Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4704 Staff AnalysisSeptember 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: LOCATION: AGENT: Geoff Treece Phone: 374-9977 DEVELOPER: Rick's, Inc./Larry Garrison 7th and Thayer' Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 374-3801/834-2122 AREA: 33,298 sa. ft. r Whitewater "Short -Form PCn" (Z-4704) 7th and Thayer Streets nVCTnMrR Paul Davenport Phone: 376-4411 NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: "R-3, "R-2, "I-2" to PCD vunpncFn TTSFS: Commercial Restaurant A. Proposal FT. NEW ST.: 0 (1) To provide continued use of a commercial restaurant building on 33,298 square feet. (2) To provide a paved parking area. (3) To enhance the site through landscaping, fencing and paving. (4) To allow for the addition of a barbeque smoker, which increases the building size from 2800 square feet to 2965. (5) Parking includes 28 spaces. (6) Landscaping/screening - 6' wooden privacy fence will be built to the rear and along the south, side of the building and between the existing building and a house just north of the northern boundalry line. r i September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued (7) Development schedule - Fencing, landscaping - 1 year - Curb, gutter and parking lot - 2 years B. En ineerin Comments (1) No exterior landscaping has been shown around the parking lot. (2) Street improvements and right-of-way on Thayer Street shall be required. - (3) Detention calculations and detention facility locations shall be shown on the preliminary plat. (4 ) Parking lot shall be redesigned in the area of the railroad right-of-way, due to inadequate turning radius. Contact the Traffic Department. C. Ana leis This is currently a nonconforming use with a long history of dealings with the City. Further information will be provided at the meeting. The parking lot is inadequate. D. Staff Recommendation To be provided at the meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was informed that he needs 30 parking spaces. Land use was identified.as the predominant issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff stated its recommendation as denial and explained that this was a nonconforming use, with no parking that had been September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued permit. The expanded without ed b it hefa building Enforcement Department. The item expansion was cited by for was then taken to the Boar aed thatd of it was, indeed, interpretation. They nonconforming. resented the explained that they were under contract with Mr. Geoff Treece of Davidson Law Firm re slab on applicant. He exp from an existing Sims Barbecue- who was operating The State Health the back of the kitchen of the building• to screened Department informed them that it would thave an �pscreened Dep did not feel th Adjustmentof ansion and covered. They slab. After the Board alternative because of the existing disagreed, they were informed that their only was to seek rezoning. He went on to explain that this proposal added a parking lot with terns to tos upgradeathe area. guttering and fence. It was an at issioner Jones identified the issue as on of use and Comm rade whether the Commission tl o were trying to upgrade Mr. Treece's resp with a trade-off, or a the area and provide the City were going to be there concession to the City since they ssin took. with Sims regardless of whatever this Cemtheirorelationshiplr wish, also, was not to inconvenient then there would be Barbecue. If a trade-off was denied, uttering. He felt still a gravel parking lot and no curb/guttering. A revised plan that this was the best concernsthe wasppresented. Staff addressing Engineering lwho lived next door reported that Mr. Steve Turnaphad alled and stated opposition. to the restaurant, The neighborhood was represented Ms. PC.D.B.G. Committee of 2612 West 6th Street, a member of the C.D.B.G• set that the explained that very upset the area. She exp t they were royal after the addition had applicant was asking for app wi been made. She felt that this detrimentalto wd interfere the tenjoyment l and parking in the area and be She and use of the property of residents in the area. t use disagreed with Mr. She chatmresidentialthat this wusetwas best - for the proper ty. She felt t Also, there was a complaint that this was not in the best served mostly patrons from interest of the neighborhoodsincethose residents did no frequent the bar. She felt Mention other areas like theHeights amount nofPsmoke nthat lwas . a nuisance was made of the extreme to the area. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued The Commission then entered into a discussion of the issue. It was noted that it was now zoned for a more intense use ("I-2") than would be provided if this PCD was approved. One Commissioner felt that previous consideration of this case yielded a strong stand against commercial rezoning of the property; thus, resulting in the granting of a conditional use permit. Another felt that this submission provided a substantial difference since it provided an opportunity to upgr ade'the area and restrict the use of the property to a less - intensive use by eliminating the "I-2" zoning on the parking lot property. it was felt that the trade-off presented -more positives than negatives. Further discussion yielded more comments from the Commission referring to the extensive amount of time spent considering the nonconforming status of this property, and expressinq concern that the applicant still constructed an illegal expansion. It was noted that the industrial use on this property would not be offensive, since it would probably consist of a lumber storaqe yard at the most; and to allow additional Parkinq would encourage continued success of the business and create more traffic. Commissioner Jones felt that the applicant had not held up their part of the bargain and a danqerous precedent would be set by giving them credibility throuqh approving commercial zoning. Commissioner Ketcher felt that the presented a good use of the land. A motion for approval was made and automatically deferred for 30 days because of a split vote. The vote: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86) The applicant was not present. There was no further discussion of the item. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86) The application was presented by Mr. Geoff Treece. Staff reported that a letter in opposition had been received from the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Treece stated that he had received six letters favorable to the proposal from owners within 200 feet of the site. He sent letters to owners of 19 tracts, four of which are owned by the State or City. He also stated disagreement with the opposing letter from the C.D.B.G. Committee, since he felt that this was not an expansion of a nonconforming use, but an improvement to the area. He also stated that the Courts had recognized that the structure would continue to be -at its present location. He felt that the proposal offered a trade-off to the City and would allow the continued business relationship with Sims' Barbecue which was vital to the success of the business. Mrs. Dorothy Pilachowski represented the C.D.B.G. Committee. She questioned whether the letters sent were to owners or renters. She was informed that the abstract list was the source of the names. She also reiterated the opposing views expressed by the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Mike Turnaprovitch, who lives on property abutting the Whitewater requested a privacy fence adjacent to his property and the removal of a dumpster nearby that currently attracts flies. He asked that the fence be built in less than one year as proposed by the applicant. The applicant agreed. Mr. Leland Sikes of 201 Thayer was concerned about the high volume of traffic during happy hour and the large liquor trucks going to and from the site. He initially asked that something be done -,to curtail traffic. The Traffic Engineer, however, felt that STOP signs and other measures were not appropriate for addressing the problem mentioned. Mr. Sikes then revised his comments and asked for denial of the request, which would solve the traffic problem by eliminating the business. A motion for approval as amended was made, subject to: (1) providing fencing and landscaping in 30 days and (2) providing improvement of the parking lot within one year. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent (no votes - Sipes, Nicholson). September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued Reasons for disagreement with staff were based on a belief that the trade-offs offered were in the best interests of the neighborhood. It was felt that the current "I-2" zoning would allow uses more detrimental than The Tavern, the fact that the structure has been in existence for over 40 years, and that it will continue to be in existence (as determined by the courts) also had an impact. NAME: Whitewater "Short -form PCD" (Z-4704) LOCATION: 7th & Thayer Streets AGENT/DEVELOPER: Geoff Treece/Rick's, Inc. ZONING: R -3/I-2 to PCD Planned Commercial District EXISTING STATUS: Restaurant/Bar PROPOSED: Restaurant/Bar STAFF RE OPS MENDAT. QN Denial as filed. Staff felt that this was an expansion of a nonconforming use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIQN': Approval as amended, subject to: (1) Providing fencing & landscaping in 30 days, (2) Improving the parking lot within one year. The vote 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. (No votes - Sipes, Nicholson) Reasons for disagreeing with staff: (1) Trade-offs offered were in the best interest of the neighborhood, (2) Current I-2 zoning would allow uses more detrimental than the tavern, (3) Structure has been in existence for over 40 years and the Court determination that it will continue to be in existence. January 24, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 NAME: White Water Tavern PCD FILE NO.: Z-4704 LOCATION: Northwest corner of Thayer Street at West 7th St. DEVELOPER: Ricks, Inc./Larry Garrison 7th at Thayer Street Little Rock, AR 72205 374-3801 AREA: 33,298 sq. ft. NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT.NEW STREET: ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 14 STAFF REPORT: PROPOSED USES: Remain as is 0 On May 31 of 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the White Water Tavern PCD. The Planning Commission extended the approval period for this development until December 13, 1988. The issue presented to the Planning Commission in May of 1988 was the failure of White Water Tavern to comply with the conditions set forth in the original approval of the Planned Commercial District. W, Approximately two weeks prior to the Planning Commission meeting on December 13, it was determined that the project remained in violation. The Enforcement Office as well as the Planning Staff had discussions with Mr. Garrison and his attorney, Mr. Geoff Treese. These gentlemen were advised that the matter would be placed before the Planning Commission on December 13 for purposes of discussing revocation. At the meeting on December 13, a lengthy discussion was held with a determination that a public hearing would be advertised for purposes of a revocation hearing. The legal ad has been published and the several parties involved have been notified of the time, date and place of the hearing. The Planning Commission, on setting this Public Hearing date, determined that a report from the Enforcement Staff would be in order. This report would include the status of January 24, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) the site with respect to the specific requirements as well as information as to additional structural changes to the building that have occurred since the original approval. Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning and Signs Section of Environmental Codes has presented a memorandum outlining current status (see attached). The Planning Staff will not offer specific recommendation at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 24, 1989) The Planning Staff offered a brief statement on this proposal and recommended that the Planning Commission take the appropriate action to revoke this Planned Commercial District. There were objectors present represented by Mrs. Pilakowski, a resident of South Thayer Street. The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, offered for the record a memo with a legal opinion to the effect that revocation of this zoning district would not eliminate the nonconforming status previously held by this property. He indicated that those elements of the building that had been completed or modified from the previous nonconforming status would require removal. This, of course, would require follow-up by the City's Environmental Codes Section of Public Works. Mr. Garrison was requested to make a statement for the record as to his position on revocation. Mr. Garrison indicated that he was at this point willing to accept the revocation and return of his business to a nonconforming status. He indicated he had done very little in the way of construction on the building except for closure of a porch and the addition of the smoker. A brief discussion followed whereby Mrs. Pilakowski offered comments and concerns from the neighborhood perspective. A motion was then made to recommend to the Board of Directors the revocation of this Planned Commercial District. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent. n December 1:,, 1988 Item No. 10 - Other Matters - Planned Commercial District Revocation NAME: White Water Tavern Short -form Planned Commercial (Z-4704) LOCATION: West 7th Street at Thayer Street REQUEST: The Planning Staff requests consideration by the Planning Commission of holding a public hearing for purposes of revocation of the White Water Tavern PCD. STAFF REPORT: This matter is presented to the Planning Commission as a follow up to an extension of time granted by the Planning Commission for this Planned Commercial District. The owner of this project, Mr. Paul Davenport, and his partner, Mr. Garrison, received permission approximately one year ago for extension of his installation of improvements. Staff was instructed to monitor the installation of the required improvements for parking, screening and landscaping. The monitoring of the project has resulted in a report by Kenny Scott of Environmental Codes which states that the project is deficient. Mr. Scott provided in writing an instruction to Mr. Davenport to appear at the December 13 Planning Commission meeting and show cause why a revocation hearing should not be held. PLANNINGOISI ONACTION: (December r 13 , 1988 ) __C__ Richard Wood of the Planning Staff presented the report of Mr. Scott and additional comment on the failure of the White Water Tavern to perform as directed by the Planning Commission. The Staff suggested that this hearing would provide direction from the Planning Commission as to the appropriateness of holding a public hearing for purposes of revoking the existing PCD on this property and restoring the nonconforming status and residential zoning classification. The chairman then requested that Mr. Garrison make his arguments in this matter and provide reasons why the project has not been brought to completion and in conformance with the approval. December 13, 1988 Item No. 10 _(Continued) Mr. Garrison, in a brief comment to the Commission, stated that the primary reason that they had not produced the required improvements was monetary in nature, primarily their failure to gain loans for purchase of the property upon which the parking and landscaping improvements would be located. Mr. Garrison pointed out that certain of the improvements such as landscaping and screening had been completed on the principal building site. He further stated that should the Planning Commission rescind approval of the PCD, he would provide the appropriate removal of the elements of the building involved and return to business as it was previously operated. The chairman then identified an objector present, being Mrs. Dorothy Pilachowski. Mrs. Pilachowski identified herself as being a representative of the Woodruff School Community Development Block Grant Committee. Mrs. Pilachowski offered comments on the history of this commercial development and the involvement of the CDBG Committee. She expressed concerns about the continuance of this commercial development without compliance with the requirements of approval. She stated that the Committee would accept a reduction of the zoning to its former classification and the restoration of the nonconforming status if the appropriate steps to do so are taken. Mrs. Pilachowski answered questions of the Commission. Mr. Garrison was questioned briefly by the Commission. After extended discussion by the Commission and others in attendance, a motion was offered to call for a public hearing of the Planning Commission on this matter to be set for January 24, 1989, the purpose of that public hearing to be consideration of revocation of the PCD. The Staff instructions included legal advertisement of the proposal and provision of a report from the Environmental Codes Section of Public Works wherein a detailing of the deficiencies and new structural violations will be offered. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 2 abstentions (Rector and Riddick). September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS T * nm mn _ r /f NAME: LOC—� •, AGENT: Geoff Treece ate �,1 Phone: 374-9977 DEVELOPER: Rick's, Inc./Larry Garrison 7th ---and Thayer' NLittle Rock, AR 72205 'n� Phone:' 374-3801/834-2122 AREA: 33,298 sa. ft. NO. j ZONING: "R-2, "I-2" RIM pri YJ Whitewater "Short -Form PCT)" (Z-4704) 7th and Thayer Streets DESIGNER: Paul Davenport Phone: 376-4411 -_._ NEW ST.: 0 OF LOTS: FT. _-f to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial Restaurant w Prpposa1 (1) To provide continued use of a commercial restaurant building on 33,298 square feet. (2) To provide a paved parking area. (3) To enhance the site through landscaping, fencing and paving. (4) To allow for the addition of a barbeq ue smoker, which increases the building size from 2800 square feet to 2965. (5) Parking includes 28 spaces. (6) Landscapinq/screening - 6' wooden privacy fence will be built to the rear and along the south side of the building and between the existing building and a house lust north of the northern boundary line. c September 9, 1986 1:1 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued (7) Development schedule - Fencing, landscaping - 1 year - Curb, gutter and parking lot - 2 years B. Engineering Comments (1) No exterior landscaping has been shown around the parking lot. (2) Street improvements and right-of-way on Thayer Street shall be required. _ (3) Detention calculations and detention facil`it_y locations shall be shown on the preliminary plat. (4 ) Parking lot shall be redesigned in the area of the railroad right-of-way, due to inadequate turning radius. Contact the Traffic Department. C. Analysis This is currently a nonconforming use with a long history of dealings with the City. Further information will be provided at the meeting. The parking lot is inadequate. D. Staff Recommendation To be provided at the meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was informed that he needs 30 parking spaces. Land use was identified -as the predominant issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff stated its recommendation as denial and explained that this was a nonconforming use, with no parking that had been September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued expanded without benefit of a building permit. The expansion was cited by the Enforcement Dep artment. The item was then taken to the Board f Ad iustmewasnt indeed, for interpretation. They rulednonconforming. Geoff Treece of Davidson Law Firm represented the Mr. were under contract with applicant. He explained that they Sims Barbecue- who Was opeatig from ofr then buildings eThetStateslab Healthh the back of the kitchen Department informed the have to an be and covered. They did Adjustment because of the existing slab. After the Board of disagreed, they were informed that thexplainir Ythat ethigiVe was to seek rezoning. He went on to exp proposal added a parking lot with 37 spaces, curb area. guttering and fence. It was an attempt to upgrade Commissioner Jones identified thewissue as on of whether the Commuse and xss�on Would al Were trying to upgrade Mr. Treece's response was thaty with trade-off, or a the area and provide th s since they they were going to be there concession to the C ity regardless of whatever this COmmheirssiorelationshipiwithsSiims also, was not to Inco uttering. He felt Barbecue. If a trade-off was denied, then there would stili a gravel parking lot and no curb/g A revised plan that this was the best use for the property. addressing Engineering concerns was pre�hotlaVedsnext door reported r staurant,hat Mr. Steve called andstatedopposition. tchr to the re The neighborhood Wasmi of embereofMthes. pC.D.B.G. Committee Of the 2612 West 6th Street, t they Were Very upset that the area. She explained thaI after the addition had applicant was asking for approva been made. She felt that this would intaiftoethetenjoyment+ and parking in the area and She and use of the property of res idents in the area. as disagreed with ;�lr. Treecelt thatmthat this residentialwusetwas best - for the property. She f Also, there was a complaint that incehis was sse rnot intshdid not interest of the neighborhood felt patrons from frequent the bar. She felt it served mostly p Mention other areas like the Heights and Pleasant Valley. was made of the extreme amount of smoke that was a nuisance to the area. 0 September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued The Commission then entered into a discussion of the issue. It was noted that it was now zoned for a more intense use ("I-2") than would be