rezoning is granted, but that should not have any effect on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R -3" request as filed. November 25, 1986 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 28, 1986) Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred because the notification of property owners had not bee completed. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "R -3" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. D - Z -4755 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Noel W. Gattis and Terry R. Jones Terry R. Jones 12,835 I -30 Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Industrial 19.7 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" West - Vacant, Zoned "OS" and "C -4" STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal is to rezone a large tract of land from "R -2" to "I -2" along the I -30 corridor. This area between I -30 and Alexander Road has a very mixed land use that includes residential, commercial and industrial. The zoning is very similar with "R -2," 11C -3," "C -4," "I -2," and an "OS" piece for a portion of the established floodway. The Otter Creek District Plan suggests a mix of commercial and industrial uses for the location, so the "I -2" rezoning is compatible with the plan's recommendation. The most significant issue associated with this request is the floodway involvement. Out of the 19.7 acres, approximately 9.3 acres are within the designated floodway. This leaves the north 9.3 acres and one acre in the southeast corner out of the floodway. The City's position is that the floodway be dedicated to the City and rezoned to "OS." Engineering recommends that the applicant should obtain the required flood elevation from the Public Works Department at the time of any building permit application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I -2" for that portion of the property outside the floodway and "OS" for the designated floodway which is to be dedicated to the City. November 25, 1986 Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 28, 1986) Staff recommended that the item be deferred for thirty (30) days. A motion was made to defer the request to the November 25, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) The applicant was represented by Peggy O'Neal, an attorney. There were no objectors. Ms. O'Neal agreed to the "OS" reclassification for the floodway and dedicating it to the City. A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning as amended to "I -2" and "OS" for the floodway. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E NAME: Word of Outreach Conditional Use Permit (Z- 708 -A) LOCATION: The south terminious of Broadway OWNER /APPLICANT: Word of Outreach /Joe D. White PROPOSAL: To construct a church in three phases. The phases are: Phase I - a 20,000 square feet church /school auditorium (capacity 400) and 95 paved parking spaces; Phase II - a 14,000 square feet expansion of the existing church /school auditorium, and an additional 48 parking spaces plus 4 spaces for buses; and Phase III - a 16,000 square feet family life center addition. This development will be on 3.01 acres of land that is zoned "R -4." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This property is located at the end of a collector street (Broadway) and is adjacent to an arterial street located to the west (Arch Street). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed church is located on 3.1 acres of land that is potentially compatible with the surrounding single family area. This property is a rear yard relationship for all the adjacent single family areas except for two side yard relationships on Broadway and two side yard relationships on Arch Street. Proper screening and landscaping will enhance the compatibility of this project. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Two access drives are proposed to this site. One access is a 40 feet drive on Arch Street and the second access will be taken from Broadway. Total parking will be 147 spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers This site plan includes landscaping areas. 5. Analysis The staff feels that a church use can be compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, have some concerns. The single family use adjacent to the access drive on Arch Street needs to be screened by a fence at least to the rear lot lines of the adjacent single family uses. The side yard relationships of the two single family uses on Broadway are actually above grade - landscaping should be provided adjacent to these side yards. The applicant also needs to supply further details about the proposed school and dimensions of the building and setbacks. What kind of school is proposed, and what is its proposed capacity. Staff also questions the necessity of the proposed steeple height being 60 feet. Finally, is the alley being proposed as an additional access? 6. City Engineering Comments No adverse comments. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes dimensions of the buildings and their setbacks, screening fences, and additional landscape areas; and (2) provide additional information on the proposed school, height of the steeple and the use of the alley located at the southeast corner of the site. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant stated that the school was kindergarten through eighth grade but did not know the proposed maximum capacity. The applicant also stated that they proposed to use the alley located at the southeast corner of the property for access and that they would improve and landscape it as necessary. The applicant further agreed to reverse the angular parking on the Arch Street drive and either redesign and /or post signage on the circular access located adjacent to Broadway in order to reduce possible confusion. The Wastewater Department stated that sewer is available and that capacity contribution is required. The Water Works stated that the proposed building is larger than 15,000 square feet and that a sprinkler system is recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86) The applicant was present. There were a number of objectors present represented by Attorney Mr. Bennie O'Neil. Mr. O'Neil read a statement opposing the conditional use permit on the following grounds: (1) the type of use or ministry of the church and the apparent instability (financial and four different locations of the church in the last three years); (2) increased noise and traffic in the neighborhood; and (3) potential drainage problems (on -site Springs). Mr. Joe White and Mr. Robert Smith (Pastor) spoke in behalf of the project. They stated that the proposed capacity of the private christian school would be 200. Mr. Smith stated that the church begin May 5, 1981, and had a current congregation of 125, and that their ministry would not require any residential use of the proposed property and that no formal alcohol or drug rehabilitation