Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 29 1985LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 29, 1985 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 of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Jerilyn Nicholson Dorothy Arnett Bill Rector I d a - BoIeg Jim Summerl in David Jones William Ketcher Betty Sipes John Schlereth John Clayton Members Absent: Richard Massie City Attorney: Mark Stodola Pat Benton October 29, 1985 Item No. A -- 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. October 29, 1985 Item No. A - 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 11R -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: (9- 24 -85) 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 29 -85) The applicant was present and made a brief statement early in the meeting. He stated that he did not desire to pursue this matter as a Planned Residential District. The Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriate in light of the owner's statement to withdraw the case from further consideration as rezoning. A motion to withdraw passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z-3326-A Owner: James A. Coyne, Jr. Applicant: Carolyn Ulmer Location: State Hwy. No. 10 and Sam Peck Road SE Corner Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "O-2" Office and Institutional Purpose: Extension of Y.M.C.A. and Future Office Development Size: 4.67 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Y.M.C.A., Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the tract in question to "O-2" for office development and expansion of the Y.M.C.A. Branch. The Y.M.C.A. which is located to the south would utilize the southern portion of the site for their needs and the remaining portion would be used for some type of office development. The property is located at the intersection of Highway 10, a principal arterial, and Sam Peck Road, a collector, which gives the land some credibility for nonresidential use. The development pattern along this section of Highway 10 is either vacant land or single family residences on large lots. To the east, there is a nonconforming office use and south on Sam Peck Road there are multifamily units, the Y.M.C.A., a major recreational facility and some single family dwelling units. The land adjacent to the property in question and across Sam Peck Road is undeveloped. There is no question that the Y.M.C.A.'s use is appropriate for the land, and if properly developed, the proposed office should not have an impact on the Highway 10 Corridor. October 29, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued 2. The site is vacant and has a drainageway through it which is the low point. From the creek, the elevation increases 10 to 18 feet to the north and south. The southern end of the tract is the highest area. Along the southern property line, there is a 50-foot Little Rock Water Works easement. 3. Highway 10 is classified as a principal arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required to provide a total of 100 feet. Sam Peck Road is a collector, and the survey indicates that adequate right-of-way of 60 feet is in place. 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Highway 10 is a principal arterial requiring 100 feet of right-of-way; therefore, 50 feet right-of-way from centerline plus additional right-o -way for left turn lane on Highway 10. One -half, five lanes minimum improvement are required. (2) Sidewalks and handicapped ramps are required. (3) Major drainageway is located on property. All floor elevations and ditch improvements should be coordinated with the City Engineer. The Wastewater Utility reports that sewer service is available on-site and is within Sewer Improvement District 222, which is subject to the moratorium equivalent to three units per acre. Also, a 15-inch line crosses the middle of the property. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. In the late 1970's, an attempt was made to rezone the tract to "C-3" but it failed. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. There are two plan elements, the Suburban Development Plan and the Highway 10 Corridor Study, that address this particular piece of property. The adopted Suburban Development Plan shows the site for single family use only, which is in conflict with what the Highway 10 study had recommended. The Highway 10 Plan which was supported by the Planning Commission but was rejected by the Board of Directors identified the land for office and public/quasi-public uses. Because of October 29, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued the current development trends in the area and possible future projects, it appears that single family residential use will not be maintained in the immediate vicinity. Staff feels that the rezoning is compatible with the area and supports the "O-2" requests which require site plan review prior to any development occurring. It is staff's understanding that the owners will agree to restricting curb cuts on Highway 10 which is a positive feature of the proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "O-2" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to approve the request as filed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z-3369-B Owner: Point West Joint Venture III Applicant: Same Location: Kanis Road at Point West Request: Rezone from "MF-18" and "MF-24" to "R-2," "R-3" and "C-3" Purpose: Single Family and Commercial Size: 9.2 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF-18" and "C-3" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Office, Zoned "R-2" and "O-1" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone three separate tracts to "R-2," "R-3" and "C-3" for residential and some type of commercial development. Both the "R-2" and "R-3" are single family districts, but the "R-3" allows smaller lots and two family residences are conditional uses. The minimum lot area in "R-3" is 5,000 square feet with a 50 -foot width vs. 7,000 square feet and 60 -foot lot width in "R-2." The two family lots require 7,000 square feet also. The two residential tracts are part of the Point West 2nd Addition and will remove existing "MF-18" and "MF-24" which does not appear to be an appropriate zoning for the location. The proposed "C-3" tract abuts "O-1" to the west and "C-3" to the east with multifamily zoning on the north side of Kanis Road. The piece is currently zoned "MF-24" and with the "R-2" request makes the site almost unuseable for multifamily development. Increasing the commercially zoned land by 0.6 acres should have no impact on the area and hopefully create a larger tract that will encourage a quality development. 2. All three sites are vacant. The proposed single family areas are lower in elevation than the nonresidential land which fronts Kanis Road. October 29, 1985 Item No. 2 - 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 neighborhood position on this site. The property has been rezoned on several occasions over a period of 5 to 6 years, with the most recent action being the "C-3" along Kanis Road. 7. Staff feels that the rezonings for all three tracts are compatible there and supports the requests. The additional commercial land will not create any problems or establish precedents for additional rezoning. The "O-1" tract on the west provides a good terminating point for the nonresidential zoning, and is a reasonable step down from commercial to single family. The "R-2" and "R-3" are more appropriate for the location than existing multifamily districts. The small lots permitted in "R-3" should not have any impacts on the "R-2" areas, and the lots will probably be larger than the 5,000 square feet minimum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R-2," "R-3" and "C-3" requests as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to approve the request as filed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4467 Owner: Dorothy Duckett Applicant: Same Location: 1011 Welch Request: Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: 3 Units Size: 0.18 acres ± Existing Use: 3 Units (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Duplex, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This rezoning issue is before the Planning Commission because of an enforcement action taken by the City. A site inspection was made in the spring of this year, and at that time, it was determined that the structure had been converted into a triplex. The lot is zoned "R-4" Two Family residence. So, adding an extra unit cannot be accomplished without first obtaining the proper rezoning. Over a period of approximately 15 years, the structure has been used for both a duplex and triplex. Ten to fifteen years ago, it was a triplex, and then about five years ago, the building was converted to a duplex. The most recent conversion from a duplex to a triplex occurred some time in 1983 based on information provided by the Enforcement Office. The property is located in a neighborhood that is primarily zoned "R-4" with a mix of residential uses. Adjacent to I-30 and along East 9th, there is some nonresidential zoning in place. Further to the east of East 9th, there is industrial zoning and one and one -half blocks east of this lot, there is a "MF-18" tract fully developed. The block where the lot is located is occupied by single family units with a few vacant lots. Another block especially to the north and east, there is a mix of single family dwellings, October 29, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued duplexes and multifamily units. In the immediate area, there are also some nonresidential uses on several of the lots. Because of the makeup of the area, three to four unit structures should not greatly add to any problems being experienced by the neighborhood. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 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. The only history is the current enforcement action. 7. Staff feels that the use is compatible with the neighborhood, but is concerned with the "R-5" District and its lack of additional review. In this situation, the lot could accommodate up to four units, but to ensure proper parking is provided and no more units are added in the future, staff suggests that the "PRD" process be utilized. A "PRD" has the necessary site plan review and places a limit on the number of units allowed. The "R-5" District could allow up to six or seven units. (The parking requirement for multifamily projects is 1.5 spaces per unit.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request be converted to a "PRD" to provide for additional review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present and offered a brief statement. There were no objectors in attendance. A lengthy discussion was held during which it was determined that the units were or could be occupied. This being the case the Planning Commission felt that a deferral to December 17th as a PUD would not adversely affect the owner economically. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to authorize the change to PRD. The request was authorized for change to PRD without additional filing fees. The staff was directed to assist the applicant in preparing for the next hearing event. A second motion was then offered to defer the item to December 17. This motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z-4550 Owner: Paul Jenkins and Marguerite Jenkins Applicant: Linkous Company, Inc. Location: 12201 and 12301 Hinson Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "O-2" Purpose: Office Size: 5.0 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Office, Zoned "O-2" West - Office, Zoned "O-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a five -acre tract to "O-2," a site plan review district for some type of office development. The property is located on the south side of Hinson between Green Mountain Drive and Napa Valley Drive abutting "O-2" land on the east and west sides. This portion of Hinson Road on the south side has been dramatically changed by previous zoning actions and has very little single family residential zoning in place. The majority of the land is primarily "O-2," "O-3" and "R-5" with some of it still undeveloped. The lots on the north side are zoned "R-2," and they front Valley Club Circle not Hinson Road. Because of that relationship and the depth of the lots, any additional nonresidential zoning on the south side of Hinson should not have any impact on the residences located on the north side. The "O-2" proposal for this property is a reasonable rezoning because of the existing zoning and the site's location. 2. The site has two single family residences on it, and the rear portion is undeveloped and heavily wooded. October 29, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued 3. Hinson Road is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan which recommends a minimum right-of-way of 100 feet. Based on the submitted survey, additional right-of-way will have to be dedicated. That amount of dedication will be determined by the Engineering staff. 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. Originally a "PCD" request was filed for the property. After being on the Planning Commission agenda for a two to three-month period, the proposal was withdrawn September 1985. During the "PCD" review, there were some concerns voiced by the residents to the north. 7. The Surburban Development Plan identifies the location for office development, and staff supports the request. The rezoning is compatible with the area, and the "O-2" District does provide for site plan review which staff views as being very desirable in this situation. The rezoning should not have any adverse impact on the area or create any problems such as traffic. (Note: The applicant has requested a waiver of the filing fee because of the previous "PCD" application. Staff supports the request and a resolution by the Planning Commission must be approved waiving the fee.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "O-2" rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present and was represented by Mr. Joe Buffalo, his attorney. Mr. Buffalo briefly addressed the Commission offering a history of the site and the owner's proposal. There were two objectors present, Mr. George Pettrus and Mr. Robert L. Brown both residents of Pleasant Valley adjacent on the north. These objectors offered concerns about the lack of requirements attached to the O-2" request and objected to rezoning of the property October 29, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued without specific site plan review. The case was debated with both sides offering arguments as to provision of certain site development controls and the appropriate time for review. After a lengthy discussion of the matter, the Commission voted to approve the application as filed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. A second vote was then taken on passage of a proposed resolution of the Commission to waive the filing fees for the conversion from a Planned Commercial District to an "O-2" Office District request. RESOLUTION NO. 72 A RESOLUTION FROM THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO WAIVE THE FILING FEE FOR THE R-2 TO O-2 REZONING APPLICATION OF THE LINKOUS COMPANY ON HINSON ROAD. WHEREAS, the Linkous Company had a PCD application entitled the Country Club Corporate Center - "Short-form PCD" before the Planning Commission at their September 10, 1985 hearing; and WHEREAS, the Linkous Company asked the Planning Commission to amend their application from PCD to O-2; and WHEREAS, the applicant was advised that this amendment was not proper, because it involved a change to a less restrictive zoning classification and the required legal and supplemental notices of the amendment had not been given; and WHEREAS, the applicant therefore withdrew the application to rezone from R-2 to PCD; and WHEREAS, the application could have been deferred, pending notification of neighboring property owners, publication of a legal ad, and posting of the property to provide notice of the proposed amendment to O-2; and WHEREAS, a deferred matter normally would not require a new filing fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION. SECTION 1. The Little Rock Planning Commission hereby authorizes the staff to waive for the Linkous Company the filing fee for rezoning the property located at Hinson Road from R-2 to O-2. SECTION 2. The applicant is required to notify the property owners within 200 feet and post a sign on the property as required in a rezoning case, and the planning staff is required to publish a legal ad concerning the proposed rezoning to O-2. ADOPTED: October 29, 1985 ATTEST: APPROVED: GARY L. GREESON, JERILYN NICHOLSON, SECRETARY CHAIRPERSON October 29, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-4551 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Mary Diane Aguiar Location: 12123 Kanis Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-4" Open Display Purpose: Office /Warehouse Size: 1.14 acres ± Existing Use: Office /Warehouse SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the tract to "C-4" to permit an office warehouse. The primary function of the building is an office related use, but there is some distribution and warehousing that takes place. The property recently came into the City as a nonconforming use, and when an attempt was made to obtain a building permit for an addition, the owner was informed that a rezoning to the appropriate district must first be accomplished. The rezoning ordinance does not permit expansion of a nonconforming use. The site is located west of Bowman Road in an area that has a mix of uses. The intersection of Bowman and Kanis has commercial uses on three corners, and from Bowman to the property in question on the south side, is all commercial, including some nonconforming mini - storage units. On the north side of Kanis, there is a major commercial operation nursery. The area has nonresidential potential, and the commercial reclassification is appropriate for the property. 2. The site is currently occupied by a single structure. October 29, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 3. Kanis Road is classified as a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. 4. Engineering comments are: (1) Kanis Road requires 80 feet of right-of-way, so dedication 40 feet from the centerline will be necessary. Also, one-half of 48-foot street improvements are required. Topography may be required in lieu of street construction, and this is to be discussed with the City Engineer. (2) Sidewalk and handicapped ramps are required. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed into the City in April 1985, as part of the large referendum area. There is no documented neighborhood position in the site. 7. The adopted I-430 District Plan identifies the site for a commercial use. Staff supports some type of commercial reclassification for the property, but staff feels that a "C-4" rezoning is inappropriate for the location and recommends that a "PCD" be utilized. This would ensure that there would be no questions about the uses and remove the possible need for a conditional use permit at a later date. Because of the current mix of uses and possible expansion of the warehousing or distribution, the "PCD" would tie all that down. A "PCD" would also address any possible design problems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request be converted to a "PCD." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After presentation of the staff recommendation the applicant expressed his displeasure with an additional deferral of up to two weeks. The Commission briefly discussed the required zoning classifications as well as the mix of uses along Kanis Road nearby. Staff's position was clarified as being supportive of the intended use but not the establishment of a new "C-4" zoning area in this neighborhood. After hearing additional commentary on October 29, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued procedures and schedules, the Commission voted to approve a motion which would provide for the following: 1. The conversion of this application to a Planned Commercial District with no additional fees. 2. The placement of this item on the November 12th Planning Commission agenda for action as a short-form Planned Unit Development. 3. The Planning staff to handle the site plan with no additional Subdivision Committee review. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-4552 Owner: Melvin Bell and C. Randolph Warner, Jr. Applicant: Melvin Bell By: Robert Newcomb Location: 1702 through 1714 East 2nd Request: Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: FOP Lodge Size: .75 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Arkansas River, Unclassified South - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-4" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the site to "C-3" to permit a lodge for the Fraternal Order of Police. The property is located at the end of E. 2nd with the Arkansas River on the north side and vacant land on the other sides. The developed properties in the area include residential, commercial and industrial. The zoning pattern is very mixed with "R-4," "C-3," "I-2" and "I-3" with the residential primarily located to the south of E. 2nd and east of Bond Street. Staff feels that the rezoning and use are compatible with the area and supports the request. The "C-3" reclassification will not impact any of the surrounding property, and it is an appropriate location for the use. Engineering reports that street improvements will be required. The Master Parks Plan identifies this section of the Arkansas River as Priority 2 Open Space. This is envisioned to be part of any overall open space system along the river and tie the various recreational facilities on the Arkansas River together. October 29, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued Water Works reports that 8-inch extension will be required from 3rd Street in order to provide adequate fire protection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The staff reported the failure of the applicant to properly notify adjacent owners as required. The applicant stated that he would accept the deferral to November 12. A motion to defer was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z-4553 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: R. Wingfield Martin Location: Lindsey Road west of Fourche Creek Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Purpose: Warehouse Size: 10.5 acres ± Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial, Zoned "I-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone the tract of land to "I-2" for a warehouse use. The property is located just east of the Port Industrial Area with "I-3" zoning to the east and "I-2" to the northeast. The land to the north, west and south is vacant and zoned "R-2," but is anticipated that those tracts will be rezoned in the future for some type of industrial use. The rezoning of the proposed use is appropriate for the location, and staff supports the request. Engineering has recommended that the required floor elevation should be obtained from the latest U.S. Corps of Engineers information. The Water Works has indicated that a charge of $5 per foot on the frontage adjacent to Lindsey and an acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply. One final item, when this application was filed, the submitted survey and legal description had an error in it and deleted a 45-foot strip along the southern boundary. That description was used for the Planning Commission legal ad, and because of that, a second legal ad with the correct description will be published prior to the Board of Directors hearing on the rezoning ordinance. (The rezoning sketch reflects the correct dimensions for the tract.) October 29, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to approve the request as filed. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 8 - Z-4554 Owner: Brown Godwin, Inc. Applicant: Robert J. Richardson Location: Shackleford Road south of Col. Glenn Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "I-1" Industrial Park Purpose: Light Industrial Size: 20.0 acres Existing Use: Contractor's Maintenance Yard SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property to "I-1" Industrial Park, a site plan review district. The rezoning ordinance states "as the City's most restrictive industrial district, the "I-1" zone is designed to conform to high development standards while providing for a full array of industrial and related uses." The site is located on Shackleford Road south of Col. Glenn and adjacent to a single family residential subdivision to the east. To the north, there is a salvage yard that fronts Col. Glenn and to the west and south, land is vacant. The land use pattern is a mix of residential and nonresidential with a number of nonconforming uses in place, the salvage yard being one. The zoning in the area is primarily "R-2" Single Family with an "I-2" tract to the northeast of the site in question. The property is somewhat removed from the intersection of Shackleford and Col. Glenn Road which appears to be a more desirable location for a nonresidential reclassification. October 29, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued 2. The site is primarily vacant with a portion of it being for a contractor's maintenance yard. The land is wooded and has some variations in the elevation. 3. Shackleford is classified as minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. 4. The Engineering comments are: (1) Shackleford Road, a minor arterial, will require a 40-foot right-of-way dedication from the centerline. Boundary street improvements are required for construction from the north property line to Godwin Drive. Discuss with the City Engineer possible in-lieu contribution for Shackleford south of Godwin due to hilly terrain. (2) Locate driveways to obtain maximum sight distance. The Water Works has reported that a 12-inch water main extension will be required on Shackleford from Associated Milk Producers. A tie-in with existing mains in Godwin Drive and /or Yellow Pine may be required. On-site fire line and fire hydrants may also 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. Staff has a number of concerns with this rezoning and cannot support the request at this time. The rezoning appears to be premature, and staff questions if there is a real demand for a 20-acre "I-1" site in this area. The land also does not lend itself to being a viable location being removed from Col. Glenn which is a more appropriate site for industrial use, such as the milk producing facility at the southwest corner. The rezoning is also in conflict with the adopted I-430 Plan which recognizes the intersection of Col. Glenn and Shackleford for light industrial uses and warehousing. The industrial line drawn on the plan should be maintained until those areas are developed, and the need for additional land is identified. Another concern is that the rezoning could have an adverse affect on the existing single family October 29, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued neighborhood to the east. Staff recognizes that the salvage /junkyard has had an impact on the area but feels that it is not a long -term use and something more desirable will eventually be located there. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff denial of the "I-1" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There was one objector in attendance, Capt. Claudell Woods, a resident of the Tall Timber West Subdivision. The applicant, Mr. Richardson, made a lengthy presentation wherein he stated objection to both the staff recommendation and the manner in which it was offered. He presented arguments based on existing uses of the area, the Suburban Development Plan and District Plan. The objector, Captain Woods, offered comments on maintaining the rural atmosphere of his neighborhood and the residential character. The Commission discussed the matter at length questioning both staff and others as to the potential development and the appropriateness of filing this application to fulfill an apparent market need. A lengthy discussion of the appropriate buffering of this site from the residential area was held as well as discussion of the "I-1" District requirements for development. After thoroughly reviewing the issues, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the request as "I-1" with the provision of a 100-foot "OS" strip along the eastern property boundary retaining + 560 feet in depth off Shackleford Road as the "I-1" site This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 9 - Z-4555 Owner: Big K Development Co., Inc. Applicant: Robert J. Richardson Location: Shackleford Road south of Col. Glenn Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF-24" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Units Size: 15.0 acres 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 "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone a 15-acre tract to "MF-24" for a multifamily development. No specific plans have been submitted. The property is located on Shackleford Road approximately one-half mile south of Col. Glenn in an area that is primarily undeveloped. The only significant development in the immediate vicinity is the single family subdivision to the northeast. To the south, there are some single family residences on large lots, and to the north along Col. Glenn Road, there is a mixed land use pattern with residential, commercial and some industrial. For the most part, the land is vacant and zoned "R-2" Single Family. There are no multifamily projects in the general area, and it does not lend itself to a multifamily reclassification at this time. 2. The site is vacant, wooded and somewhat hilly. 3. Shackleford Road is classified as a minor arterial so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. October 29, 1985 Item No. 9 - Continued 4. Engineering has provided the following comments: (1) Shackleford Road will require a 40-foot right-of-way from the centerline and boundary street improvements. (2) Locate driveways to obtain maximum sight distance. The Water Works will require a 12-inch water main extension, on -site fire line and hydrants. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed into the City in April 1985, by the Supreme Court decision upholding the City's annexation referendum which included this area. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The "MF-24" request is in conflict with the adopted I -430 Plan, and staff does not support the request. As with the previous industrial rezoning proposal to the north, this reclassification is premature and is not created by any real demand. The land is also removed from what would be considered a more viable multifamily location such as the interstate. Staff would feel more confortable with the multifamily development for the site if it was real project and developed through a "PRD." The "PRD" would also address any potential design problem found on the property. Establishing an "MF-24" density on the property at this time is inappropriate and should not be support. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "MF-24" as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The staff offered a modification of its position to support an "MF-18" zoning on the 15-acre site. The Planning Commission accepted the staff's revised recommendation and requested a response from Mr. Richardson. He stated that his client would accept the "MF-18" zoning. The Commission then voted on a motion to approve the amended application by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 10 - Z-4556 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Henry Treece Location: Vernon Place (Cameron, Atkins and Preston Drives) Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily Size: 4.0 acres Existing Use: Multifamily (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "R-5" and Unclassified STAFF ANALYSIS: Vernon Place is made up entirely of multifamily units with some of the lots zoned "R-5" and the remaining ones zoned "R-2." The request is to rezone the nonconforming lot /units to "R-5" and initiate a major upgrading of the project. Over the years, certain buildings have fallen into disrepair and have become an eyesore for the area. Because the multifamily units have been in place for years, staff feels the rezoning of the remaining lots will not have an impact on the neighborhood and supports the request. The rehabilitation of the project will be a positive step for the area and should be strongly encouraged. In addition to the rezoning, a request has been filed to close the streets and make them a private street system. This is also part of the effort to upgrade the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R-5" rezoning as requested. October 29, 1985 Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 11 - Other Matters /Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Preston Drive, Cameron Street, Atkins Street and a portion of Acorn Place Location: Located in the area immediately south and east of Baseline Road and Chicot Road intersection Owner /Applicant: Various Persons By: Henry Treece Request: To abandon the three rights-of-way and join with abutting lots for redevelopment. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way None expressed except for Fire Department access and utilities. The Fire Department is strongly opposed to abandonment and physical barriers to entry. The utility companies have made requests for various easements of differing dimensions throughout this abandonment. 2. Master Street Plan There are no requirements attached by the Master Street Plan. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets None evidenced by this review. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain Generally flat and at-grade with adjoining lots. 5. Development Potential None except as a part of the proposed redevelopment project. October 29, 1985 Item No. 11 - Continued 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The area is mixed commercial, office, apartments and light industrial. This request should have no adverse effects. 7. Neighborhood Position None has been expressed at this writing. Several calls from apartment tenants were received but expressed no concern. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Utility and public easements are provided in the proposed ordinance. There should be no effect on access or service. 9. Reversionary Rights All of the right-of-way will revert to a single owner. 10. Staff Recommendation The Planning staff's initial position on the abandonment of these rights-of-way was a recommendation for approval. A late communication from the Fire Department encouraged a change in this position in line with Board and Planning Commission past actions. The Fire Department has strongly opposed this abandonment and the erection of any barriers to their entry. They have a significant and lengthy history within this project area and have reservations about the free movement of their vehicles through a fire gate or locked facility of any kind. In line with this concern, we modify our position to one of recommending denial unless the Fire Department concerns can be set aside. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. However, an adjacent property owner, Mr. Corn, offered conditions in a letter. These conditions to gain his approval of the abandonment were that the closure should not occur until Mr. Treece has received H.U.D. approval of financing and takes title to all of the abutting lots. He October 29, 1985 Item No. 11 - Continued indicated a willingness to sell his property to this developer which would then be developed as an ancillary activity area for the apartment project. The Planning staff offered comments that the Fire Department still opposed the request and that issue must be resolved prior to further hearing on this matter. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission could recommend the abandonment to the Board of Directors conditioned upon these two issues being resolved. The Commission then voted on the motion which recommends the abandonment subject to Mr. Treece resolving the Fire Department and ownership issues prior to the staff forwarding this request to the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Z-4562 NAME: First Baptist Church "Long -Form PRD - Planned Residential District" (Z-4562) LOCATION: West side of Hinson Road, lying between Pebble Beach Subdivision and Windsor Towne Homes OWNER /APPLICANT: Various By Floyd Fulkerson for First Baptist Church PROPOSAL: A Planned Residential District to develop a 117-acre site for church use as a sanctuary and ancillary activities. A. Development Objectives /Historical Background (1) To provide expanded facilities for the church and its ministeries. First Baptist Church has experienced dramatic growth in membership in recent years. Membership has increased from 2,650 in 1974 to 3,955 in 1985. Since 1983, the Church has been forced to hold dual Sunday Schools, dual worship services and remote parking in an attempt to alleviate crowded conditions. It has been predicted by their long-range planning committee that by 1991 the Church would be completely out of space. Expansion at the present location was determined to be impractical. The Church has been at its present location since 1974, when it moved from a downtown location at 12th and Louisiana where it was originally established in 1858. B. Existin4 Conditions This site is located in western Little Rock on 117 acres that is nestled between two residential developments, Pebble Beach Subdivision on the north and Windsor Court Towne Homes (condominiums) on the south. The predominant land uses in the area consist of both detached single family and attached multifamily structures. Forming the eastern boundary of the site is a sliver of land involved in a previous density transfer (Z-2848-E) and then Hinson Road, a major arterial street that is planned to connect northward with Taylor Loop Road, which intersects with State Highway No. 10. To the west of the site, lies acres of undeveloped property on which there has been some talk of future development. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued The land itself, currently includes an abundance of mature vegetation which consists of hardwood and evergreen trees. It has been characterized by the applicant as possessing a "distinctive topography" with slopes on the north one-half of the site varying between 6 and 10 percent, and between 10 and 19 percent on the southern one-half. The soil is rocky and both the floodplain and floodway are apparent on the property. There are about 15 out-parcels within the site that are not owned by the applicant. Two existing streets, Montvale and Valley Park Drive, abut the property on the north. The Master Street Plan indicates that Montvale should be extended as a collector running through the site to connect with Beckenham Drive. Also, an arterial street is planned near the western boundary of the property. C. Proposal (1) Phase I (a) Sanctuary - Will seat 4,000 persons, have a choir area for 300, music rehearsal area and have approximately 46,000 square feet and be 75 feet in height. Use will be for worship, Bible study and musical presentations. (b) Educational Space - Two, four-story buildings adjoin the sanctuary. Each building will be 100,000 square feet and 50 feet high. Uses will be for Sunday School, Bible study, and other educational ministeries meeting through the week. (c) Fellowship Hall - Will serve 1,000 people for family dinners, banquets and other related meetings. It will be equipped with kitchen and food service program and consist of 50,000 square feet with a height of 25 feet. (d) Administrative Area - Church administrative offices support services such as a print shop. These will be housed in the same building as the fellowship hall. (e) Parking - Eleven hundred spaces with ample provisions for the handicapped. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued (f) Water Retention System - 2.5-acre lake proposed to handle retention requirements for the entire property. The area around the lake will be developed in a park -like atmosphere. The floodway along Hinson Road will be adhered to and improved. All final details and calculations will be in accordance with the City Drainage Ordinance. 2. Phase II (a) Additional Sanctuary and Educational Space Parking - Parking will be provided as dicta by the growth of worship and educational attendance. (b) Christian Family Life Center - The first floor will consist of 40,000 square feet and be 35 feet high. Uses to include gymnasium for exercise classes, volleyball, basketball, skating and jogging track with a seating capacity of 1,250. Also to include exercise rooms, game room, ceramics, arts and crafts, dressing rooms and equipment, three racquet ball courts, a testing room for evaluation of the physical condition and health of individuals, space for Bible study and child care and olympic -size swimming pools with six lighted tennis courts. (c) Football /Soccer Field - Seating for 1,200 people and to be used for soccer matches by students of the Arkansas Baptist School System. May also be used as a football field for Arkansas Baptist High students. The field will be lighted and used occasionally for evening soccer or football games. An outdoor running track will be available for joggers and walkers who live the community. (d) Park /Softball Fields - Two softball fields with park and playground area for children. Use will be by the church and its expanding outdoor recreation ministry. The field will be lighted and set back 450 feet from the north property line. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued (e) Amphitheater - There will be seating for up to 1,250 people, and it will be used periodically for Sunday evening worship services, picnics and retreats. The area will have a 60-foot radius with parking located at the retreat center. The amphitheater will set back 450 feet from the north edge of the property. (f) Retirement Housing - To include 100 units ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet and composed of one and two - bedroom units. Housing types will be a mixture of duplexes and row housing. (g) Independent Elderly Living Unit - To include 100 units housed on six floors, and consisting of 900 square foot units with kitchen facilities. A cafeteria will be provided. This will be designed as an alternative to retired individuals who don't desire to live in retirement homes. The first floor will contain 20,000 square feet and height is to be 75 feet. Parking will include 58 spaces. (h) Retreat Center - There will be a maximum of 36 units with two double beds and individual toilet facilities. The center will also contain two dormitory rooms for 20 people in each room with gang showers and toilet facilities. The center will also have kitchen and dining room facilities for 150 and several meeting rooms. The use is to be for retreats and conferences on some weekends and during the week for spiritual development and maturity. There will be 100 parking spaces. The size of the facility will be 225' x 75.' (i) Other Information Buffers - A minimum of 100 feet of undisturbed, heavily wooded buffers will border the site. Also, there will be a 20 -foot buffer around all out-parcels. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued Access - Hinson Road will be widened to accommodate acceleration, deceleration, and left turn lanes. Internal circulation will be provided by private streets, except for Montvale Drive. Valley Park Drive will be used for fire access only. Landscaping - Plans for each phase will be included. Signage - An identifying tower or cross will serve as a landmark for the facility. There will also be a lighted sign near the main entrance to the campus on Hinson Road. Small direction signs will be used on Montvale Drive and on the internal private drives. There will be signs on all the buildings. All signs will be in compliance with the City of Little Rock Sign Ordinance. (j) Development Timetable Late 1986 - beginning of preliminary site work Spring 1987 - construction of 250 car parking lot 1989 - Phase I construction with completion to be in 1981 1991-92 - Construction of Phase II D. Engineering Comments (1) The applicant should furnish a traffic impact study on Hinson and adjoining neighborhood collectors. (2) Two entrances will be needed on Hinson Road. The City Engineer and Traffic Engineer are concerned about adjoining collectors and high traffic generating activities. They suggest that the high traffic generated be placed as close to Hinson Road as possible. If the stadium is down -sized and no intermediate or high school is to be located on the site, the north -south collector should be maintained. If an intermediate or high school or other high traffic generator is to be located near the proposed north -south collector, the north -south collector should be connected to October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued the adjoining Subdivisions. The east-west collector should be maintained, with the applicant dedicating the required right-of-way. E. Analysis Due to the definite impact on the surrounding area and the varied amount and complexity of issues involved, staff suggested to the developer that this item be filed in accordance with the Planned Unit Development process, so that certain aspects of the proposal could be tied down. The actual filing has been done in a similar fashion as some other large projects in which the Commission approved the developmental concept only, conditioned upon the return of the applicant for review of the specifics of each phase. In this instance, First Baptist Church has been requested to provide specifics for Phase I and gain conceptual approval only for Phases II and III. This means that the uses will be identified for Phases II and III, but the actual intensity of the uses are uncertain. When specific plans for each of the later phases are worked out, the applicant will renotify the neighborhood and return to the Commission. He will not, however, be allowed to significantly increase the numbers that are specified if this is approved. Upon initial review of the project, staff identified several issues to be resolved /discussed. They include: (1) Montvale Collector Extension Of utmost importance to staff is the maintenance of this street on the Master Street Plan. It will serve as the only collector for a mile between two arterials. It is badly needed to tie large areas of developing tracts together and to prevent possible future damage to the public in relation to emergency access and increased traffic. There is a great public need for this collector to prevent existing collectors from functioning as arterials, which is evident on Brookside Drive and Pebble Beach Drive. Staff has faced this issue repeatedly. Most of the public do not want collectors through their neighborhoods. They must, however, be built somewhere in western Little Rock to provide adequate cross-flow between areas and to prevent increased traffic problems or bottlenecks from developing on streets that are not designed to carry such a capacity of traffic. It is better to plan and develop collectors at October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued certain points throughout an area to relieve pressure, than to have it built to standards that are inadequate to carry the capacity of traffic that the area