Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 05 1987LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD MAY 5, 1987 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Bill Rector Betty Sipes William Ketcher Rose Collins Jerilyn Nicholson Dorothy Arnett Richard Massie John Schlereth Fred Perkins Walter Riddick III David Jones (Item No. 6) City Attorney: Steven Giles May 5, 1987 Item No. A - Z -4790 Owner: Heavrin Construction Company Applicant: Joe D. White Location: Hilaro Springs Road at the Railroad Tracks Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Industrial Size: 6.2 acres Existing Use: Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Railroad Right-of-Way, Unclassified East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the site to "I-2." The property is currently occupied by a nonconforming industrial use, a contractor's yard, and in the past it has also been the location of the Fishing Hole, a "for pay" fishing operation. The site is on Hilaro Springs at the city limits and in an area that is zoned "R-2" because of being annexed within the last two years. Land use in the general vicinity is primarily single family with several multifamily units and a mobile home park. A majority of the single family residences are located in established subdivisions found on both sides of Hilaro Springs Road. Most of the land adjacent to the site and to the south of the railroad tracks is still vacant. 2. The site is occupied by several structures for the contractor's operation and a fishing pond with the Little Fourche Creek running along the south property line. 3. Hilaro Springs is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan so it appears that dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. May 5, 1987 Item No. A - Continued 4. The present City of Little Rock floodway maps show that the entire site is located within the floodway. The 1987 FIS restudy conducted by FEMA, of the major streams and creeks within the City of Little Rock, shows a floodway involvement on the property of over 80 percent. The current Board of Directors policy is that if rezoning of the property is requested, dedication of a floodway is required. 5. The City of Little Rock inherited a floodway violation case from the county concerning this site when the property was annexed into the City. Currently, the City's legal staff is pursuing the floodway violation as a continuation of that court case. 6. The site was annexed into the City in 1985 as part of the referendum area. In December 1986, the Fishing Hole requested the Board of Adjustment to review a staff's decision denying a privilege license for the use because it was determined that an expansion of a nonconforming use had occurred. The Board of Adjustment reaffirmed the staff's position because the nonconforming use had been expanded. There is no documented neighborhood position on the property. 7. This site is part of the Geyer Springs East District Plan which identifies the entire tract as being part of the Little Fourche Creek floodway. Because of the new floodway study, the northern one - fourth of the property is outside the floodway and probably would be shown as single family if the plan was being formulated now. The plan identifies the immediate area for continued residential use with nearest nonresidential uses shown adjacent to Baseline Road to the north. Industrial areas are concentrated along Arch Street Pike and I-30 on the plan. Those locations either have existing industrial zoning in place or have a greater potential for future industrial development than the area under consideration. With the request being in conflict with the adopted land use plan and the property's other problems, legal and the floodway, staff's position is that the "I-2" reclassification is inappropriate and does not support the rezoning. And finally, the Master Parks Plan identifies the Little Fourche Creek as Proposed Open Space, Priority 2 which suggests some City involvement with the property in the future. May 5, 1987 Item No. A - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-10-87) The applicant, Joe White, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. White spoke and said he was presenting Heavrin Construction Company. He then said that the property was used for a construction yard and discussed the permit for the development in the floodway when the site was outside the City limit. Mr. White reviewed the Fishing Hole issue and described that use of the property. There were several comments made about the floodway issue, and then Mr. White requested at least a 60 -day deferral (two zoning meetings) to explore the possibility of utilizing a PUD for the site. A motion was made to defer the request to the May 5, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-5-87) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the rezoning be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the item without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 5, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z- 3021 -F Owner: Carl Keller Applicant: Joe D. White Location: Riley Drive Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "O-3" to "O-3," "C-3" and "OS" Purpose: Office and Commercial Size: 14.2 acres (total) Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2," "O-3" and "C-3" South - Vacant, Zoned "MF-12" and "C-3" East - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "R-2" and "O-3" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2," "O-3" and "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone nine tracts, a total of 14.2 acres, to "O-3," "C-3" and "OS." Because of the existing zoning, it appears that this proposal is just adjusting