program would exist on -site. The staff stated that they recommended approval of the proposal and had received a revised site plan. The staff also stated that they had received one phone call against, two informational calls and one call favoring the proposed conditional use permit. Mr. Smith stated that the church owned the property and had bought it November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued from the City of Little Rock. Mr. Smith further stated that they had held two neighborhood meetings prior to the purchase of the property and that the City had told them that the property was zoned properly for a church use. The Commission wanted to know about the sale of the property to the church. The staff stated that they had no knowledge of the sales arrangement. It was determined that the Department of Human and General Services had handled the transaction. The Commission requested that the staff obtain information concerning the sale of the property and that the neighbors and the church meet to determine if their differences could be resolved. The staff also asked the church and neighbors to determine whether or not access should be allowed via the existing alley from Spring Street. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to defer this item until the November 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 11 -86) The applicant, Bob Smith, was present and represented 15 people who favored the church use. Mr. Bennie O'Neil represented 13 objectors. Mr. Jack McCrae, Vice - President with the Bailey Corporation, spoke in behalf of the applicants and stated that the neighborhood church representatives had met on October 23, 1986, as requested by the Planning Commission. The meeting failed to produce an agreement. A lengthy discussion ensued. The disagreement centered around the possible uses of the church property other than traditional church services. The neighborhood apparently had little problem with the proposed physical structures. The Commission asked the neighbors and the church representatives to meet once again and try to obtain an agreement.by having the church write down the proposed programs and uses. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent to defer the item until the November 25, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 25 -86) The applicant was present and represented by Bob Smith. Objectors were also present and were represented by Bennie O'Neil. Mr. Smith stated that the neighbors and the church had met and had signed an agreement. Mr. O'Neil stated that an agreement had been reached with two exceptions. The first exception was that the neighbors wanted no use of the property between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The Second exception was that of the church agreeing to place a chain link fence on the north property line from Broadway to the northeast property corner. The church agreed to build the chain link fence. The Commission stated that they did not think that the City could prevent someone from using their property at any time and that they would not feel comfortable making such a requirement. The Commission then asked the applicant if they would use their property in a "quiet" manner during the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. time period. Mr. Smith stated that the church would be quiet and not cause any problem for the neighbors. The staff stated that the church property was zoned "R -4" and that the applicant needed to submit a revised site plan that included: a 6' privacy fence on the west, east, and south property lines; a gate that would allow only pedestrian access to and from the alley; ingress only from South Broadway; and that the access on Arch Street be 36' in width with a right turn and a left turn lane as well as a 14' access lane. The applicant agreed to comply. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent to approve the application as agreed to by the applicant and the neighborhood, and as recommended by the staff. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F NAME: Westchester Subdivision Phase IV LOCATION: West of Taylor Loop and South of Highway No. 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ridgelea Development Corp. Robert C. Lowe & Associates 10510 "I -30" #5 New Benton Highway Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR AREA: 16 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 1,600 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Proposal /Request: To plat 16 acres into 23 lots and 1,600 feet of new street for single family use. B. Existinq Conditions: Single family area, elevations from 290 feet to 300 feet, Taylor Loop Creek and area proposed for City park located on southwest side. All property is within the 100 -year floodplain. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: (1) Notify abutting owners of tracts with 2.5 acres or more. (2) No sidewalks built in other phases. Show sidewalks on this plat. (3) Clarify notation on plat regarding the trading of City parks property for proposed City park. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F - Continued (4) Specify tract numbers on reserve tracts and "unbuildable." Specify use and Bill of Assurance. (5) Forty -five foot reserve parcel inadequate - identify as tract number and note as "unbuildable," since it is inadequate for lots. Specify use and Bill of Assurance. D. Engineering Comments: (1) Creek design for 10,0 year ultimate development, plus oversizing for detention requirement. (2) Fifty foot right -of -way, 27' street improvements. (3) Provide sidewalks the length of Westchester Court. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to addressing the issues stated. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that he was working out a land swap with the City, due to the Parks Department's desire for continuous access to another tract in their ownership. The applicant agreed to comply with staff's comments. It was agreed that any approval of this item would be contingent on the City Board's approval of the land swap and that the reserved tracts would be numbered. If these tracts are bought, then they would be replatted. Water - Water main extension on -site fire protection required. Sewer - Sewer main extension required. Additional easements required new mains. November 25, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. F - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 11, 1986) Due to untimely notice, a motion was made and passed to defer the item for two weeks. The vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request according to the comments made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z- 4175 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Tom A. Buford Aldersgate Road Rezone from "R -2" and "MF -18" to "MF -6," "MF -12," "MF -18" and "OS" Multifamily 176.5 acres Vacant and Day Camp SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "PRD" South - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "R -2" and "PCD" East - Vacant, Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R -2," "R -6" and "MF -18" West - Vacant and Office, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The Aldersgate rezoning is back before the City to clarify the status of several outparcels. In February and March of 1984, when the initial request was being acted on by the City, the application included some tracts of land that were not owned or under contract by the three principle parties, First Federal, Aldersgate and E.R.C. In May of this year, First Federal sent a letter to the City indicating that they had been able to secure commitments for some of the parcels and requested direction to resolve the issue. After reviewing the situation, the City Attorney's Office recommend that another zoning request be filed excluding the various uncommitted outparcels. Staff supports the rezoning proposals and points out that the request still conforms to the I -430 District Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as filed. November 25, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Tom Buford, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Buford reviewed the history of the previous rezoning and the various land swaps between the three principal owners. He also described the change to the Master Street Plan for Aldersgate Road. Mr. Buford then discussed the initial rezoning application and the problems with the out parcels, and he said that the rezoning action would not preclude access to any of those tracts. There was a lonq discussion about the rezoning and the status of the out parcels. Leslie Rogers then addressed the Commission. He said that he represented ten of the out parcels and that he was not 100 percent opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Rogers discussed a number of items at length, including the relocation of the Aldersgate Road alignment. There was a lonq discussion, and it was determined that the previous rezoning was valid as originally approved, including the "OS" reclassifications for the out parcels. Mr. Rogers spoke again and said he had no objections to the original rezoning but that the status of the lots in Tracts 5 and 6 needed to be clarified. He indicated that he did not want the lots to be zoned "OS." There was a long discussion about the out parcels and rezoning four of the lots from "OS" to "R -2." Henrietta Smith, owner of two lots, then addressed the Commission. She asked some questions and had several points clarified. There were additional comments made by the various parties. A motion was made recommending approval of the rezoning as filed excluding the out parcels. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Fred Perkins). A second motion was made giving Mr. Rogers up to 90 days to negotiate with Aldersgate for the sale of his lots or to file for a rezoning to "R -2" with the filing fees and notification of property owners being waived. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention (Fred Perkins). November 25, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z -4765 Owner: David Kennedy Applicant: Same Location: Autumn Road North of Hermitage Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3" Purpose: Office Size: 9.3 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 9.3 acre tract from "R -2" to "0 -3" for an unspecified office development. The site is located on Autumn Road north of Hermitage Road and adjacent to the Birchwood Subdivision on two sides. The land use is still primarily single family in the intermediate area with the major nonresidential development taking place to the east at Shackleford and Financial Centre Parkway. The zoning is made up of "R -2," 110 -2," "0 -3" and "C -3" with a high percentage of the nonresidential tracts still undeveloped. Some of the existing "C -3" at the intersection of Autumn and Hermitage was established through the resolution of an annexation suit. The property abuts "R -2" zoning on four sides with the exception of the southwest corner which is adjacent to "C -3." Based on development trends in the area and future circulation patterns, it appears that the property has some potential for nonresidential use. 2. The site is primarily wooded with a single family residence occupying the northwest corner. 3. Currently, the Master Street Plan identifies Autumn Road as only a residential street. There has been some discussion of changing this status because of a proposal to create an at grade intersection with the future extension of the Financial Centre Parkway /I -630. November 25, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued If such an amendment is made to the Master Street Plan, then it appears that some additional right -of -way dedication will be required. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. Relative to this particular rezoning request, the immediate neighborhood has not expressed any position. In the past, the Birchwood area has always been very involved with any rezoning development proposals in the area. There is no documented history on the site. 7. This area is experiencing many development pressures, primarily because of the proposed extension of I -630 to the west. There is a significant office development to the east, and it is anticipated that once the extension is completed, that type of a land use pattern will follow the parkway to Bowman Road. The current I -430 District Plan shows the location in question for continued single family use, and that was based on the status of Autumn Road. Should the contemplated intersection with Financial Centre Parkway become a reality and the necessary Master Street Plan change is accomplished, staff is of the opinion that a well- coordinated office development is a reasonable use of the land. Because of the single family involvement in the area, staff feels that an "0 -2" reclassification is more appropriate to ensure site plan review. Also, to provide additional protection to the abutting single family lots, staff suggests a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides of the property. And finally, to the east of the site there is an existing right -of -way, and it is recommended that it be abandoned. This would allow the various landowners abutting it to gain additional land area and lessen the potential impact of the 50 -foot strip on the site under consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "0 -2" and not "0 -3" as filed with a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides. November 25, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The owner was represented by Ed Willis. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Willis said that the owner had agreed to amending the rezoning to "0 -2" and placing 110 -3" height restrictions on the property through the zoning action. Mr. Willis then discussed the proposed street closure to the east and said he had no problems with the 50 -foot "OS" buffer being measured from the street closure line. There were several comments made about the height issue, and the City Attorney indicated that a rezoning action could have conditions attached restricting the height 45 feet. Mrs. Zadie Gamble then spoke and said she supported the rezoning request. She also submitted for the record a newsletter that was being distributed throughout the neighborhood. Lee Cowan spoke against the rezoning and said that nonresidential zoning keeps getting closer and closer. She said the residential area was a good neighborhood and expressed concern with the height and traffic increases. There was a long discussion about the street system and the proposed change to the Master Street Plan for Autumn Road. Mr. Willis said that the City Engineer wanted Autumn Road to be opened and reviewed the design for the proposed parkway extension. Martha Fleming, a resident at the corner of Birchwood and Autumn, said she was opposed to the rezoning and that it would destroy the neighborhood. She also indicated that the buffer would provide no protection and had problems with the potential widening of Autumn Road. Donna Ztchieson opposed the rezoning and described the neighborhood as being affordable and stable. She said that the neighborhood experienced problems when West Markham was closed, and the same thing would occur if Autumn was made into a collector. Autumn Road and the proposed Master Street Plan amendment were discussed at length. Mr. Willis said that Autumn Road needed to remain open because it was the only accessible point between Shackleford and Bowman Roads. There was some discussion about the area to the west and Birchwood Drive. Several Commissioners then expressed concerns about impacts from traffic and requested the staff to review possible options for traffic control. There were a number of comments made by the various individuals. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended request to "0 -2" with a 50 -foot "OS" strip on the north and east sides. November 25, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued There was some discussion about a possible deferral, and Mr. Willis said he had no objections to that. A second motion was made to table the previous motion and defer action to the December 16, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention (Fred Perkins). November 25, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z -4768 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Taurus Land Same By: John D. McDaniel Mabelvale West Road, West of Nash Lane Rezone from "R -2" to "0 -3," "C -3," "I -2" and "MF -24" Mixed Development 25.0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" South - Single Family and Public, Zoned "I -2" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone a 25 acre tract of land to a mix of zoning classifications, "MF -24," "0 -3," "C -3" and "I -2." The proposed development scheme has the "MF -24," "0 -3" and "C -3" tracts, approximately five acres each, fronting Mabelvale West Road with a 9.8 acre "I -2" parcel to the rear. The property is located to the east of the proposed southwest hospital site and directly north of the post office facility. The zoning is a mix of "R -2," 110 -2," 110 -3," "C -2," "C -3" and "I -2." The land use is very similar with significant industrial involvements to the north and west with a major commercial development at Mabelvale West and I -30. In addition to the post office, there is another public use in the immediate area, Mabelvale Junior High School. Some of the land is still vacant and a majority of the single family residences are on large lots. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. The most significant Master Street Plan issue associated with this request is the extension of I -430 to create the South Loop which is identified as an expressway on the Master Street Plan. The proposed intersection modification and road alignment will November 25, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued significantly impact Tract 1 of this rezoning by having to utilize almost the entire parcel for right -of -way. It appears that the status of this Master Street Plan issue should be resolved prior to final action being taken on the western portion of the property. The alignment has been tied down somewhat because of the City purchasing some land between the post office and the school. 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 the site. 7. The adopted Otter Creek Plan recommends for the location in question office use along the Mabelvale West frontage and mixed public /institutional and office development to the rear. Only a portion of the rezoning is compatible with the plan, that being the "0-3" for Tract 1, but staff is comfortable with the basic rezoning concept that is being proposed. The staff feels that the "I -2" is reasonable for the rear because of abutting "I -2" to the north and its general relationship to other uses in the area. The multifamily location with a lesser density provides a good buffer between the residential uses to the east and the proposed nonresidential zoning to the west. Staff is concerned with the proposed "C -3" reclassification because of the potential of establishing a commercial strip along Mabelvale West and cannot support the commercial rezoning. The intent of the plan is to maintain the commercial uses west of the proposed South Loop alignment. An office reclassification is more appropriate for Tract 2 and it is more consistent with the Plan's land use concept. In reviewing the application and the Master Street Plan issues, staff's position on Tract 1 is that it would be premature to act on a rezoning proposal at this time and that portion of the application should be deferred. The City needs to determine the exact right -of -way alignment and how it will be required prior to any action being taken. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I -2" for Tract 4 as filed, "MF -18" for Tract 3, and "0-3" for Tract 2, not "C -3" as filed. Staff also recommends that any rezoning action for Tract 1 be deferred until the Master Street Plan question is resolved. November 25, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) The applicant, John McDaniel, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Daniel discussed the access and proposed uses. He went on to say that the primary problems were the Master Street Plan and the right -of -way for the proposed South Loop /I -430 extension. There was some discussion about deferring the request, and Mr. McDaniel said that he did not object to a deferral but would like an answer to the right -of -way question by February 10, 1987. Mr. McDaniel went on to say that he could not provide much information or a plan for the property because of the status of Tract 1. There was a long discussion about the various issues, and Mr. McDaniel agreed to a deferral to the February 10, 1987, meeting. A motion was made to defer the request to February 10, 1987. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. The Commission then expressed support for a resolution urging the City to resolve the right -of -way issue for the South Loop /I -430 extension by February, 1987. November 25, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z -4769 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Joe Steck Location: 8520 Distribution Drive Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Purpose: Industrial Size: 0.9 acres Existing Use: Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" South - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone approximately one acre from "R -2" to "I -2." The site is occupied by an industrial use, and it is one of the few parcels still zoned "R -2" in the Distribution /Production Drive area. The nonresidential zoning in the immediate area includes "C -3" and "I -2" with a similar land use pattern. There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" zoning as filed. November 25, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting a deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the December 16, 1986, meeting. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z -4770 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: West Markham Associates J.E. Hathaway, Jr. 300 Natural Resources Drive Rezone from "0 -2" to "0 -3" Office 5.9 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "0 -3" South - Commercial, Zoned "0 -2" and "C -3" East - Vacant, Zoned "0 -1" West - I -430 Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone approximately 6 acres from "0 -2" to "0 -3" for office development. It is the staff's understanding that the property will be subdivided into smaller lots less than two acres which is the "0 -2" minimum. The site is located along the I -430 corridor, just north of West Markham and in the area that is developing with a mix of office and commercial uses. There is a single family neighborhood to the east of Natural Resources Drive and to the north there is a major state complex. The "0 -3" tract to the north is vacant as are the office sites on the east side of Natural Resources Drive. To the south of the property under consideration there is commercial development on both the "0 -2" and "C -3" parcels. The most recent rezoning in the area was the "O -1" reclassification to the east to accomodate three small lots. This proposal before the Commission is compatible with the overall development pattern found in the vicinity and staff supports the "0 -3" rezoning. There are no outstanding issues associated with this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "0 -3" request as filed. November 25, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. 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. November 25, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z -4771 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Baptist Medical Systems, Inc. J.R. Hathaway Battery and West 12th Southeast Corner Rezone from "R -4" to "C -3" Eating Place 0.16 acres Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "0 -3" East - Institutional, Zoned "R -4" West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue before the Commission is to rezone a single 50 -foot lot from "R -4" to "C -3" for a small scale eating place. The proposal is to develop a restaurant on the two lots to the north, zoned "C -3," and the property under consideration should the current zoning request be granted. The restaurant will be primarily a drive - through facility and will upgrade the corner with a quality development. Both the land use and zoning in the neighborhood are mixed. Some of the land uses include residential, office, commercial, institutional and an elderly high -rise. The zoning is very similar with "R -4," 11R -5," 110 -2," 110 -3," "C -3," "C -4" and "I -2." The property in question has nonresidential zoning to the north, south and west with a quasipublic use to the east zoned "R -4." Because of all the changes over the years, there is no established zoning pattern and the proposed reclassification will not have an impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" rezoning as requested. November 25, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C -3" rezoning as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z -4761 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Donald Adams Manuel Picado 4916 Lee Avenue Special Use Permit /10 Children or Less Day -Care Family Home 0.15 acres Single Family and Day -Care SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: This application was filed as the result of an enforcement action by the City, and the request is to grant a special use permit for a day -care family home. The Zoning Ordinance defines a day -care family home as: Any facility which provides family like child care in the care giver's own family residence in accordance with the provisions of licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas and which serves no more than 10 children including the care giver's own children. The occupants of 4916 Lee Avenue have been operating such a facility for a number of years without benefit of any review and apparent problems. In September of this year, a written complaint was made to the City, and the household was instructed to file for a special use permit. The letter makes mention of "yelling, whistling and throwing play things," typical children type activities. The special use permit process was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance to: Provide a method of control over certain types of land uses which while not requiring the full review process of the conditional use permits do require some review procedure which allows for determination of their appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are proposed and for public comment. November 25, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued Also, the Planning Commission shall have the final authority for special use permits except appeals may be filed with the Board of Directors. After carefully reviewing the application, staff feels that a day -care family home is appropriate for the location and supports the granting of the necessary permit. The use appears to have not created any major problems for the neighborhood, except for one individual. Other uses, such as a major church facility, have more of an impact on the immediate area. The residence is large enough to accommodate 10 children or less and there is ample yard area to provide the needed open space. A major concern usually associated with these types of uses is an adequate drop off location. The lot in question has a paved driveway off Lee Avenue and a good alley to the rear so there are two potential drop off points. Staff does recommend that the alley become the primary drop off area because Lee Avenue does carry a heavy traffic flow at various times during the day. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a special use permit be granted for 4916 Lee Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the special use permit with the condition that Lee Avenue not be used as a drop off or pickup point. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. November 25, 1986 Item No. 8 - Other Matters - Ordinance Amendments Request: Planning Commission review for adoption of the 1986 ordinance amendment package. This item is presented for Planning Commission public hearing on the 60+ items developed over the past seven months. The Planning staff has mailed copies of the proposal to the distribution list containing over 40 persons and organizations. This mailing requested their comments on Draft No. 3 prior to the hearing in order to determine the appropriateness of the various proposals. In our cover letter to the several contacts, we outlined the deletions and additions since mailing of Draft No. 2. These were: Deletions: 1. Nonconforming Use - Reconstruction of ordinance provisions on continuance and /or expansion. 2. Group Homes - Definition and placement within the various districts. 3. Mobile Homes - Definition, modification and use group restructure. Additions: 1. Shopping center /mixed use parking conflicts (existing centers). 2. Drive -in restaurant noise abatement at menu board speakers. 3. Accessory floor space reduction in "0-2" District from 20 percent to 10 percent. 4. Ordinance text correction dealing with conditional uses. 5. Density restructure of the "R -5" District to reduce density on small lots. 6. Site plan review variances by Planning Commission. 7. Ordinance text correction dealing with conflicting definitions. November 25, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued 8. Providing pyramiding between "C -3" and "C -4" Districts and the overlapping of "I -1" and "I -2" Industrial Districts with certain retail uses. 9. Ordinance text correction dealing with a parking diagram error. 10. Providing for a habitual offender enforcement penalty. 11. Ordinance text correction dealing with correction of number of residential listings in the definitions section. 12. Providing for a broader definition of day camp as an "OS" District use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of this package as drafted and its forwarding to the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 28 -86) The Planning staff made a presentation of Draft 3 of the 1986 Amendment Proposals. Identified were several areas added to the Ordinance that were not included in the mailing for this agenda. These items included specific definitions of shopping center and a new listing for a parking requirement for shopping centers. A lengthy discussion of the proposed amendments followed. During the course of this discussion several concerns were raised by various members of the Commission relative to the application of parking requirements not only to the new definition of shopping center, but to the current policy of off - street parking for mixed use commercial developments. The result of this lengthy discussion was a motion to defer the amendment package until the Commission meeting on November 25, 1986. The motion included a requirement that Planning staff contact the several large cities in our region; these being Dallas, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, and Memphis. This contact being for purposes of determining how those municipalities apply parking requirements to shopping centers. This motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes. November 25, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 25 -86) Staff presented several proposed amendments relating to: (a) nonconforming parking rights being carried forward, (b) retail uses in the "I -2" District requiring a conditional use permit, (c) revision of the Day Camp definition, (d) and allowance of 20 percent accessory commercial in the "0 -2" District provided that the Planning Commission approves the accessory floor space above 10 percent at the time of site plan review. There was substantial discussion concerning the parking requirement for shopping centers. Bill Rector indicated that the proposed requirement in the Draft Ordinance was excessive. Gary Greeson suggested as a possible alternative the requirement of one space for each 200 square feet of gross leasable area. After discussion, the Commission and staff agreed on a requirement of one space for each 225 square feet of gross leasable area for new shopping centers and additions to existing centers. It was also agreed that existing centers could convert individual land uses to other uses if the requirement of one space for each 225 square feet of gross leasable area was met for the entire center. In the case of shopping centers where the one space per 225 square feet could not be met, then conversions of individual uses to other land uses would be subject to the old parking rules; i.e., that the parking requirements for each individual use would be calculated separately and added together, provided however, that the nonconforming rights of previous uses could be carried forward. On a motion duly seconded, the Commission voted (9 ayes and 0 noes) to recommend approval of the ordinance amendments package with the amendments recommended by staff and revision of the shopping center parking requirement as agreed by Commission members and staff. It was agreed that staff would draft the proposed language of the parking requirement for shopping centers and submit it to the Chairman, Bill Rector and the City Attorney (Steve Giles) for approval before submittal to the Board of Directors. November 25, 1986 Filing fees are intended to cover the costs of providing information to the public, assisting applicants, processing applications (including obtaining reports from other departments), preparing legal ads, conducting field investigations of applications, performing research, answering questions about applications, formulating recommendations, attending Commission and Board meetings, preparing minutes, and preparing reports to the Board of Directors. Increases in certain fees are needed, due to: (a) inflation; (b) increased complexity of regulations; and (c) the City's financial situation being very tight. Loss of federal revenue sharing funds, loss of the use tax, and court rulings requiring repayment of use taxes previously collected have all contributed to a need to make land use regulation more of a self- supporting operation. A study of costs of various application activities was conducted over the period July, 1985 through May, 1986. The study indicated that fee increases were needed for these applications: planned unit development, Board of Adjustment, subdivision site plan review, annexation, right -of -way abandonment, and improvement district establishment. No fee increases were found to be needed for subdivisions, rezonings, conditional use permits, and zoning site plan reviews. The study was based upon staff salaries and applicable indirect costs. A copy of the study is attached for your review. The costs indicated for site plan review matters are primarily for subdivision site plan reviews as opposed to zoning site plan reviews. A summary of the recommended increases is presented below: • Planned Unit Developments from the current fee of $125.00 each to the sliding scale now used for subdivisions (see scale attached to the fees study) • Board of Adjustment applications from $51.00 + $1.00 per lot or acre currently to a flat fee of $125.00 each. • Subdivision Site Plan Reviews from $125.00 each to $200.00 each. • Annexation applications from no fee presently to $250.00 each. . Right -of -way Abandonment and Improvement District applications from no fee presently to $125.00 each. Special Use Permit applications from $25.00 presently to $125.00 each. The present fee is too low, and the processing costs are comparable to a Board of Adjustment application. The estimated annual revenues that would be generated by the fee increases are about $23,360. It should be noted that the annexation fee would include the costs of providing information to citizens, providing technical assistance to applicants, obtaining information from other City departments, attending any meetings in the area proposed for annexation, conducting an analysis of each annexation request, preparing a report and recommendation to the Pulaski County Judge, attending the court hearing, and submitting the report to the Board of Directors. The actual ordinance that would adopt the proposed fee changes is attached. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (October 28, 1986) Staff outlined the proposed fee increases to the Commission. David Jones argued that the increases represented tax increases. John Schlereth indicated that they were like user fees. As requested by David Jones, staff agreed that the Fees Ordinance could be deferred 30 days, pending distribution of the fees proposal to the same distribution list used for the zoning /subdivision ordinance amendments package. On motion duly seconded, the matter was deferred to the November 25, 1986 meeting of the Commission by a unanimous vote. November 25, 1986 Item No. 9� PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff outlined a proposed change in fees for the Board of Adjustment, as suggested by a member of the Board of Adjustment. Staff proposed that instead of a flat fee of $125 per application, that a sliding scale of $50 for administrative appeals and interpretations, $75 for single family and duplex variance applications, and $200 for multifamily and nonresidential applications be approved. Staff also noted that other cities were checked and that none were discovered that charged a fee for annexation applications. On a motion duly seconded, the Commission voted ( 9 ayes and 0 noes) to recommend approval of the proposed fees with the recommended revisions for the Board of Adjustment as suggested by staff. FILING FEE REVIEW JULY, 1985 — MAY, 1986 Estimated Type of Total Expenditures Average Current Fee And Additional A?_l cats -i— uLnbex_J-1 1 at B�espLmen -d- - - - BaYer.U-9-a P.U.D. 40 $ 12,318 $307.95 $125.00 per each. $88,000 This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend the sliding scale now used for subdivisions (see attachment). Bd. of Adjustment 88 $ 9,930 $112.84 $51.00 plus $1.00 $6y160 multiplier. This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend a flat fee of $125.00 each. Site Plan 34 $ 6,545 $192.50 $125.00 per each. $2,550 Review This average indicates that an increase is needed. We recommend a flat fee of $200.00 Annexation 2 $ 485 $242.50 No fee required at this $ 500 time. A fee of $250.00 is recommended. Street Closures and Others 41 $ 6,071 $148.07 No fee required for $ 6,150 abandonment at this time. A fee of $150.00 is recommended. Subdivision 62 $ 26,873 Zoning 102 $ 26,112 Conditional Use 51 $ 5,596 TOTALS 420 $ 93,930 $433.34 $ variable 100 to 1200. 0 $358 is fair average /no increase. $256.00 $ variable 75 to 50Q. 0 $256.00 is fair average /no increase. $109.73 $125.00 per each. 0 $109.73 is fair average /no increase is needed. $223.64 $23,360 (1) This number represents the single items filed for hearing and does not include deferral recount. This total is of cases filed and does not include approximately 20% additional cases that do not make it to public hearing. These include administrative approvals and cases withdrawn prior to hearing. (2) This number represents the cost of all staff involved in each activity. Dollar costs are based on salaries and applicable indirect costs. CURRENT SUBDIYISION DES P-r elimina r y And zinsl glat E&aa Each Plats of 0 to 10 Acres : $100.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater. Plats of: 10 to 20 Acres = $200.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater. Plats of: 20 to 40 Acres = $300.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater. Plats of: 40 Acres & Up = $400.00 + $2.00 per lot or acre whichever is greater. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 4 -105 OF CHAPTER 43 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BEING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FEE PROVISIONS, AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR VARIOUS REQUESTS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the Office of Comprehensive Planning receives numerous requests for approval of site plans, requests for changes in zoning requirements, or requests for adjustments to existing zoning laws, and WHEREAS, there is enormous cost involved in the evaluation of these requests, publishing necessary notices, and making sufficient copies for the public and the relevant commission and staff, and WHEREAS, a comprehensive fee ordinance for land use requests is necessary to conveniently catalogue all of these fee requirements, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK: Section 1. The filing fees for submitting to the Office of Comprehensive Planning rezoning applications shall be as follows: PARCEL SIZE Over Over Over Over Over (Acres) 0 -1/2 1/2 -1 1 -5 5 -10 10 -20 22 -40 Over 40 ZONING DIST. R1,R2,R3 R4,R5,MF6, MF12,MF18, MF24,R6,R7 O1,O2,O3 C1,C2,C3,C4 I1,I2,I3,M $75 $75 $100 $100 $125 $125 $200 $100 $100 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $100 $125 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $100 $125 $150 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $400 $500 FP,AF,OS (No fee) Fees for rezoning applications involving multiple parcels and mixed rezonings shall be determined by totaling up charges for individual parcels according to the above schedule. Section 2. The filing fees for submitting subdivision applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as follows: PLAT SIZE (Acres) 0 to 10 Over 10 to 20 Over 20 to 40 Over 40 $100 $200 $300 $400 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 per acre per acre per acre per acre Section 3. The filing fees for submitting site plan applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as follows: (a) Subdivision Site Plan: $200.00 for .411 sites. (b) Zoning Site Plan: (i) Up to 10 acres: $125.00 (ii) Over 10 to 160 acres: $175.00 (iii) Over 160 acres: $250.00 (c) Conditional Use Permit: $125.00 for all sites. (d) Board of Adjustment: $125.00 (e) Special Use Permit: $125.00 for all sites. Section 4. The filing fees for submitting planned unit development applications to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be as follows: SITE SIZE (Acres) 0 to 10 Over 10 to 20 Over 20 to 40 Over 40 $100 $200 $300 $400 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 plus $2.00 per acre per acre per acre per acre Section 5. The filing fee for submitting right -of -way 2 abandonment and improvement district applications to the Office 3 of Comprehensive Planning shall be $125.00 for each application. 4 5 Section 6. The filing fee for submitting annexation requests 6 to the Office of Comprehensive Planning shall be $250.00 for each 7 application. 8 9 Section 7. The following provisions shall apply to all 10 applications submitted to the Office of Comprehensive Planning: 11 12 (a) Amounts to be refunded for applications 13 withdrawn prior to Planning Commission action 14 shall be as follows: 15 16 (i) Seventy -five (75) percent of the fee 17 paid if the application is withdrawn during 18 the first week after docket closing; 19 20 (ii) Fifty (50) percent of the fee paid if 21 the application is withdrawn during the 22 second week after docket closing; 23 24 (iii) Twenty -five (25) percent of the fee 25 paid if the application is withdrawn during 26 the third week after docket closing; 27 28 (b) Date of receipt of written notice of 29 withdrawal of the application shall be the 30 date used to determine refund. 31 32 (c) There shall be no refunds of any portion of 33 the fees paid if an application is amended 34 during, or denied in, the review process. 35 36 (d) Refiling of the same, an amended or a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 completely different application on the same, or any portion of the same property, after previous action or withdrawal, shall be considered a completely new application and new fees shall be charged accordingly. section 8. Section 4 -105 of Chapter 43 of the Code of Drdinances, being the Zoning Ordinance fee provisions, is hereby repealed. Section 9. All ordinances or parts of ordinances dealing with lees for matters coming before the Office of Comprehensive Planning, which are inconsistent with this ordinance, are hereby repealed to the extent of their inconsistency. ection 10. The costs of processing, publishing, and evaluating he matters covered herein is expensive. In order to assure that 11 notices required under Arkansas law are properly published nd these matters are properly reviewed, and that there are ufficient funds to publish these notices and conduct the eviews, it is necessary that these fees be collected at the time hese matters are filed with the Office of Comprehensive Planning. ithout the passage of this ordinance, and the collection of hese amounts, it is unclear that these requirements can be roperly met. Failure to meet these notice and review equirements can delay the development of areas within the City, nd thereby adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of he citizens. An emergency is, thereby, declared to exist and his fee ordinance will become effective on the date of passage. PPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney TTEST: City Clerk DATE: Mayor November 2-5, 1986 'tem No. 10- Proposed By-Law Changes Dealing with Reapplication and Roll Call Two by -law changes are being distributed to the Commission today for action at a subsequent meeting. The first proposed change is one recommended by the City Attorney's Office to prevent reapplications within a year if they have been turned down by Board of Directors. The other by -law amendment is one authorized as part of the Streamlining Report. It would eliminate roll calls at the beginning of Planning Commission meetings. The proposed amendment also adds listings of the consent agenda and deferred items which are normal parts of Planning Commission agendas. The specific amendments proposed are as follows: Amend Article V, Section E, Paragraph 7c. to read (new wording underlined): "Except for cause and with the unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting, no application for rezoning of a property shall be considered if a former application embracing the same property or _4 portion thereof has been denied by the Commission or the Board of Directors within a period of 12 months preceding the application. If the Commission decides to rehear a case, it will require new fee, legal add, notice to owners, etc., as required for a new application." Amend Article V, Section A to read (new wording under- lined, roll call has been deleted): "A. Order of Agenda All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the topics and cases in the following sequence: 1. Finding of a Quorum 2. Approval of Previous Minutes as Mailed 4. Old Business or Deterred Itema 5. New Business 6. Adjournment" November 25, 1986 Item No. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 25 -86) Staff outlined the proposed By -Law Amendments. After discussion, a motion was made to approve the first By -Law Amendment relating to reapplication. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. With regard to the amendment relating to roll calls, some Commission members expressed a preference for retaining the roll call. Also, it was noted that the roll call did not require much time. Staff indicated that they had no strong feelings one way or the other. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Amendment. The motion failed due to a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, and 2 absent.. DATE Y/aJ. o?J: J9W P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ·ZONING ·SUBDIVISION MEMBER 4 P. C J} W.Riddick, III ✓t/. ✓ / J.Schlereth / v ✓✓ R.Massie I ✓✓ ✓ B.Sipes 111,, J.Nicholson ✓./ ✓ / w.Rector ✓c/ / ✓ W.Ketcher ✓,/ / ✓ D.Arnett / / ✓✓ D.J. Jones ll rr I.Boles v / ./ / F F I z 3 if ✓✓ � v ✓✓ ✓✓ /v ✓ ✓ ✓✓ / ✓-✓ / ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ / / ✓ ✓ ✓ / / ✓ • / ✓ / ✓✓ ✓/ I v ✓ v ✓ / F.Perkins (1✓111i13v'/ ✓AYE • NAYE A ADSENT ':e_ABSTAIN s ✓ ✓ / / / / ✓ ✓ ✓ � 7 8 / / ✓ ✓ ✓/ ✓/ / / / ✓ / ,/ ✓ / / / / / ✓ / / ✓ / ✓✓ 9 /0 I / // / / / A r7 / / / / / / / / YJ /. � j ./ November 25, 1986 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was djourned at 4:00 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date