demands. In other words, regardless of whether Montvale is physically built as a collector, there will still be a demand for one in the area. Excess generation of traffic is softened by tying collectors together. Other things in the public interest to consider are ease of police, fire and sanitation access and the fact that areas of steep terrain need good connecting streets. Staff would rather see the recreational uses eliminated than lose the collector street. (2) Height of Structures The applicant has been asked to maintain a 35-foot height throughout the site, submit profiles of buildings and provide some indication of the natural existing elevation and proposed finished elevation and to reduce the independent elderly living unit building from six stories. (3) Phasing Due to the location of the Master Street Plan through the site, staff recommended changes in the phasing of the original plan. Since the need for the church and related parking is most immediate, staff recommends this as Phase I and Lot 1. Phase II would consist of retirement housing in the southeast corner toward Hinson Road, the retirement housing in the central area of the site, the Christian Life Center and Independent Elderly Living Unit and stadium. Phase III would include the soccer field, amphitheater and retreat center. Everything west of Montvale would be a separate lot also. (4) Plan Modifications Staff originally requested moving the retreat center to a central location and placing recreational uses and elderly housing toward the rear of the project. The idea was abandoned since the applicant preferred that the elderly be integrated into the activity life of the community October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued and that the retreat center be located on the hilltop with hiking trails around it. Staff realized the sensitive nature of the topography and that the applicant may have problems shifting the buildings around. Staff also recommended that the softball fields and stadium be eliminated or scaled down and that the applicant propose locations for accessory commercial refreshment stands. (5) Landlocked Parcels /Other Ownerships Staff determined that the location of these parcels in the buffer areas was acceptable since the parcels are zoned for single family. The applicant, however, must indicate on the site plan a legal access easement of at least 20 feet for smaller parcels and 40 feet for the larger parcels. Also, the applicant was asked to remove the softball field from an out - parcel since designs over someone's ownership cannot be approved. (6) Buffer /Treatment of Specific Areas Staff originally questioned the 10-foot easement on the north that intrudes into the proposed 100 -foot buffer, but since it is existing (Riverside Cable TV), staff decided that the buffer area did not need to be increased. It is requested that a minimum of 100 feet be retained around the site, all on -site utilities be placed outside the buffer area, and that a sedimentation and erosion plan be submitted so that raw, loose in from a hill mass will not seep into drainage areas and cause problems for the neighborhood; and that a specific treatment plan on all exposed cuts be submitted. (7) Sewer There is still a sewer density restriction on this site which is a part of Sewer District 222. (8) TDR There is a portion of property on the eastern edge of the site that was involved in a Transfer of October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued Development Rights. The restrictions and covenants on that portion need to be lifted. (9) Other Issues There is a statement in the write-up that says, "other educational ministeries" will be meeting throughout the week. The applicant needs to clarify what "other" means and provide clarification on whether this involves a school or day-care and give its size and the operation. Also, staff requests information on the traffic volume at peak times. The applicant is asked to include all comments from the reporting agencies on a revised plan. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Numerous persons were in attendance. The majority were in opposition to the proposal, although there were some residents present in favor of the request. Staff gave a presentation that involved four of its members: Mr. Gary Greeson, Planning Director; Mr. Richard Wood, Chief of Current Planning; Mr. Jim Lawson, Chief of Advanced Planning; and Ms. Bernadette Bettard, Subdivision Administrator. The PUD and regular zoning procedures were explained. It was pointed out that this submittal was somewhat less than what was usually received in a long -form PUD due to time constraints and a 10 to 15 year time frame, resulting in a failure of the applicant to provide all of the required dimensions and details relating to building location, parking, landscaping, etc. The project was described as being "in fixed form, but not in detail." It was staff's opinion that the proposal would be developed at a lesser density than that which is legally allowed by the existing zoning, since "MF-6" allows 702 units per acre. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued Mr. Jim Lawson explained street and use plans for the area. He stated that Beckenham, the plan for the south end of the property, would be built as the land develops, and tie in to a north /south arterial which is called the west belt and will tie in to Highway 10. Montvale is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector. He cautioned that it is important to have connecting streets that feed traffic into arterial streets in residential areas for better traffic circulation. The Land Use Plan, he explained, shows single family attached on a portion of the site and single family detached for the remainder. The applicant's request for deferral was discussed. It was agreed that the application would be deferred, but that the issues would be discussed. Staff's recommendation was stated as approval, subject to: (1) Submission of more details on Phase I and II before the plan goes to the Board meeting. (2) The endorsement of the specific approval of the uses and locations of all subsequent phases, which have been revised to include 13, with final details to be brought back to the Commission. (3) All structures on higher elevations only be limited to 35 feet. (4) The support of two access points on Hinson Road. (5) Maintaining the Montvale collector. (6) Modification of Phase 8 so that land - locked parcels not be included in the softball field. (7) Reduction of softball fields to one, with no lights or PA system. (8) Submission of sedimentation and erosion plan. (9) Explanation of "other ministries." Mr. Calvin Hagan, a deacon and long -range planning study committee member, was the initial spokesman for the church. He apologized for not following proper procedure and stated a willingness to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns. He stated that theirs was a Christian Life Ministry that ministers to the whole family, not only on October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued Sunday morning, but throughout the entire week. The ministry has been working so well until there is a definite need to plan for expansion as evidenced by the present Sunday morning parking of about 85 to 100 cars at Coy's Steakhouse. He also stated that they had already responded to neighborhood concerns by removing the stadium and reducing the high rise. Also, the front 37 acres could legally support a church now, but the church preferred to present the comprehensive plan to the neighborhood, instead of doing it parcel by parcel. He felt that a deferral was needed so that more of the neighborhood concerns could be addressed. Mr. Hagan explained that an elementary school with a maximum of 500 students was planned. Mr. Greg Simmons of Peters and Associates presented the results of a traffic study. He felt that the present zoning generated 4,000 vehicle trips per day, while