the zoning lines and expanding several of the office tracts. The only major change is the "O-3" to "C-3" proposed for the corner of John Barrow Road and Riley Drive but that should not be an issue because there is "C-3" to the north and south. The area of rezoning is located south of I -430 and east of John Barrow Road in the vicinity of the Target shopping center and Riley's Oak Hill Manor development. The zoning pattern east of John Barrow Road and north of Kanis Road is primarily nonresidential so the proposed reclassifications will not change the direction of future development in the area. The land use includes office, commercial, and some residential, both single family and multifamily. Some of the existing "O-3" land is still vacant. The multifamily projects are found at the end of Riley Drive and are for senior citizens with one complex being a nursing home facility. On the west side of John Barrow Road, there is a single family subdivision and to the south there are several single family residences. Those areas will not be impacted by the proposed rezonings. 2. All the parcels under consideration are vacant and heavily wooded. Also, a majority of the tracts have steep grades so some site modifications will probably have to occur prior to any development taking place on the land. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. A majority of the land was rezoned several years ago for the existing development. 7. Staff's position is that the request is reasonable and supports all the reclassifications as filed. A majority of the proposed rezoning changes are very minor, and will not create any impacts for the area. The "C-3" rezoning is the only significant modification to the existing zoning, but it is appropriate because of its location and being adjacent to the "C-3" to the south and across Riley Drive. The rezoning of Tract 9 to "O-3" is not an issue, but the future development will be because of access and the topography. Because of these concerns, especially the steep grades, the new Excavation Ordinance will require a site plan review before any site work can take place. One final item is the Boyle Park District Plan. The request does not conform to the land use plan, but staff feels that the rezonings will not effect the intent or goal of the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 5, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z- 3363 -B Owner: James S. Hall and A. Dan Phillips Applicant: Stephen N. Joiner Location: Shackleford Road south of I -430 Request: Rezone from "O-2" to "C-2" Purpose: Commercial Size: 32.4 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Office, Zoned "R-2" and "O-3" East - Aldersgate Camp, Zoned "OS" West - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-2" (The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the rezoning be withdrawn from consideration. The request was made after the item was advertised so the Commission must authorized the withdrawal by motion in the public hearing.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for the rezoning to be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made to withdraw the item without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 5, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z- 4695 -A Owner: Valentine Hansen and Valentine Pardo Applicant: Valentine Hansen Location: 400 North Van Buren Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-1" Purpose: Commercial Size: 0.15 acres Existing Use: Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Duplex, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a single lot to "C-1" for an unspecified commercial or office use. The property is located at the northwest corner of North Van Buren and "C" Street in a neighborhood that is primarily zoned for residential use, either single family or two family. The land use is almost exclusively single family residential, especially north of "B" Street. To the south of "B" Street, the zoning is more mixed as is the land use. Between "B" Street and West Markham, the zoning includes PCD, "O-3," "C-3" and "C-4" with a commercial zoning being concentrated between West Markham and "A" Street. The surrounding neighborhood is a stable residential area and allowing commercial zoning at this location could create some problems for the neighborhood. 2. The site is a 45' x 123' lot with three structures on it. Two of the buildings are used for residential purposes, and the third one, located on the corner, is a real estate office. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. May 5, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued 4. Engineering reports that parking is inadequate for a rezoning from "R-3" to "C-l." Also, if parking is provided, the access point should be shown and improved by the traffic engineer. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property has been used for both office and commercial uses over the years so it has some nonconforming status. In July 1986, a "C-1" application was filed for the property. After being on the agenda for several months, the request was finally withdrawn without prejudice in September 1986. 