provided if this PCD was approved. One Commissioner felt that previous consideration of this case yielded a strong stand against commercial rezoning of the property; thus, resulting in the granting of a conditional use permit. Another felt that this submission provided a substantial difference since it provided an opportunity to upgr add" the area and restrict the use of the property to a less - intensive use by eliminatinq the "I-2" zoning on the parking lot property. "It was felt that the trade-off presented -more positives than negatives. Further discussion yielded more comments from the Commission referring to the extensive amount of time spent considering the nonconforming status of this property, and expressinq concern that the applicant still constructed an illegal expansion. It was noted that the industrial use on this property would not be offensive, since it would probably consist of a lumber storage yard at the most; and to allow additional parkinq would encourage continued success of the business and create more traffic. Commissioner Jones felt that the applicant had not held up their part of the barqain and a dangerous precedent would be set by giving them credibility throuqh approving commercial zoning. Commissioner Ketcher felt that the presented a good use of the land. A motion for approval was made and automatically deferred for 30 days because of a split vote. The vote: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86) The applicant was not present. There was no further discussion of the item. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86) The application was presented by Mr. Geoff Treece. Staff reported that a letter in opposition had been received from the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Treece stated that he had received six letters favorable to the proposal from owners within 200 feet of the site. He sent letters to owners of 19 tracts, four of which are owned by the State or City. He also stated disagreement with the opposing letter from the C.D.B.G. Committee, since he felt that this was not an expansion of a nonconforming use, but an improvement to the area. He also stated that the Courts had recognized that the structure would continue to be at its present location. He felt that the proposal offered a trade-off to the City and would allow the continued business relationship with Sims' Barbecue which was vital to the success of the business. Mrs. Dorothy Pilachowski represented the C.D.B.G. Committee. She questioned whether the letters sent were to owners or renters. She was informed that the abstract list was the source of the names. She also reiterated the opposing views expressed by the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Mike Turnaprovitch, who lives on property abutting the Whitewater requested a privacy fence adjacent to his property and the removal of a dumpster nearby that currently attracts flies. He asked that the fence be built in less than one year as proposed by the applicant. The applicant agreed. Mr. Leland Sikes of 201 Thayer was concerned about the high volume of traffic during happy hour and the large liquor trucks going to and from the site. He initially asked that something be done ,to curtail traffic. The Traffic Engineer, however, felt that STOP signs and other measures were not appropriate for addressing the problem mentioned. Mr. Sikes then revised his comments and asked for denial of the request, which would solve the traffic problem by eliminating the business. A motion for approval as amended was made, subject to: (1) providing fencing and landscaping in 30 days and (2) providing improvement of the parking lot within one year. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent (no votes - Sipes, Nicholson). September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued Reasons for disagreement with staff were based on a belief that the trade-offs offered were in the best interests of the neighborhood. It was felt that the current "I-2" zoning would allow uses more detrimental than The Tavern, the fact that the structure has been in existence for over 40 years, and that it will continue to be in existence (as determined by the courts) also had an impact. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: LOCATION: AGENT.: Geoff Treece Phone: 374-9977 DEVELOPER: Rick's, Inc./Larry Garrison 7th and Thayer' Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 374-3801/834-2122 AREA: 33,298 sa. ft. r Whitewater "Short -Form PCT)" (Z-4704) 7th and Thayer Streets DESIGNER: Paul Davenport Phone: 376-4411 NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: "R-3, "R-2, "I-2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial Restaurant A. Proposal FT. NEW ST.: 0 (1) To provide continued use of a commercial restaurant building on 33,298 scruare feet. (2) To provide a paved parking area. (3) To enhance the site throuqh landscaping, fencing and paving. (4) To allow for the addition of a barbeq ue smoker, which increases the building size from 2800 square feet to 2965. (5) Parking includes 28 spaces. (6) Landscaping/screening - 6' wooden privacy fence will be built to the rear and along, the south side of the building and between the exilst'inq buildinq and a house just north of the northern boundary line. I September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued (7) Development schedule - Fencing, landscaping - 1 year - Curb, gutter and parking lot - 2 years B. Engineering Comments (1) No exterior landscaping has been shown around the parking lot. (2) Street improvements and right-of-way on Thayer Street shall be required. (3) DetLzntion calculations and detention facility locations shall be shown on the preliminary plat. (4 ) Parking lot shall be redesigned in the area of the railroad right-of-way, due to inadequate turning radius. Contact the Traffic Department. C. Analysis This is currently a nonconforming use with a long history of dealings with the City. Further information will be provided at the meeting. The parking lot is inadequate. D. Staff Recommendation To be provided at the meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was informed that he needs 30 parking spaces. Land use was identified . as the predominant issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff stated its recommendation as denial and explained that this was a nonconforming use, with no parking that had been September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued permit. The expanded without benef it hef a building Enforcement Department. The item expansion was cited by Adjustment for was then ation. ken toThey Board the uled thatit was, indeed, interpret nonconforming. Mr. Geoff Treece of Davidson Law Firm represented the licant. He explained that they were under contract with app from an existing slab on Sims Barbecue. who was operating The State Health the back of the kitchen of the building. u to Department informed them that it thatitan bescreened Dep did not feel th Adjustment and covered. They slab. After the Board of because of the existing alternative disagreed, they were informed that theiplainythat thi-I was to seek rezoning. He went on to exp proposal added a parking lot with to spaces, gradeathe area. p and fence. It was an attempt to upgrade guttering commissioner Jones identified the lcontinuedue as nusef use aril Comm rade whether the Commission would allow were trying to upgrade Mr. Treece's response was that they provide the City with a trade-off, or a the area and p going to be there concession to the City since they were ssion took. Their wish, regardless of whainconvenience their relationship with Sims also, was not to uttering. He felt Barbecue. If a trade-off wanddnolcurb/gen there woul plan still a gravel parking lot ro erty. A revised p that this was the best concernsthe wasppresented. Staff addressing Engineering l reported that Mr. Steve Turapro andstatedhopposition. door to the restaurant, had ca 1 Of The neighborhood was represented Ms. PC.D.B.G_ Committee of were very upset that the 2612 West 6th Street, a member of the C.D•B' addition had the area. She explained that they applicant was asking for approval after the a been made. She felt that this detrimental to toe thetenjoymentl be d and parking in the area and be She and use of the property of res idents in the area. disagreed with Mr. Treece's thatmrthat this was usethe wasbebestuse for the property. She felt Also, there was a complaint tsincethis thoseWas residentsthe did not interest of the neighborhood patrons from frequent the bar. She felt tslanderved Pleasat ntVally ey. Mention other areas like the was made of the extreme amount of smoke that was a nuisance to the area. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued The Commission then entered into a discussion of the issue. It was noted that it was now zoned for a more intense use ("I-2") than would be provided if this PCD was approved. One Commissioner felt that previous consideration of this case yielded a strong stand against commercial rezoning of the property; thus, resulting in the granting of a conditional use permit. Another felt that this submission provided a substantial difference since it provided an opportunity to upgrade the area and restrict the use of the property to a less - intensive use by eliminating the "I-2" zoninq on the parking lot property. 'it was felt that the trade-off presented -more positives than negatives. Further discussion yielded more comments from the Commission referring to the extensive amount of time spent considering the nonconforming status of this property, and expressing concern that the applicant still constructed an illeqal expansion. It was noted that the industrial use on this property would not be offensive, since it would probably consist of a lumber storage yard at the most; and to allow additional parkinq would encourage continued success of the business and create more traffic. Commissioner Jones felt that the applicant had not held up their part of the barqain and a danqerous precedent would be set by giving them credibility through approving commercial zoning. Commissioner Ketcher felt that the presented a good use of the land. A motion for approval was made and automatically deferred for 30 days because of a split vote. The vote: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86) The applicant was not present. There was no further discussion of the item. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86) The application was presented by Mr. Geoff Treece. Staff reported that a letter in opposition had been received From the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Treece stated that he had received six letters favorable to the proposal from owners within 200 feet of the site. He sent letters to owners of 19 tracts, four of which are owned by the State or City. He also stated disagreement with the opposing letter from the C.D.B.G. Committee, since he felt that this was not an expansion of a nonconforming use, but an improvement to the area. He also stated that the Courts had recognized that the structure would continue to be at its present location. He felt that the proposal offered a trade-off to the City and would allow the continued business relationship with Sims' Barbecue which was vital to the success of the business. Mrs. Dorothy Pilachowski represented the C.D.B.G. Committee. She questioned whether the letters sent were to owners or renters. She was informed that the abstract list was the source of the names. She also reiterated the opposing views expressed by the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Mice Turnaprovitch, who lives on property abutting the Whitewater requested a privacy fence adjacent to his property and the removal of a dumpster nearby that currently attracts flies. He asked that the fence be built in less than one year as proposed by the applicant. The applicant agreed. Mr. Leland Sikes of 201 Thayer was concerned about the high volume of traffic during happy hour and the large liquor trucks going to and from the site. He initially asked that something be done to curtail traffic. The Traffic Engineer, however, felt that STOP signs and other measures were not appropriate for addressing the problem mentioned. Mr. Sixes then revised his comments and asked for denial of the request, which would solve the traffic problem by eliminating the,business. A motion for approval as amended was made, subject to: (1) providing fencing and landscaping in 30 days and (2) providing improvement of the parking lot within one year. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent (no votes - Sipes, Nicholson). September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued Reasons for disagreement with staff were based on a belief that the trade-offs offered were in the best interests of the neighborhood. It was felt that the current "I-2" zoning would allow uses more detrimental than The Tavern, the fact that the structure has been in existence for over 40 years, and that it will continue to be in existence (as determined by the courts) also had an impact. !6 7 September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C Whitewater "Short -Form PCD" NAME: (Z-4704) LOCATION: 7th and Thayer Streets AGENT: DESIGNER: Geoff Treece Paul Davenport Phone: 374-9977 Phone: 376-4411 . "'Tr�T Rick's, Inc./Larry Garrison 7th and Thayer' Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 374-3801/834-2122 AREA: 33,298 sa. ft. NO. OF LOTS: FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-3, "R-2, "I-2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial Restaurant A. Proposal (1) To provide continued use of a commercial restaurant building on 33,298 square feet. (2) To provide a paved parking area. (3) To enhance the site throuqh landscaping, fencing and paving. (4) To allow for the addition of a barbeq ue smoker, which increases the building size from 2800 square feet to 2965. (5) Parking includes 28 spaces. (6) Landscaping/screening - 6' wooden privacy fence will be built to the rear and alonq the south side of the building and between the exist'inq building and a house just north of the northern boundary line. 1 September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued (7) Development schedule - Fencing, landscaping - 1 year - Curb, gutter and parking lot - 2 years B. Engineering Comments (1) No exterior landscaping has been shown around the parking lot. (2) Street improvements and right-of-way on Thayer Street shall be required. - (3) DetLantion calculations and detention facility locations shall be shown on the preliminary plat. (4 ) Parking lot shall be redesigned in the area of the railroad right-of-way, due to inadequate turning radius. Contact the Traffic Department. C. Analyis This is currently a nonconforming use with a long history of dealings with the City. Further information will be provided at the meeting. The parking lot is inadequate. D. Staff Recommendation To be provided at the meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was informed that he needs 30 parking spaces. Land use was identified -as the predominant issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff stated its recommendation as denial and explained that this was a nonconforming use, with no parking that had been September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued rmit. The expanded without benefit hefEna building forcement Department. The item expansion was cited by ustment for was then taken to the Board Ad thatit wasp indeed, interpretation. They nonconforming. resented the Mr. Geoff Treece of Davidson Law y were rm e under contract with applicant. He explained that they an existing slab on Sims Barbecue- who was operating The State Health the back of a kitc enm that e ibtuwould 9have to be screened Department in did not feel that it was an expansion and covered. They slab. After the Board of Adj because of the existing alternative disagreed, they were informed that their lonly that tnat was to seek .rezoning . He went on to exp curb and a proposal added parking lot with to to upgrade up9 rade the area. guttering and fence. It was an attempt ssioner Jones identified the issue nuednusef use grid Comms rade whether the Commission would allow Were trying to upgrade Mr. Treece's response was thatthey a trade-off, or a the area and provide the City were going to be there concession to the City since theyn took. Their .dish ► regardless of whatever inconveniencetheirorelati.onship with Sims also, was not to then there would be If a trade-off was denied ► uttering . He felt Barbecue. parking lot and no curb/9 still a gravel p ro erty. A revised plan resented. Staff that this was the best use for the P wh❑ lived next door addressing Engineering concerns was P reported that Mnt,Shade lledpandlstatea opposition. to the restaura The neighborhood was represented Ms. Pilachowski of member of the C.D.B.G. Committee of 2612 West 6th Street, a were very upset that the the area. She explained that they L ican t was asking for approval after the addition had app o ment been made. She felt that this detrimental to thetenjryff a t and parking in the area and be She and use of the property of residents in the area. with �[r. Treece's chatmr�� identialthis was usetwas�bestuse disagreed She felt t for the property. Also, there was a complaint that this was not in the des interest of the neighborhood since homvstly�patronsdents x from in Mention frequent the bar. She felt x other areas like the He and Pleasant atwas Valley. was made of the extreme amount of smoke that was a nuisance to the area. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued The Commission then entered into a discussion of the issue. It was noted that it was now zoned for a more intense use ("I-2") than would be provided if this PCD was approved. One Commissioner felt that previous consideration of this case yielded a strong stand against commercial rezoning of the property; thus, resulting in the granting of a conditional use permit. Another felt that this submission provided a substantial difference since it provided an opportunity to upgr ade-the area and restrict the use of the property to a less - intensive use by eliminating the "I-2" zoninq on the parking lot property. 'It was felt that the trade-off presented .more positives than negatives. Further discussion yielded more comments from the Commission referring to the extensive amount of time spent considering the nonconforming status of this property, and expressing concern that the applicant still constructed an illegal expansion. It was noted that the industrial use on this property would not be offensive, since it would probably consist of a lumber storage yard at the most; and to allow additional parkinq would encourage continued success of the business and create more traffic. Commissioner Jones felt that the applicant had not held up their part of the barqain and a danqerous precedent would be set by giving them credibility through approving commercial zoning. Commissioner Ketch er felt that the presented a good use of the land. A motion for approval was made and automatically deferred for 30 days because of a split vote. The vote: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 3 absent. - SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86) The applicant was not present. There was no further discussion of the item. I September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86) The application was presented by Mr. Geoff Treece. Staff reported that a letter in opposition had been received From the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Treece stated that he had received six letters favorable to the proposal from owners within 200 feet of the site. He sent letters to owners of 19 tracts, four of which are owned by the State or City. He also stated disagreement with the opposing letter from the C.D.B.G. Committee, since he felt that this was not an expansion of a nonconforming use, but an improvement to the area. He also stated that the Courts had recognized that the structure would continue to be at its present location. He felt that the proposal offered a trade-off to the City and would allow the continued business relationship with Sims' Barbecue which was vital to the success of the business. Mrs. Dorothy Pilachowski represented the C.D.B.G. Committee. She questioned whether the letters sent were to owners or renters. She was informed that the abstract list was the source of the names. She also reiterated the opposing views expressed by the C.D.B.G. Committee. Mr. Mine Turnaprovitch, who lives on property abutting the Whitewater requested a privacy fence adjacent to his property and the removal of a dumpster nearby that currently attracts flies. He asked that the fence be built in less than one year as proposed by the applicant. The applicant agreed. Mr. Leland Sikes of 201 Thayer was concerned about the high volume of traffic during happy hour and the large liquor trucks going to and from the site. He initially asked that something be done -to curtail traffic. The Traffic Engineer, however, felt that STOP signs and other measures were not appropriate for addressing the problem mentioned. Mr. Sixes then revised his comments and asked for denial of the request, which would solve the traffic problem by eliminating the business. A motion for approval as amended was made, subject to: (1) providing fencing and landscaping in 30 days and (2) providing improvement of the parking lot within one year. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent (no votes - Sipes, Nicholson). September 9, 1986 SUBDiYISIONS Item No. C - Continued Reasons for disagreement with staff were based on a belief that the trade-offs offered were in the best interests of the neighborhood. It was felt that the current "I-2" zoning would allow uses more detrimental than The Tavern, the fact that the structure has been in existence for over 40 years, and that it will continue to be in existence (as determined by the courts) also had an impact.