the proposed plan would generate only 1,750 at peak hours. Also, single family homes generate 10 to 11 trips per day while retirement units generate 3 trips per day. The study did not include any consideration of the impact of Montvale or Beckenham. Both the commissioners and some of the neighborhood felt that it was very necessary to include this information. Mr. Chris Barrier represented 20 of the families. Their single-most concern was the building of uncertainty and conflict into the proposal. They felt that if these uncertainties were built in, then protection should also be built in. He called three property owners to give practical views of the situation. They were: (1) Mr. Bob Tyler, an environmental scientist of 13 years with the State Highway Department. He felt that more consideration should be given to the impact on the area when Hinson becomes a through street to Highway 10, since Pulaski Academy currently creates traffic problems at certain times of the day. (2) Mr. James Rengers, lives adjacent to Taylor Creek. He expressed concerns about runoff from the massive amount of pavement proposed. He felt that the holding pond would not help those at the lower end since it was at a higher elevation. (3) Ms. Linda Phidke lives near the corner of Montvale and Pebble Beach. She was concerned about traffic. Engineering addressed the questions raised. Also, the Commission responded to a question about traffic generation. The maximum amount of trips per day generated on the total 117 acres is approximately 422. The "MF-6" portion would generate a maximum of 222 trips a day and the back portion 200. October 29, 1985 Item No. 12 - Continued Other residents spoke also. Mr. Elvin Ray was concerned about present on-street parking by Fellowship Bible Church. Mr. Bill Morris represented about 50 families abutting the development. He stated that 300 persons had signed a petition in opposition. The reasons for this varied, but there was unanimous sentiment that the project was being hurried. Mr. Morris requested that the project be deferred for more than 30 days since the church had in excess of 30 days to prepare it. The minister of the church felt that 30 days was reasonable. He felt that some members of the neighborhood would not be pleased no matter how long it was delayed, since he had been told to do the project out at the Johnson's Ranch instead of the proposed site when he approached the neighborhood about what he could do to resolve some of their concerns. Mr. Merle Lewis, the architect, stated that they would try to address the traffic answers and detention requirements. The issues to be resolved were identified as the impact of traffic on Montvale and Hinson, parking, retention plans and whether due process had been followed. A motion for a 30 day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The main issue discussed involved traffic. Mr. Greg Simmons and Mr. Ernie Peters reported that their study showed that the Montvale collector was not needed. It was determined that further traffic information should be presented before the next public hearing. October 29, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Other Matters /Zoning Enforcement REQUEST: "Planning Commission review and discussion of an applicant's failure to comply with zoning commitments." 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) This item was presented for information purposes only. A written report was offered from Mr. Finley Williams who is the project engineer. The Commission accepted that report and staff comments. No formal action was taken nor required. October 29, 1985 Item No. 14 - Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Suburban Development Plan This amendment is the result of a study requested by the Planning Commission in response to anticipated urban growth along Highway 10. This amendment changes a portion of the single family land use shown to the north of Highway 10 to suburban office. It also changes a portion of the single family land use to single family attached. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The Planning Staff offered a brief overview of the proposal. There were no objectors to the amendment. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal briefly. A motion was made to approve the amendment and recommend the change to the Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 29, 1985 Item No. 15 - Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Suburban Development Plan This amendment reflects changes suggested by a study done at the request of the Planning Commission. The study was done in response to anticipated urban growth along the Rock Creek Parkway. The amendment expands the suburban office use classification in the area east of the proposed West Belt Arterial Street. It would also expand the office and commercial uses indicated near the intersection of Gamble and Stacy Roads and change a portion of the single family land use south of Lornea Avenue to single family attached. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-29-85) The Planning Staff offered a brief overview of this proposed amendment. There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly discussed the proposal. A motion was made to approve the amendment as prepared by the staff and recommend its adoption by the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. RESOLUTION NO. 72 A RESOLUTION FROM THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO WAIVE THE FILING FEE FOR THE R-2 TO O-2 REZONING APPLICATION OF THE LINKOUS COMPANY ON HINSON ROAD. WHEREAS, the Linkous Company had a PCD application entitled the Country Club Corporate Center-"Short-form PCD" before the Planning Commission at their September 10, 1985 hearing; and WHEREAS, the Linkous Company asked the Planning Commission to amend their application from PCD to O-2; and WHEREAS, the applicant was advised that this amendment was not proper, because it involved a change to a less restrictive zoning classification and the required legal and supplemental notices of the amendment had not been given; and WHEREAS, the applicant therefore withdrew the application to rezone from R-2 to PCD; and WHEREAS, the application could have been deferred, pending notification of neighboring property owners, publication of a legal ad, and posting of the property to provide notice of the proposed amendment to O-2; and WHEREAS, a deferred matter normally would not require a new filing fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION. SECTION 1. The Little Rock Planning Commission hereby authorizes the staff to waive for the Linkous Company the filing fee for rezoning the property located at Hinson Road from R-2 to O-2. SECTION 2. The applicant is required to notify the property owners within 200 feet and post a sign on the property as required in a rezoning case, and the planning staff is required to publish a legal ad concerning the proposed rezoning to O-2. ADOPTED: October 29, 1985 ATTEST: APPROVED: GARY GREESON, JERILYN NICHOLSON, SECRETARY CHAIRPERSON �ATE Oclokr zc;: fl85I (,,-...__ 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 A I z 3 4 5 (p 7 8 q JO ·/1 /Z 1.3 J.Sr1111mPr1-i n ✓✓ ,/ ✓ / ,/ ✓ / ✓✓ / v ✓ / J._Schlereth ✓✓ ✓ r/ ./ ✓ ✓ ,/ ✓ / / ✓✓ ✓ II A R.Massie I I n /I , B.Sipes ✓v ✓/ ✓ ✓ ✓ I / / ✓ / / J.Nicholson / ✓t./ ✓ / I✓ ✓ ,/ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ w.Rector A / ,/ ;J JI 11 / ✓ IJ II JI /} ✓ / w.Ketcher / v ,/ v ✓✓ 1/ ✓ / II ll II Ii ✓✓ 7 D.Arnett ✓✓ ✓ v ✓✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓✓ / / D.J. Jones A v / ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ./ ✓ It t1 ff / / I.Boles ✓✓ ,/ v ✓ ,/ ✓ / ✓ / ✓✓ .// J; Clayton 1-1 ✓ ✓ ✓ v V. ✓ I ✓ ll J4 ii / ✓AYE NAYE AABSENT �ABSTAIN .-.... I'/ /."> ✓ ✓ / .I ✓/ / ✓/ ✓/ -✓ / ✓/ ✓✓ / / October 29, 1985 There being no further business before the Co mmission, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Chairperson Secretary Date