7. The request is in conflict with the adopted Heights /Hillcrest Plan and staff does not support the "C-1" rezoning. Over the years, attempts have been made to allow nonresidential zoning to encroach north of "A" Street. In each of those instances, staff has been opposed to the rezonings. "A" Street has always been viewed by the staff as an appropriate line between nonresidential and residential uses that should be maintained at all costs. Several years ago, an "O-1" request was filed for the lot at the southeast corner of "C" and North Van Buren to allow for a conversion of a residential structure into an office. That rezoning was denied by the both Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. This particular request, if approved, could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish an undesirable precedent for the area. Also, with three buildings on the lot, the site is not a viable commercial tract of land. And finally, the property is not completely restricted to a residential use only. Because the structure on the corner has a nonconforming status, it can continue to be occupied by an office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 16, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 5, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z -4805 Owner: Glen Buchanan Applicant: Same Location: 4919 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Manufacturing (Millwork) Size: 1.04 acres Existing Use: Industrial and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" South - Church, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The issue before the Commission is to rezone a tract of land on Baseline Road from "R-2" to "I-2." The property has a nonconforming use on it, and the owner desires to have the use and zoning conform. The site is located approximately one mile east of Geyer Springs Road and in an area that has a very mixed land use pattern. The uses include residential, office, commercial, churches and a school. In addition to the industrial use on this tract, there are several vehicle repair facilities to the north on Stanton and Dreher Lane which could be considered industrial but do not necessary require industrial zoning. The zoning is primarily "R-2" Single Family with the exception of the northeast corner of Stanton and Baseline which is "C-3." Other zonings in the vicinity include "R-4," "O-3" and "PRD." This property abuts residential zoning on three sides and across Baseline the land is zoned "R-2." 2. The site is approximately one acre in size and occupied by a total of seven structures. Five of the buildings are used for the industrial operation and on the front portion of the property there is a single family residence with a detached garage. May 5, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued 3. Baseline Road is classified as a principle arterial which normally requires a right -of -way at least 100 feet. Dedication of additional right -of -way will be required because the survey shows a right -of -way of approximately 35 feet from the center line. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the property. The area was annexed to the City in April 1985 through the court decision on the referendum area. 7. This location is part of the Geyer Springs East District Plan which was adopted by the City in May 1986. For this section of Baseline Road, the Land Use Plan recommends commercial development for both sides and there is no industrial identified in the immediate vicinity. Staff's position is that the plan's concept should be maintained and does not support the "I-2" request. The plan shows large industrial areas to be located adjacent to I -30 and Arch Street Pike which are more suitable for continued industrial development and /or expansion. Supporting an industrial rezoning for this property could create some problems and set precedent for an undesirable zoning configuration along this portion of Baseline. Finally, the "I-2" request, if granted, would establish an industrial spot zoning which is not good planning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Glen Buchanan, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Buchanan said that he manufactures wood products and the use has been in operation for approximately 14 years. He told the Commission that he wanted the property rezoned because of being nonconforming and he could not rebuild if the structures were destroyed. There was a long discussion about Mr. Buchanan's use and the Geyer Springs East District Plan. Mr. Buchanan addressed the Commission again about various issues including his concerns with potential problems because of being zoned "R-2." After some additional comments, Mr. Buchanan requested a vote on May 5, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued the "I-2" rezoning. Before action was taken on the request, the Commission discussed Mr. Buchanan's use which he described as being more of a woodworking shop with the work being done on a job-by-job basis. There was some discussion about a possible "C-3" rezoning instead of "I-2" because of the use. This was debated for awhile, and then a motion was offered to defer the rezoning request and refer the definition question to the Board of Adjustment. The motion failed for lack of a second. The Commission then questioned the need for right-of-way and staff reported that additional right-of-way would be required because Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial. Mr. Buchanan told the Commission that he would not agree to dedicating the right-of-way and requested a vote on the "I-2" application. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I-2" request as filed. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes, and 1 absent. The rezoning was denied. May 5, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z -4809 Owner: Johnny F. Burnett Applicant: Same Location: 2401 High Street Request: Rezone from "R-4" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 0.57 acres Existing Use: Vacant and Church SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-4" and "C-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the southeast corner of West 24th and High from "R-4" to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property has been used for commercial purposes in the past, and is currently being utilized by a small church. The site is one block north of the intersection of Roosevelt and High which has all four corners commercially zoned. That pattern is no.t limited just to the Roosevelt intersection, but extends to the north for 1 1/2 blocks on both sides of High Street. A majority of the existing commercial zoning was established through the High Street Urban Renewal project. There are some exceptions to that such as the northwest corner of High and Roosevelt. The remainder of the neighborhood is zoned either "R-3" or "R-4" with several "R-5" and "C-3" spot locations. Overall, the land use corresponds to the zoning, but there are several nonconforming uses. Based on the existing development patterns and what has occurred over the years, the proposed rezoning appears to be a reasonable option for the property. May 5, 1987 Item No. 5 - Continued 2. The site has been one building on it and along the east side there is a creek /drainage structure that is approximately 11 feet wide. To the south of the existing building the property is wooded with no parking area. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's position is one of support for the "C-3" request because the property has been impacted by previous zoning actions in the past, and has been used for nonresidential purposes over the years. The rezoning will not dramatically change the character of the area because of its location or create any additional problems for the neighborhood. The zoning along High Street has been established for this two block area, and this rezoning conforms to that pattern. Impacts from the "C-3" reclassification should be minimal because of being situated on a corner and the creek separates the usable area from the single family residences to the east. The neighborhood has maintained its residential character even with a significant commercial intrusion and this proposal should not change that. The area has also experienced some positive redevelopment through an old Safeway store being converted to an attractive funeral home at the southwest corner of High and West 24th. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 5, 1987 Item No. 6 - Z -4813 Owner: John Bullock Applicant: Same Location: Mabelvale Pike and West 65th NW Corner Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "R-5" Purpose: Multifamily /7 Units Size: 0.40 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property under consideration from "R-2" to "R-5" for a small scale multifamily development. The owner has indicated that he would like to have a total of seven units in a townhouse type arrangement. The zoning pattern for the area is somewhat unique because Mabelvale Pike has been established as a definite line between residential and nonresidential. On the east side of Mabelvale Pike, the zoning is primarily commercial and to the west it is "R-2." The land use is similar, but there are several residences on the east side of Mabelvale Pike and at the southwest corner of Mabelvale Pike and West 65th, there is a nonconforming commercial use. Rezoning of that particular tract has been attempted over the years, but each time the request was denied and the Mabelvale Pike line reinforced. There is no multifamily zoning or development in the area so the approval of this request will set some new precedent for the neighborhood. 2. The site is vacant. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. May 5, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received several informational calls regarding the request. There is no documented history on the site. 7. In reviewing this request, staff was concerned with several issues, especially how the rezoning of this tract will effect the future development of other parcels in the immediate vicinity. The greatest concern expressed was with the vacant land that adjoins this property to the west and north. That land abuts a good single family subdivision that could be adversely impacted by any zoning decision made in the area. This property is somewhat removed from the subdivision, but it will play a major role in determining the development potential of other property and minimizing its effects on the stability of the residential neighborhood. Because of the existing zoning to the east, some type of multifamily development appears to be a good transition between that and the single family area to the west. To make this concept work, the density will be very critical and staff believes that "R-5" is too high for the location. "R-5" could allow up to nine units if the necessary parking is provided. A lower density classification is needed and staff feels that "MF-12" is more compatible with the neighborhood. "MF-12" requires 3,600 square feet per family so that would allow approximately five units on this tract. Staff's support of an "MF" district for this property is not an endorsement of any future rezoning of the land directly to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "MF-12" and not "R-5" as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, John Bullock, was present. There were approximately 10 objectors in attendance. Mr. Bullock discussed the request and said the location makes the site undesirable for single family use. He then agreed to the staff recommendation and amended the application to "MF-12" for five units. Tony Lucas spoke in opposition to the request and described the neighborhood. He said the residents did not want an apartment complex because it May 5, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued would devalue property and cause other problems. W.J. Short said he was not in favor of the multifamily zoning because it would affect privacy and establish an undesirable precedent for the area. He also said that the residents' investment in their properties would be harmed. J.C. Wuneburger said that the area was a quiet single family neighborhood and additional apartments were not needed. He told the Commission that Mabelvale Pike was a good buffer between University Avenue and the residential neighborhood. He also said the multifamily use would disrupt the area and the rezoning was being done at the expense of the single family neighborhood. Mrs. Billye Short described the site and said a one-story structure would be more desirable. Brad Wooten said he was against any kind of multifamily proposal and the property could never be made private. Mr. Bullock then addressed some of the neighborhood's concerns and said that he would build a nice townhouse project. Charles Casey objected to the proposed change and presented a petition from a nearby church opposing the multifamily rezoning. Mr. Bullock made some additional comments and requested a vote on the "MF" request as amended. The motion was made to recommend approval of the "MF-12" as amended. The vote - 0 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 1 abstention (David Jones). The "MF-12" rezoning was denied. May 5, 1987 Item No. 7 - Z -4815 Owner: Parkway Property Limited Partnership Applicant: Don Chambers Location: Rock Creek Parkway and Parkway Place Request: Rezone from "O-3" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 6.9 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Office, Zoned "R-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "O-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 6.9 acre tract on the south side of the Rock Creek Parkway from "O-3" to "C-3" for future commercial development. The property is located at the intersection of Parkway Place, West Markham and the Parkway with "C-3" zoning to the west, and "O-3" to the east and across West Markham to the south. The area between the east and west bound lanes of the Rock Creek Parkway is zoned "R-2" and it is the location of the Rock Creek floodway. Other zoning in the area includes "MF-18," "R-5" and "PRD." Most of the zoning along the Rock Creek Parkway was accomplished through the Rock Creek Plan which was adopted by the City in the early 1970's. The land use is still primarily residential with multifamily on the north side of the parkway and single family on the south side. There is one large multifamily development south of West Markham and most of the existing "C-3" and "O-3" land is still vacant. At the southeast corner of Parkway Place and West Markham, there is a new office building under construction. 2. The site is flat and vacant. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. May 5, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued 4. The Water Department reports that a water main extension plus on-site fire protection will be required. No other comments have been provided as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was zoned to "O-3" in the early 1970's. Staff has received several calls regarding this application. 7. The "C-3" rezoning is in conflict with the adopted Extraterritorial Land Use Plan /Upper Rock Creek District Plan, and staff does not support the request. The two primary reasons for opposing the reclassification are the plan issue and the rezoning could lead to an undesirable strip development along the Rock Creek Parkway. Every effort should be made to maintain the parkway environment and the approval of this rezoning would be contrary to the goal. The intent of the original land use plan was to have a mix use corridor along the parkway like the existing zoning shows and not to have a commercial strip from Shackleford Road to the city limits. The new plan also recognizes that concept by designating commercial modes and not recommending a linear commercial land use pattern. Another concern is the demand for more "C-3" property in this area because of the large amount of commercial land that is still vacant. A majority of this land has been zoned for years and extends from this area back to Shackleford Road. Finally, the City recently zoned close to 200 acres for commercial development to the west as Part of a comprehensive plan for a large land area. Until the existing commercial properties are utilized and the need for more land is established, rezoning for additional commercial acreage should not be supported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request for the item to be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. May 5, 1987 Item No. 8 - Z -4820 Owner: Darbe Development Company Applicant: John A. Castin Location: North of Parkway Place (Extension) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "MF-6," "MF-12" and "MF-18" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 36.3 acres (total) Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "MF-12," "MF -18" and "O-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal before the Commission to to rezone approximately 36 acres, four parcels, to various multifamily classifications. The breakdown of the tracts is as follows: Tract A - "MF-6"/22.3 acres Tract B - "MF-12 "/2.2 acres Tract C - "MF-18"/8.2 acres Tract D - "MF- 6"/3.6 acres The land abuts the western city limits and is located in an area that is still undeveloped. All the land that is in the city limits is zoned "R-2" and will be developed as a single family subdivision. To the west, is a large area referred to as Chenal Valley which was recently rezoned by the City to various districts through the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. In the immediate vicinity, the zoning includes "MF-12," "MF-18," "O-1," "O-2" and "C-1" with several of the tracts under consideration being extensions of the "MF-12" and the "MF-18" to the west. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. May 5, 1987 Item No. 8 - Continued 3. At this time, it is unknown whether dedication of right-of-way will be accomplished through this zoning action or as part of the platting process. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. In general, the proposed rezoning conforms to the Upper Rock Creek District Plan, part of the Extraterritoral Plan, and staff supports portions of the request. Tracts B, C and D are identified on the plan for multifamily development, but Tract A, the largest, is not. After carefully reviewing the proposal and the Extraterritorial Plan, staff recommends that Tract A (proposed for "MF-6 ") not be rezoned at this time and that an area on the east side of Tract D be zoned as open sapce. This open space area is needed as a buffer and to provide a good transition from the single family lots to the multifamily development. Tract A is shown for single family use on the plan and that should be reinforced by not rezoning it at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezonings for Tracts B, C and D with an open space area for a portion of Tract D and denial of "MF-6" for Tract A. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and amended the request to delete Tract A from the application and include an "OS" area for Tract D as presented by the staff. A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning request as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). May 5, 1987 Item No. 9 - Z -4821 Owner: Laura Smith Applicant: Tom Cole Location: 14814 Cantrell Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 0.75 acres Existing Use: Residential and Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial development. The land is located on Highway 10 just west of where Taylor Loop intersects Highway 10 from the south. The site is long and narrow with several structures on it. Zoning in the area is "R-2" and "C-3" with the land use being similar but there are some nonconforming uses. The Highway 10 District Plan shows the Taylor Loop /Highway 10 intersection as a commercial node with this property being the western edge of that designation. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the existing pattern and the plan. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required, but because of the property's location, the amount needed is not known at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). May 5, 1987 Item No. 10 - Z-4822 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Terry Jones Location: Sibley Hole Road (At Nash Lane) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Catfish Fishing Pond and Sale of Catfish Size: 11.96 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - I -30 Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to develop the property under consideration for a public catfish fishing facility. In addition to the fishing pond, there will be retail sale of catfish. To accomplish this, a rezoning change is necessary along with a conditional use permit, a floodplain variance and a subdivision plat. (Staff recommended "I-2" to the applicant because of the location and the existing zoning.) The property is approximately 12 acres in size and is situated between I -30 and Sibley Hole Road. The land use in the area is mixed and includes residential, commercial and industrial. Some of the land is still vacant and the most recent development or land use change is a church under construction at the southwest corner of Sibley Hole Road and Nash Lane. There are also some new single family units being built to the east, south of Sibley Hole Road. Based on the existing development pattern, it appears that Sibley Hole Road is a line between residential and nonresidential uses. 2. The site is vacant and wooded with a large portion of it located in the Nash Creek Floodway. 3. Sibley Hole Road is classified as a collector so dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. May 5, 1987 Item No. 10 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received several calls and letters in opposition to the proposed rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. This area is part of the Otter Creek District Plan which does not identify the location for industrial uses. After reviewing the request, staff feels that an "I-2" rezoning is appropriate and suggest that a planned amendment should be initiated if the reclassification is granted. The Otter Creek District Plan shows the area for mixed residential and staff believes that is somewhat unrealistic, especially for the land between I-30 and Sibley Hole Road. North of Sibley Hole Road the land use is more fragmented and the area has been impacted by the existing "I-2" zoning. Maintaining the residential character south of Sibley Hole Road is important and must be taken into consideration when addressing a rezoning change in the neighborhood. If the plan amendment is recommended as mentioned by the staff, it should only be for the area north of Sibley Hole Road and include some type of open space buffer on the north side of Sibley Hole Road. This should help protect the neighborhood to the south and minimize any potential impacts from future rezonings. With this particular request, staff recommends the south 50 feet be rezoned to "OS." The proposed site plan shows the south 50 feet as a green area so the "OS" zoning is compatible with that. Also, the "OS" will restrict access to Sibley Hole Road and direct it all to the I-30 frontage road which should help the residential neighborhood. This 50 foot "OS" strip is in addition to the floodway area which also needs to be rezoned "OS" and dedicated to the City. The proposed use will still need other approvals to permit it even if this rezoning request is granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I-2" except for the designated floodway and a 50-foot strip adjacent to Sibley Hole Road. The recommended rezoning for those areas is "OS" open space. May 5, 1987 Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-5-87) The applicant, Terry Jones, was present and represented by Peggy O'Neal, an attorney. Donald Crowe, the proposed developer, was also present. There were 12 to 15 objectors in attendance. Ms. O'Neal spoke and described the proposal which she said was very similar to an existing fishing pond development in Dallas. She went on to say that in addition to the fishing ponds, retail sale of catfish was also being planned for the site. This would involve allowing the customer to select a fish from a tank, and then it would be cleaned if the person so desired. Ms. O'Neal sald that there would be no processing plant on the site and all the necessary measures would be taken to eliminate odors. She then described a meeting that was held with several of the residents in the neighborhood and indicated that the owners had no objections to the "OS" as recommended by the staff. Terry Jones then described the site work which he said involved just clearing out underbrush. Mike Batie of the Engineering Office said that it was reported to him that the land been totally cleared. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff then addressed the plan issue and suggested that the "I-2" request be delayed because there were too many problems or uncertainities associated with the rezoning. There was a long discussion about the plan and other items. Mrs. James Cottey said that she was opposed to the rezoning but had no objections to a deferral. Sue Cooper spoke in opposition to the proposed use and deferring the rezoning request. She said that the neighborhood was family oriented and the catfish operation would cause too many problems. She also reminded the Commission of -the letters and petitions in opposition to the rezoning. Dale Grady, an attorney, spoke and said he was represnting the Hassells, adjacent property owners. Mr. Grady described the Sibley Hole Road neighborhood and said that the Hassells were opposed to the rezoning request. He asked that the Planning Commission maintain the residential character of the area by not approving the proposed commercial development. Mr. Grady also said that the site work had been started about two weeks ago. Ray Parker then asked why the request was not being heard through one application. There was some discussion concerning this matter. Ms. O'Neal then said that the owners were willing to convert to a PUD and defer the issue. Lem Dreher, a Sibley Hole Road resident, requested the Commission to vote on the "I-2" rezoning as filed. There were additional comments made by the various parties. A motion was then offered to defer the rezoning request to the May 19, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. A second motion was made to waive the legal ad requirement and the filing fee for the PUD. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. (The applicant agreed to renotifying the property owners and posting the sign for a PUD.) May 5, 1987 Item No. 11 - Z -4823 Owner: Joseph and Nannie Briscoe Applicant: Joseph Briscoe Location: 10724 and 10726 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Purpose: Industrial /Storage Size: 10.6 acres Existing Use: Storage SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue is to rezone approximately 10.6 acres on Baseline Road from "R -2" to "I-2." The property is located on that portion of Baseline that is between I-430 and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department headquarters north of where Sibley Hole Road intersects Baseline. The land in the immediate vicinity is primarily vacant, but there are some single family residences and industrial uses in the area. The zoning is "R-2" with the exception of an "I-2" tract that abuts the site on the west side. Rezoning of that particular property was accomplished in 1986, and at that time, a plan amendment was also adopted for the Otter Creek District Plan which designated the area north of Baseline Road for industrial uses. This request is within that area so it conforms to the amended plan. The property is used for storage and that will not change in the near future. Baseline Road is classified as a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. Engineering will have to determine how much right-of-way is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" rezoning as filed. May 5, 1987 Item No. 11 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because the notification of property owners had not been completed. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 16, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. DATE th«&, 12-: lq/M 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 W.Riddick, III-. -- J.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sipes J.Nicholson w.Rector W.Ketcher D.Arnett D.J. Jones R.Collins F.Perkins /t v ,/ ✓ ✓ ./ ✓ y ✓ A ,, y ✓ I z 3 ✓y" v ✓✓ ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ / ✓ -/ ✓✓ ✓ / ✓ ,/ / ✓ / ✓,/ /✓/ / if 6 i ? • V • v • ✓•✓ • ✓• ✓•✓ • ✓• ,/ •✓ • ✓• ✓• y •✓•✓ • ✓ ' lM JIILi ;I I• y •/• v •/ ✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTAIN B q /() // ✓v ✓ ✓ ✓✓ / ✓/ ./ ✓ ✓ / ✓ / ✓/ ✓ / ✓ "/✓✓ ✓✓ v'/ .,---/' y ✓ A v I} n ✓,,,,,---A-✓ ✓ ✓y ✓ l I I May 5, 1987 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Date Chairman Secretary