Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4822-B Staff AnalysisMay 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Catfish Park Conditional Use Permit (Z -4822-B) Just north of the intersection of Nash Lane and Sibley Hole Road Terry R. and Carolyn S. Jones, Noel W. and Dianne Gattis, and Edward A. Culin/Terry R. Jones and Peggy O'Neal To rezone (11I-211), obtain a floodplain variance, to replat, and to obtain a conditional use permit on 12.17 + acres of land currently zoned "R-2" and 11I-2" which would allow the removal of two existing buildings, the construction of two catfish ponds (5 + acres and 1.74 acres), the retention of one 2,000 square feet building which will be used for retail fish sales and the regulation of on -premise fishing by the public. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to an interstate service road (I-30 to the north) and a collector street (Sibley Hole road to the south). 2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood This site lies within the floodplain/way of Nash Creek and I-30 corridor. The interstate lies to the north, a church and single family lie south of Sibley Hole Road, vacant, commercial, and single family lie to the east, and vacant land and industrial uses lie to 'the west. The property to the east and west of this site is already zoned "I-2." The proposed use can be compatible provided the necessary buffers and restrictions are observed. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains a 25' gravel access drive from the I-30 service road and 45 gravel parking spaces. No access from Sibley Hole Road is proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicants are proposing a 50' green area or buffer along Sibley Hole Road and north up to the proposed sales building. The applicants further propose a 30' green area or buffer along the south line and south of the proposed sales building. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use can be compatible under certain conditions (see number 2). The staff feels that all the proposed buffer areas should remain undisturbed and that no access be allowed via Sibley Hole Road. The staff also feels that a 6' privacy fence should be constructed along the south and east line adjacent to the proposed sales building. Finally, the applicant needs to provide more details about the hours of operation and the dressing or cleaning of the fish on-site. 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Pave the proposed parking area; (2) construct the proposed access drive to industrial street standards; and (3) dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Sibley Hole Road to meet City Collector Street Standards. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the applicant receiving approval by the Planning Commission with regard to zoning, replatting, and the floodplain variance, and the applicant agreeing to (1) preclude access to Sibley Hole Road; (2) construct a 6' privacy fence along the south and east property line adjacent to the proposed sales building; (3) leave the 50' and 30' buffer areas undisturbed; (4) provide additional information with regard to the proposed hours of operation and the dressing or cleaning of the fish on-site; and (5) comply with City Engineering Comments 1-3. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations with the exception of the paving of the access drive and parking. The staff stated that no access should be allowed from the existing gravel road located to the south. The staff also asked whether or not the applicant intended to use outside lighting. The applicant stated that they did intend to use outside lighting. The staff had reservations about the use of outside lighting. The applicant did not speak to the issue of the proposed hours of operation. With regard to the dressing or cleaning of fish, the applicant stated that the fish would be cleaned on-site but that the remnants would be removed from the site daily. The Water Works stated that an acreage charge of $150 per acre would apply and that the Water Works would need a 15' easement across this lot and adjacent to I-30 for a future main extension. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present -and stated that they were officially amending their application to a planned commercial development from the original proposal of "I-2" and that the small parcel that is currently zoned "I-2" would continue to be considered as a conditional use permit and would be valid only with the approval of the planned commercial development by the Little Rock Board of Directors. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit provided the applicant agreed to: (1) limit access to the site by only the I-30 service road; (2) limit the hours of operations from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.; (3) pave the parking area; and (9) construct a 6' privacy fence along the east and south property lines nearest the metal building. The applicant agreed to comply with all staff recommendations. There were a number of objectors present as well as three supporters of the proposal. Mr. Crow, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Rostin stated that they did not live in the area, but that they felt the proposal would be beneficial to the community. Mr. Dale Grady, an attorney representing the Hassles, spoke in objection to the proposal and delivered a petition in opposition. His opposition May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued centered around the inappropriateness of the land use, and the fact that his client's property values would be negatively impacted. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Dreher also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Their arguments were generally the same as Mr. Grady's. A lengthy discussion then ensued. The applicant further agreed to: (1) no alcohol sales or consumption on the premises; (2) no odor, in that the cleaning of the fish would be accomplished entirely inside the building and the remnants taken away each day, or refrigerated if they weren't removed from the property; and (3) a limit of 200 pounds live weight cleaned fish sold per customer per day. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent to approve the conditional use permit subject to the staff's comments numbered 1-4, and the applicants comments numbered 1-3, with the contingency that the conditional use permit is valid only by the Board of Directors approval of the associated planned commercial development. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Catfish Park Conditional Use Permit (Z -4822-B) LOCATION: Just north of the intersection of Nash Lane and Sibley Hole Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Terry R. and Carolyn S. Jones, Noel W. and Dianne Gattis, and Edward A. Culin/Terry R. Jones and Peggy O'Neal PROPOSAL: To rezone ("I-2"), obtain a floodplain variance, to replat, and to obtain a conditional use permit on 12.17 + acres of land currently zoned "R--2" and 11I-2" which would allow the removal of two existing buildings, the construction of two catfish ponds (5 + acres and 1.74 acres), the retention of one 2,000 square feet building which will be used for retail fish sales and the regulation of on -premise fishing by the public. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to an interstate service road (I-30 to the north) and a collector street (Sibley Hole road to the south). 2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood This site lies within the floodplain/way of Nash Creek and I-30 corridor. The interstate lies to the north, a church and single family lie south of Sibley Hole Road, vacant, commercial, and single family lie to the east, and vacant land and industrial uses lie to the west. The property to the east and west of this site is already zoned 11I-2." The proposed use can be compatible provided the necessary buffers and restrictions are observed. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains a 25' gravel access drive from the I-30 service road and 45 gravel parking spaces. No access from Sibley Hole Road is proposed. 4. 5. 6. Screening and Buffers The applicants are proposing a 50' green area or buffer along Sibley Hole Road and north up to the proposed sales building. The applicants further propose a 30' green area or buffer along the south line and south of the proposed sales building. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use can be compatible under certain conditions (see number 2). The staff feels that all the proposed buffer areas should remain undisturbed and that no access be allowed via Sibley Hole Road. The staff also feels that a 6' privacy fence should be constructed along the south and east line adjacent to the proposed sales building. Finally, the applicant needs to provide more details about the hours of operation and the dressing or cleaning of the fish on-site. City Engineering Comments (1) Pave the proposed parking area; (2) construct the proposed access drive to industrial street standards; and (3) dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Sibley Hole Road to meet City Collector Street Standards. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the applicant receiving approval by the Planning Commission with regard to zoning, replatting, and the floodplain variance, and the applicant agreeing to (1) preclude access to Sibley Hole Road; (2) construct a 6' privacy fence along the south and east property line adjacent to the proposed sales building; (3) leave the 50' and 30' buffer areas undisturbed; (4) provide additional information with regard to the proposed hours of operation and the dressing or cleaning of the fish on-site; and (5) comply with City Engineering Comments 1-3. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item -No. -9 - Continued-------- SUBDIVISION ontinued-_______ SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations with the exception of the paving of the access drive and parking. The staff stated that no access should be allowed from the existing gravel road located to the south. The staff also asked whether or not the applicant intended to use outside lighting. The applicant stated that they did intend to use outside lighting. The staff had reservations about the use of outside lighting. The applicant did not speak to the issue of the proposed hours of operation. With regard to the dressing or cleaning of fish, the applicant stated that the fish would be cleaned on-site but that the remnants would be removed from the site daily. The Water Works stated that an acreage charge of $150 per acre would apply and that the Water Works would need a 15' easement across this lot and adjacent to I-30 for a future main extension. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present and stated that they were officially amending their application to a planned commercial development from the original proposal of "I-2" and that the small parcel that is currently zoned "I-2" would continue to be considered as a conditional use permit and would be valid only with the approval of the planned commercial development by the Little Rock Board of Directors. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit provided the applicant agreed to: (1) limit access to the site by only the I-30 service road; (2) limit the hours of operation's from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.; (3) pave the parking area; and (4) construct a 6' privacy fence along the east and south property lines nearest the metal building. The applicant agreed to comply with all staff recommendations. There were a number of objectors present as well as three supporters of the proposal. Mr. Crow, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kostin stated that they did not live in the area, but that they felt the proposal would be beneficial to the community. Mr. Dale Grady, an attorney representing the Hassles, spoke in objection to the proposal and delivered a petition in opposition. His opposition May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 --Continued centered around the inappropriateness of the land use, and the fact that his client's property values would he negatively impacted. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Dreher also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Their arquments were generally the same as Mr. Grady's. A lengthy discussion then ensued. The applicant further agreed to: (1) no alcohol sales or consumption on the premises; (2) no odor, in that the cleaning of the fish would be accomplished entirely inside the huildinq and the remnants taken away each day, or refrigerated if they weren't removed from the property; and (3) a limit of 200 pounds live weight cleaned fish sold per customer per day. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent to approve the conditional use permit subject to the staff's comments numbered 1-4, and the applicants comments numbered 1-3, with the contingency that the conditional use permit is valid only by the Board of Directors approval of the associated planned commercial development. May 19, 1987 Item No. 9A - Z-4822 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Terry Jones Sibley Hole Road (At Nash Lane) Rezone from "R-2" to "I-2" Catfish Fishinq Pond and Sale of Catfish 11.96 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - I-30 Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family and Industrial, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to develop the property under consideration for a public catfish fishing facility. In addition to the fishing pond, there will be retail sale of catfish. To accomplish this, a rezoning change is necessary along with a conditional use permit, a floodplain variance and a subdivision plat. (Staff recommended "I-2" to the applicant because of the location and the existing zoning.) The property is approximately 12 acres in size and is situated between I-30 and Sibley Hole Road. The land use in the area is mixed and includes residential, commercial and industrial. Some of the land is still vacant and the most recent development or land use change is a church under construction at the southwest corner of Sibley Hole Road and Nash Lane. There are also some new single family units being built to the east, south of Sibley Hole Road. Based on the existing development pattern, it appears that Sibley Hole Road is a line between residential and nonresidential uses. 2. The site is vacant and wooded with a large portion of it located in the Nash Creek Floodway. 3. Sibley Hole Road is classified as a collector so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. May 19, 1987 Item No. 9A - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received several calls and letters in opposition to the proposed rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. This area is part of the Otter Creek District Plan which does not identify the location for industrial uses. After reviewing the request, staff feels that an "I-2" rezoning is appropriate and suggest that a planned amendment should be initiated if the reclassification is granted. The Otter Creek District Plan shows the area for mixed residential and staff believes that is somewhat unrealistic, especially for the land between I-30 and Sibley Hole Road. North of Sibley Hole Road the land use is more fragmented and the area has been impacted by the existing "I-2" zoning. Maintaining the residential character south of Sibley Hole Road is important and must be taken into consideration when addressing a rezoning change in the neighborhood. If the plan amendment is recommended as mentioned by the staff, it should only be for the area north of Sibley Hole Road and include some type of open space buffer on the north side of Sibley Hole Road. This should help protect the neighborhood to the south and minimize any potential impacts from future rezonings. With this particular request, staff recommends the south 50 feet be rezoned to "OS." The proposed site plan shows the south 50 feet as a green area so the "OS" zoning is compatible with that. Also, the "OS" will restrict access to Sibley Hole Road and direct it all to the I-30 frontage road which should help the residential neighborhood. This 50 foot "OS" strip is in addition to the floodway area which also needs to be rezoned "OS" and dedicated to the City. The proposed use will still need other approvals to permit it even if this rezoning request is granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "I-2" except for the designated floodway and a 50 -foot strip adjacent to Sibley Hole Road. The recommended rezoning for those areas is "OS" open space. May .19, 1987 Item No. 9A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-5-87) The applicant, Terry Jones, was present and represented by Peggy O'Neal, an attorney. Donald Crowe, the proposed developer, was also present. There were 12 to 15 objectors in attendance. Ms. O'Neal spoke and described the proposal which she said was very similar to an existing fishing pond development in Dallas. She went on to say that in addition to the fishing ponds, retail sale of catfish was also being planned for the site. This would involve allowing the customer to select a fish from a tank, and then it would be cleaned if the person so desired. Ms. O'Neal sald that there would be no processing plant on the site and all the necessary measures would be taken to eliminate odors. She then described a meeting that was held with several of the residents in the neighborhood and indicated that the owners had no objections to the "OS" as recommended by -the staff. Terry Jones then described the site work which he said involved just clearing out underbrush. Mike Batie of the Engineering Office said that it was reported to him that the land been totally cleared. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff then addressed the plan issue and suggested that the "I-2" request be delayed because there were too many problems or uncertainities associated with the rezoning. There was a long discussion about the plan and other items. Mrs. James cottey said that she was opposed to the rezoning but had no objections to a deferral. sue Cooper spoke in opposition to the proposed use and deferring the rezoning request. She said that the neighborhood was family oriented and the catfish operation would cause too many problems. She also reminded the Commission of the letters and petitions in opposition to the rezoning. Dale Grady, an attorney, spoke and said he was represnting the Hassells, adjacent property owners. Mr. Grady described the Sibley Hole Road neighborhood and said that the Hassells were opposed to the rezoning request. He asked that the Planning Commission maintain the residential character of the area by not approving the proposed commercial development. Mr. Grady also said that the site work had been started about two weeks ago. Ray Parker then asked why the request was not being heard through one application. There was some discussion concerning this matter. Ms. O'Neal then said that the owners were willing to convert to a PUD and defer the issue. Lem Dreher, a Sibley Hole Road resident, requested the Commission to vote on the 11I-2" rezoning as filed. There were additional comments made by the various parties. A motion was then offered to defer the rezoning request to the May 19, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. A second motion was made to waive the legal ad requirement and the filing fee for the PUD. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. (The applicant agreed to renotifying the property owners and posting the sign for a PUD.) May 19, 1987 Item No. 9A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-19-87) The applicant was represented by Attorney Peggy O'Neal. There were a number of objectors in attendance. Ms. O'Neal addressed the Commission and amended the 11I-2" rezoning request to "PCD" and "OS" Open Space for the floodway with a conditional use permit for the one acre tract to the east. (See the minute record for Z -4822-B, May 19, 1987, for complete record and the vote.) Several persons spoke in favor of the proposal, Mr. Tommy Taylor, owner of tractor sales company that abuts this property on the west, felt that the proposal would improve the area if done properly, especially since the existing state of the site was described as being "trashy." Mr. Tim Costin thought that this was a good idea for elderly persons and tourists. Mr. Crow was also favorable to the community. Mr. Dale Grady, an Attorney for the Hassle family, offered objections and submitted a petition. He first objected to the notice and then asked that the Commission not allow the applicants to devastate the neighborhood by negatively impacting property values. He felt that the tactics of the Developer bordered on the unethical, since he was risking thousands of dollars and the life savings of the out-of-state investors if this was not approved and devastating a neighborhood if it was approved. It was pointed out that the persons speaking in favor of the proposed project were not owners of single family homes in the area. Mrs. Susie Cooper of 313 Sibley Hole Road felt that the project would reduce property values in a "working-class, family oriented" community, whose greatest asset is their home. She felt that it was unfair for business speculators from the outside to consolidate with businesses in the area in favor of this project. Ms. Dreher of 219 Sibley Hole Road stated similar objections. Attorney O'Neal addressed questions from the Commission and concerns of the residents. She stated that if the planned method of waste removal did not work, a refrigerator would be used to store waste and it may not be hauled off as frequently. She explained that she did send notices to property owners. May 19, 1987 Item No. 9A - Continued After discussion by the Commission, a motion was made for approval, subject to: (1) hours of operation 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., (2) shielded lighting no more than 2' in height, (3) replanting of 50' buffer or a fence according to staff specifications, (4) paving of drive and parking to commercial standards with no curb and gutter - 24' width, (5) dedication of floodway, (6) rezoning of floodway to "QS", (7) the sale of no more than 200 pounds of fish a day, (8) all cleaning of fish inside metal building with daily disposal or refrigerated method as requested byO'Neal, (9) no alcoholic beverages, (10) no Sibley Hole access, (11) fish moved Live, (12) shading structures if necessary (will show on revised site plan), and (13) drain lakes if applicant goes out of business. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes, and 0 absent.