Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 24 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 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 for the August 13 and 27 meetings as mailed. III. Members Present: Jerilyn Nicholson William Ketcher Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes John Clayton David Jones James Summerlin Ida Boles Members Absent: Bill Rector Dorothy Arnett City Attorney: Mark Stodola SUMMARY OF ZONING ACTIVITIES SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 1.Z-3355-A Mabelvale Cutoff & Geyer Springs C2 to C3 NW Corner 2.Z-3633-A Hinson Rd., No. of Windsor Ct. MF6 to R2 3.Z-4528 2314 Bragg St. R4 to Cl 4.Z-4530 3000 John Barrow Rd. R3 to C4 5.Z-4531 2717 Boulevard Ave. C3 to RS 6.Z-4532 Kanis Rd., West of John Barrow R2 to C3 Road (South Side) 7.Z-4534 w.12th, between Harrison and R3 to C3 Tyler (South.Side) a.Z-4538 Stagecoach & Crystal Valley Rds. R2 to C4 NW Corner 9.Z-4539 2117 Cumberland R4 to RS 10.Z-4541 4800 Block of South University C3 to C4 September 24, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z-3355-A Owner: River City Land Company Applicant: Same By: David P. Henry Location: Mabelvale Cut -Off and Geyer Springs NW Corner Request: Rezone from "C -2" to "C -3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 8.96 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the tract to "C -3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property is located in an area of southwest Little Rock that is primarily developed for single family use or the land is vacant. West of Mabelvale Cut -Off, there are some multifamily units and some nonresidential uses. Also on Mabelvale Cut -Off, there is "C -3" zoning in place approximately two to three blocks to the west. The site in question is situated at the northwest corner of two proposed arterials which does lend itself to being a commercial location if properly developed. With the single family uses on three sides of this property, the "C -3" reclassification could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood because of being somewhat open -ended and not having the benefit of a site plan review as required in the "C -2" district. Because of the land's location, the additional review prior to development with the "C -2" district is desirable in this situation. 2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. September 24, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued 3. Geyer Springs is classified as a principal arterial and Mabelvale is a minor arterial, so additional dedication of right-of-way will be required (see Engineering comments). 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Boundary street improvements and right-of-way of dedication for both Geyer Springs and Mabelvale Cut-Off. (2) Geyer Springs requires five lanes plus a turning lane at the intersection. Right-of-way is 60 feet from centerline from intersection, 175 feet north tapering to 50 feet at point 300 feet north of intersection. (3) Mabelvale Cut-Off, a minor arterial, requires right-of-way dedication of 80 feet, therefore, 40 feet from the centerline. A five-lane section is required. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. The tract was originally zoned to a commercial classification in 1979. At that time, there was some opposition from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The staff supported the request but was concerned with the potential impacts on the residential area. The "C-2" was established to allow for additional imput from the neighborhood prior to any development taking place on the property. In addition, the 50 -foot buffers on the west and north sides were agreed to as added protection for the residences. 7. Staff's position is that the site has potential as a viable commercial location if properly developed, and to ensure a quality project, the property should remain "C-2." For the most part, the "C-2" district allows the same uses as "C-3" but does require site plan review. In this particular situation, additional review is beneficial because of the tract's relationship to the single family areas. The property could develop into a quality neighborhood center which the "C-2" district tries to encourage. The potential for creating problems for the neighborhood with "C-3" rezoning is a real concern and should not be supported. A unified development plan is what this site needs and September 24, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued usually a "C-3" rezoning does not afford that. The only other possible reclassification that staff would support for the site is a "PCD" because of its review process. One final item is the 50 -foot buffer and the owner's plans for it. The survey submitted with the rezoning request is for the entire tract and does not show the buffer strip. Staff would like to know if it's the owner's intent to try to also rezone the 50 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, David Henry, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Henry requested that the item be withdrawn from consideration. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to withdraw the request. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z-3633-A Owner: West Little Rock Company Applicant: Floyd Fulkerson Location: Hinson Road north of Windsor Court Request: Rezone from "MF-6" to "R-2" Purpose: Single Family Size: 37.5 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-2" and "MF-6" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the 37.5 acre tract from "MF6" to "R-2." The property is located in our area of west Little Rock that has "MF-6" and "R-2," but it appears that the "R-2" is more suitable for this site. Staff does support the request and would like to point out that the necessary road improvements to Hinson Road are still to be undertaken even with the "R-2" classification. Engineering comments are: (1) Floodway and floodplain of Taylor Loop Creek are located on the east property boundary. (2) Boundary street improvements are required to complete Hinson Road. (3) Access locations should be addressed. (4) Check with Parks Department for green finger requirements. September 24, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R-2" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Floyd Fulkerson, was present. Mr. Fulkerson requested that the rezoning be deferred to the November 12, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer the item as requested. The motion was approved. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4528 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Arthur L. Brooks Location: 2314 Bragg Street Request: Rezone from "R-4" to "C-1" Purpose: Barber Shop Size: 0.15 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Interstate right -of -way, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the lot to "C-1" to permit a barber shop. The property is located adjacent to I-30, an access road, but in an area that is primarily a stable single family neighborhood between West 21st and West 24th Streets. South of West 24th, the uses are nonresidential, industrial and the abandoned VA Hospital on Roosevelt with some "I-2" zoning in place. It appears that the nonresidential uses in the immediate area or the interstate have not had an adverse impact on the residences in the neighborhood. There is some commercial zoning two blocks to the north and to the northwest approximately three blocks, but those locations involve more land than a single lot. The commercial area to the northwest along West 21st was established years ago after studying the neighborhood and developing a plan. The site is somewhat removed from the West 21st commercial location, a more viable neighborhood commercial area center and the rezoning of this single lot could have an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. Another issue is access and potential problems that could be created by the existing street system. The primary concern is the access road which is one way and how that will affect circulation. September 24, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot and vacant. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. On-site parking requirements must be met. No other comments have been received as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position relative to this site. 7. The rezoning, if granted, would create a single lot commercial spot zoning and could have an adverse impact on the residential character of the area. Because of those concerns, staff is opposed to the "C-1" rezoning of the site. The property does not appear to be a good commercial location and is better suited for residential use. There are more viable commercial locations in the neighborhood that are zoned to allow the proposed use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Arthur L. Brooks, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Brooks spoke at length and described his need for locating the barber shop at the location in question. He also said that none of the adjacent property owners opposed the proposed use. At this point, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of an "O-1" rezoning with a conditional use permit for the barber shop. After some additional comments, Mr. Brooks agreed to amending the application to "O-1" with the understanding that a conditional use permit would still be required for his proposed use. A motion was made to recommend approval of "O-1" as amended and to waive additional filing fees and further notification of property owners. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z-4530 Owner: Martha Woolsey Applicant: Same Location: 3000 John Barrow Road Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Auto Sales Size: 0.3 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-3" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "C-4" to allow a used car lot. The site is located at West 30th and John Barrow Road which is in the process of being upgraded and widened to four lanes. West 30th is a substandard residential street and does not create a major intersection with Barrow Road because the street does not go through east of Barrow Road. The other properties in the immediate area are either occupied by single family residences or are vacant. At West 29th and Barrow Road where the property is zoned "MF-24," there is a nonconforming commercial use. To the south between West 32nd and West 36th, there is some "C-1" and "C-3" zoning in place with a high percentage of the land still vacant. The closest "C-4" zoning is found on Asher Avenue approximately one mile to the south. In this part of Little Rock, Asher is a more desirable location for "C-4" zoning and uses. 2. The site is currently vacant and is two residential lots. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. September 24, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues attendant to this rezoning request. 6. There is no documented history on the site. In the past, the John Barrow neighborhood has opposed commercial rezoning along Barrow Road. Staff has received some informational calls regarding this current proposal. 7. The Boyle Park District Plan which this location is a part of recommends single family use for the intersection of West 30th and Barrow Road. Because of being in conflict with the adopted plan and creating a "C-4" spot zoning, staff does not support the request. The property and location are not a "C-4" site and could possibly have an adverse impact on some of the surrounding properties. Staff's position regarding commercial zoning along Barrow Road has been to try to concentrate it at major intersections such as West 36th. Staff opposed the "C-1" and "C-3" rezoning between West 32nd and West 34th because of the concern of stripping out John Barrow Road. Staff realizes that Barrow Road is an arterial but does not lend itself to the "C-4" development pattern such as Asher or portions of South University. One or two lot rezonings could have an adverse impact on the area. Staff would encourage that future rezoning proposals be submitted for at least one -half block tracts and be developed under a unified site plan, such as a "PRD." STAFF RECOMMENDATOIN: Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Martha Woolsey, was present and represented by Steve Whitwell, an attorney. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Whitwell spoke and discussed the John Barrow Road project. He said that the Arkansas Highway Department had provided a substantial curb cut for the two lots, and the property had no residential value because of the widening of the road. He then presented some photos of the immediate area. There was a long discussion about the September 24, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued various issues that Mr. Whitwell addressed. Mike Batie of the City Engineering staff addressed the curb cut issue. Linda Patterson then spoke against the rezoning. She was concerned with the use, circulation and the potential impacts on the residential area. Another resident addressed the Planning Commission and requested that the car lot be restricted to the property on Barrow Road. It was pointed out that the rezoning request was only for the two lots fronting John Barrow Road. Mrs. Woolsey spoke and said that she would operate the car lot herself. There were some additional comments made. The Planning Commission then voted on the rezoning as filed. The vote - 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The request was denied. September 24, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z -4531 Owner: Claudia Campbell Applicant: Same Location: 2717 Boulevard Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "R-5" Purpose: Accessory Apartment Size: 0.16 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South Single Family, Zoned "C-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This rezoning request is before the Planning Commission as a request of an action by the City. The construction of an accessory apartment was initiated prior to getting the necessary permits, and when an attempt was made to secure a permit, the builder was informed that the property was not zoned for the proposed use. Because of the two living units being detached, an "R-5" reclassification is necessary. The "R-4" Two Family District is for a structure that has two units under one roof. The property is located at the intersection of West 28th and Boulevard that has four lots zoned "C-3" at the northeast and northwest corners, including this site. All four lots are occupied by single family residences which is the primary land use in the area with the exception of a large park and school. There is no multifamily zoning or use in the immediate vicinity. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with two structures on it. September 24, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Parking requirements must be met. No other adverse comments have been received. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. Staff has received some calls in opposition to this rezoning request. 7. This location is in the Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan area, which identifies this part of the neighborhood for continued single family use. The plan does not recognize or endorse the existing "C-3" locations which this lot is part of. Staff's position is that the "C-3" zoning is misplaced and should be removed from the immediate area because some of the permitted uses could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood. The area is residential nature and could possibly accommodate a mix of single family residences and lots with two units as is proposed with this application. In this situation, "R-5" is not desirable because of the potential of more units and not providing for additional review. Because of the character of the area and to ensure that the project be restricted to the two proposed units, staff suggests that the request be submitted as "PRD." This would also ensure that proper parking is being provided and address any other issues. The proposal would remove one of the "C-3" lots from the immediate neighborhood which staff views as being very positive, and a "PRD" approach is the most reasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the application be converted to a "PRD" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Gene Wheat. There was one objector present. Mr. Wheat explained that he was a contractor on the job and that the subcontractor who did the work had not obtained the necessary building permit. Mr. Wheat also described the construction which involved converting an existing garage to an accessory apartment. September 24, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued John Golden then spoke in opposition to the request and discussed at length the permit issue. He said that another lot in the immediate area had a similar situation, and he was concerned that this could affect property values. There was a long discussion about utilizing the "PRD" approach to allow the two units only. Brad Walker, an attorney, then spoke and agreed to amending the request to "PRD." The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of "PRD" with the applicant understanding that a site plan must also be approved by the Planning Commission. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-4532 Owner: McKay Properties Applicant: Same By: David P. Henry Location: Kanis Road West of John Barrow Rd. (South Side) Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial Size: 6.61 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Single Family, Public and Office, Zoned "R-2," "O-3," and "C-3" South - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "R-2" and "R-5" East - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-18" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone 6.6 acres to "C-3" for an unspecified commercial use. The property is located in close proximity to the Kanis Road and John Barrow Road intersection. This area has a mix of "O-3," "C-3" and "C-4" with some single family and multifamily to the south on John Barrow Road. The development pattern is a mix of various types of commercial uses, including service stations and some retail establishments. Also, a significant portion of the nonresidentially zoned land is still vacant including the "C-3" tracts that abut this site on the north and east sides. This would indicate that there is an adequate amount of commercially zoned land that can still be developed to accommodate future needs of the area. There is a question whether the demand is present for more commercial land because of several sites being undeveloped. 2. The site is vacant and drops off in elevation from the Kanis Road frontage. September 24, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued 3. Kanis Road is classified as a minor arterial so it appears that dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. The amount of dedication is unknown at this time. 4. Engineering has reported that boundary street improvements for Kanis Road will be required. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. This location is found in the Boyle Park District Plan area. The plan recommends a nonresidential use for the property that fronts Kanis and low density multifamily for the rear. Staff feels that this is a reasonable approach and supports "C-3" for only that portion that fronts Kanis Road. This would maintain the existing commercial lines south of Kanis established by the "C-3" tract to the west. The remaining land should not be rezoned at this time and in the future be developed for residential uses. The southern part of the property is not a desirable commercial site and appears to have a stronger relationship to the residential properties that it abuts. The developed land use plan's goal was to concentrate the commercial uses at the Kanis and Barrow Road intersection and discourage a wide commercial band around that location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-3" rezoning for only that portion of the property that fronts Kanis Road with a depth equal to a line established by the existing "C-3" zoning to the west. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, David Henry, was present. There were no objectors. Based on new information provided prior to the hearing, staff modified its position and recommended approval of the request as filed. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" rezoning. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z-4534 Owner: Joe L. Hargrove Applicant: Wali Caradine Location: West 12th between Tyler and Harrison Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3" Purpose: Medical Office and Retail Size: 1.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "C-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to construct a building for an office and some retail use. The site is located along West 12th one block east of Fair Park with "C-3" zoned property to the west, north and east. The commercial zoning on West 12th extends 2 -1/2 blocks east of Fair Park, and the six lots in question are the only residentially zoned land remaining in that strip. Because of the existing zoning pattern in the area, it appears that the request is compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The site is six residential lots that are vacant with the exception of the east lot which has a single family residence on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Access must be coordinated and approved by the Traffic Engineer. No other comments have been received as of this writing. September 24, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff feels that the zoning is compatible with the area and supports the request. Because the lot is fronting on West 12th and being vacant for the most part, the "C-3" rezoning should have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan does not identify the location for commercial use, but because of the earlier mentioned factors, staff's position is that the rezoning request is reasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" request as filed. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 8 - Z-4538 Owner: William R. Fitts Applicant: A.B. Speights Location: Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) and Crystal Valley Road Northwest Corner Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4" Purpose: Used Car Sales Lot Size: 3.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Church, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property to "C-4" to permit a used car lot. The site is located along Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) between I-430 and Baseline Road. The zoning is "R-2" Single Family, but the land use is very mixed with a high number of nonconforming uses. This development pattern is very common for the north side of Stagecoach Road from Crystal Valley to I-430. The land uses include single family, commercial and industrial in that area. West of Crystal Valley, the land is either vacant or occupied by single family residences. At the intersection of Baseline and Stagecoach are some nonresidential uses with "C-2" and "C-3" zoning in place. Based on the location and some existing development in the area, it appears that the site has some commercial potential. 2. The site is flat and occupied by a single family residence. September 24, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued 3. The Master Street Plan classifies Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5) as a major arterial and Crystal Valley as a minor arterial. Because the existing rights-of-way are deficient, dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Boundary street improvements and right-of-way dedication required on both Highway No. 5 (Stagecoach Road and Crystal Valley). (2) Highway No. 5 right-of-way required is 100 feet with 50 feet from the centerline. (3) Crystal Valley is a minor arterial with right-of-way required of 80 feet; therefore, 40 feet from the centerline is required. No other comments have been received as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. The owner has submitted a petition with 32 names on it in support of the "C-4" request. 7. The Otter Creek District Plan which this location is a part of does not identify the site for the commercial use, but staff feels that the property does have some commercial potential. This is due primarily to the tract being situated at the intersection to proposed arterials. Because of the property's location west of Crystal Valley and a new single family subdivision to the north, staff's position is that a "C-4" reclassification is undesirable rezoning for the property. Staff is concerned that a used car lot with the necessary "C-4" zoning could have an adverse impact on the area to the north. Staff recognizes that some of the uses to the east of Crystal Valley are either heavy commercial or light industrial, but they are nonconforming and Crystal Valley could provide an adequate boundary between that area and the properties to the west. The land between Crystal Valley and Baseline Road appears to be better suited for neighborhood oriented uses or small -scale shopping September 24, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued centers with some site plan review taking place prior to development. Staff suggests that a "PCD" or a "C-2" reclassification as being more appropriate for the north side of Stagecoach, west of Crystal Valley. With the site in question because of the single family area to the north and its location additional review would be beneficial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends "C-2" for the property and not "C-4" as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Burton Speights, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Speights informed the Planning Commission that he was representing the owner of the property, William Fitts, who was also in attendance. Mr. Speights went on to provide some background information and discussed the petition supporting the rezoning request. There was a long discussion about the general area and the "C-2" recommendation by staff. It was pointed out that the proposed use would still require a conditional use permit in "C-2" and a minimum site area of five acres. Mr. Fitts spoke briefly about the proposal. After some additional comments, Mr. Speights agreed to amending the application to "C-2" and increasing the tract to five acres. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-2" as amended and waive the five acre minimum. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Jim Summerlin). September 24, 1985 Item No. 9 - Z-4539 Owner: Jesse Smith Applicant: Same Location: 2117 Cumberland Request: Rezone from "R-4" to "R-5" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 0.26 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant Multifamily Structure SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This issue is before the Planning Commission because of the structure losing its nonconforming status. The building had five units but was heavily damaged some time back by fire. The owner attempted to secure the necessary permits to remodel the structure for four units but was informed that a rezoning was necessary because of the fire. The lot is located east of Main Street in close proximity to the former VA Hospital on Roosevelt Road. The neighborhood is primarily residential with a mix of single family and multifamily. There are some nonresidential uses found on Main Street and on East 21st east of Cumberland. The zoning includes "R-4," "R-5," and "C-3." In addition, one -half block to the west is the Capitol Zoning District. In the immediate vicinity, both "R-5" and "C-3" locations include more than a single lot and appear to have been accomplished through a plan or some other study of the neighborhood. 2. The site is a 75-foot lot with a single structure on it. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. September 24, 1985 Item No. 9 - Continued 4. Engineering has stated the parking lot should be constructed to current City standards in the rear, using the alley as access. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on the site. 7. Staff's primary concern with this request is the lack of adequate review with the "R-5" district and the potential of increasing the number of units some time in the future if the request is granted. Also, the rezoning would create a single "R-5" lot in a block that could create some problems. Another issue is whether the property can provide the necessary off-street parking. Staff supports the proposed use of the property but recommends that a "PRD" be utilized to ensure adequate review and address the various concerns. In this situation, the "R-5' district is too open-ended and does not restrict the property to the four units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request be refiled as a "PRD." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the October 29, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 24, 1985 Item No. 10 - Z-4541 Owner: C. E. Boyd Applicant: Same Location: 4800 Blok of South University Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Auto Sales Size: 3.42 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-4" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the 3.4 acre tract to "C-4" to permit an auto dealership. The site is located on South University in an area that has a mix of "R-2," "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" zoning. Both the rezoning and use are appropriate for the location and staff supports the request. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Minimum floor elevation of 260.5 feet MSL for structures. (2) One access drive (at existing location) to University is suggested. Traffic Engineer must coordinate and approve. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4" request as filed. September 24, 1985 Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-4" as requested. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Jim Summerlin). September 24, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Other Matters /Zoning Enforcement REQUEST: "Planning Commission review and discussion of an applicant's failure to comply with zoning conversions." ISSUE: The applicant, Mr. Fulkerson received "MF-6" zoning on a large tract in exchange for a certain covenants in a recorded instrument. Those covenants generally provided for Mr. Fulkerson's construction of 1/2 mile of Hinson Road to arterial standards. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The staff offered an overview of this issue, including a history of the zoning application, the street improvement commitment and the several plats that have already been completed abutting the street. The Commission was informed that the requirements for the street were contained within a record agreement with a specific date for initiation of improvements and a requirement that the project be pursued diligently until completed. The staff and Mr. Williams, the project engineer, identified several mitigating circumstances. These were conflicting agreements with other projects and problems of completion of certain testing procedures. The Commission discussed the matter briefly. It was determined that the roadway plans have been completed and approved by the Public Works Department and that a start -up date is imminent. The Commission directed staff to place this matter on the next Planning Commission agenda for purposes of receiving a report from Mr. Williams on a completion date. The item will be placed on the scheduled Planning Commission agenda for September 24, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 24, 1985) The Planning Commission voted to defer this item to the October 29, 1985, meeting. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE�· CZ! /,1 L ,«;<..J -· ZONING _..SUBDIVISION MEMBER I z. 3 'I- J.c;umm�rl-in v v vV L. J.Schlereth v ✓ ,/• R.Massie / ✓ ,/ • B.Sipes ,/ ✓ / • J.Nicholson ✓/ ✓ •- W.Rector A I• W.Ketcher ✓I/ ,/ - D.Arnett A l[l D, J. Jones ✓/ ./ - I.Boles ✓✓ / - J; Clayton / ✓ / • 5 f.o 1.,-✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ,/ y' ✓/ ,/ ✓ ✓ ./ ✓/ / / -/ V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ,., B q ID v ✓ r� ✓ IM v ,/ ,/ ,/� ,/ ,/ ✓ ✓ ✓,/ ✓ ,/ ✓ / / fl ,/ / ./ / n ✓/ ✓ / / / / / / / ,/ / ✓AYE ·� NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN '---' I September 24, 1985 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m. Chairperson Secretary Date