Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4413-C Staff AnalysisMay 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. _10 NAME: Rudy's Farm Conditional Use Permit (Z -4413-C) LOCATION: The southwest corner of 33rd and Polk Streets) OWNER/APPLICANT: Sarah Lee Corporation/Robert J. Richardson PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit to incorporate revisions and in order to bring the property into compliance with Little Rock regulations. The request is to: (1) bring landscaping into compliance; (2) obtain a height variance for the existing storage tank (47.1 feet constructed, 45 feet allowed in "I-2"); (3) add Block 10, Ruebel and Leymer's Addition to the site; (4) revise floodway and associated dedication; and (5) to petition for the abandonment of right-of-way on Polk Street south of West 35th Street, Taylor Street south of West 35th, a 20 feet wide unnamed right-of-way on the south property line, a 10 feet wide unnamed right-of-way on the west property line, a 20 feet wide alley in the aforem-ntioned Block 10 and West 35th Street from Polk to Taylor Streets all on land that is zoned "I-2"/Conditional Use Permit. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to one arterial residential standard street (Polk Street), one collector standard street (West 33rd Street), and one residential standard street (West 35th Street - to be closed). May 31, 19`88 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 2. Compatibilitv with Neiqhborhood The use has been established and has received the proper zoning ("I-2"/conditional use permit). The proposal will not materially change the existing use. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin Two access drives exist on Polk Street to serve this site. Eighty-six paved parking spaces are provided with an additional 113 proposed spaces to be constructed with future expansion. 4. Sc•eening and Buffers The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. 5. Analysis The staff has no problem with the proposal. Basically, this filing is to bring the project into compliance with the previously approved conditional use permit. The applicant is required to: (1) provide on-site fire protection; (2) close and/or dedicate all rights-of-way as outlined in the proposal section; (3) add Block No. 10 into the revised site plan (already accomplished); (4) obtain a 2.1 feet height variance for the storage tank (requested this proposal); and (5) complete landscaping as required. 6. City Engineer Comments Staff recommendation. Approval provided the applicant completes the requirements as outlined in the analysis section within 90 days of Planning Commission approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant stated that the proposed water main extensions and fire hydrants shown on the site plan have already constructed. The staff asked that the applicant submit a revised site plan containing the on-site fire protection as constructed. The applicant agreed to comply. There were no unresolved issues. 'May 31, 1388 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Rudy's Sausage Conditional Use Permit (Z-4413) LOCATION: The Southwest Corner of Polk and West 33rd Streets (3300 South Polk Street) OWNER/APPLICANT:Rudy Foods Com an p y/David Henry PROPOSAL: To rezone the property to "I-3" and to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow an agricultural food processing center (slaughtering included). The proposal contains an existing 151 foot x 265 foot structure and three accessory structures, a proposed 150 foot x 290 foot processing facility, a 60 foot x 120 foot receiving facility, a 60 foot x 120 foot shipping facility and a 26 foot x 101 foot addition to an existing facility. The applicant is also Proposing to close Taylor Street between West 33rd and West 35th Street. The property is currently zoned "I-2" and "R-2 " ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located at the intersection of five residential streets. 2. Compatibilit with Neighborhood A food processing plant The proposal will orient the process away from ti Industrial uses abut thi office use and vacant 1z and a single family use this use would be a depa Policy and is dependent interpretation as to the the Planning Commission. currently exists on the site. the most objectionable part of e existing neighborhood. s site on the north and west, nd on the south and a church is on the east. Approval of rture from existing land use upon the Board of Adjustment's correct zoning district and 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin This proposal will use existing ingress and egress (Taylor Street, Polk Street and West 35th Street). The plan calls for using two existing parking areas on Polk Street and proposes three additional parking areas. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The plan shows existing landscaping and proposes landscaping for all of the new parking areas. 5. Analvsis The staff has some concern about the compatibility of this proposal with the existing area. Staff also needs for the applicant to describe the primary access for the receiving area. The parking areas need to include the number of existing and proposed parking spaces. The ordinance requires 184 paved parking spaces. In addition, the staff feels that the proposed bakery addition is too close to the proposed processing building. Separation of the buildings by a minimum of 10 feet is desirable. The City Engineer's comments are as follows: (1) complete residential street improvements on Polk Street and improve West 35th Street; (2) the proposed buildings encroach in the 25 -foot building setback required along the floodway; (3) submit an internal drainage plan to include detention considerations; and note that all the proposed buildings are in the floodplain; recommended minimum floor elevation is 260.5 feet. 6. Staff Recommendation: The staff withholds recommendation pending the outcome of the Board of Adjustment case and the policy direction of the Planning Commission. A recommendation of approval would be subject to the applicant submitting a revised site plan, including the information required by the staff and the applicant agreeing to meet Engineering comments numbered 1, 2 and 3. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant stated that he had no objection to the staff recommendation with the exception of the building (bakery and processing) separation. He stated that the bakery would be attached to the processing building. Staff stated that a replat would be required to alter the residential lots to industrial platting requirements. Staff also stated that policy required the applicant to dedicate the floodway to the City. The applicant stated that the platting was not a problem and that the dedication of the floodway to the City would probably be o.k. with his client (he will verify it). The Water Works stated an on-site fire system would be required. The staff informed the applicant that a revised site plan would be required, illustrating the necessary changes prior to the Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that the applicant had presented a revised site plan that was acceptable, and also had submitted a dedication deed dedicating the floodway to the City. There were eight objectors present. The objectors stated that the slaughtering process was objectionable and that the odor would be unacceptable. The objectors also delivered petitions opposing the rezoning (158 names) stating that the proposal was: (1) undesirable, (2) produced objectionable odor, (3) was livestock held within the city limits, (4) caused pollution, (5) had inadequate sewer facilities, and (6) opposing the closing of Taylor Street. The staff stated that the Wastewater utility had commented on the need to relocate several existing sewer lines and that they would withhold comment until they had seen specific plans. The applicant then spoke of the concerns of the neighborhood by saying that this process is all enclosed (indoors) as required by the USDA. A lengthy discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 1 noe, 1 abstention (Betty Sipes) to approve the conditional use as recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant.