HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5003 Staff Analysisr
1, Meeting Date: August 16, 1988
2. Name: Bill R. and Jo Lusk "Short -Form" PCD (Z-5008)
3. R.egVest: To develop .92 acre of "R-2" into one lot for
commercial use.
4. Location: 100' north of Cantrell on the west side of
........
. _.........................
Pinnacle
5. Owner „(Apel icant En�,i,ne,er: Bi l l R. Lusk/Sam L. Davis
6. Existing_S.t.atus: "R-2" zoning in Transition Area
7. Proposed -Use: Car Wash/Retail/Office
8. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the request due to
traffic impact and departure of the Land Use Plan
9. PlanningCommission Recommendation: Approval, subject
to 80% of property to be used as antique/furniture shop
and 20% as office. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and
3 absent.
10. Reasons for....... Planning _Commission Action:
(1) The property was formerly used as an antique shop
for a period of about 15 years;
(2) The proposed uses are low intensive and,
therefore, should not adversely affect the
neighboring residential area or cause traffic
problems,
Item No. B
NAME: Bill R. and Joe Lusk
"Short -Form" PCD (Z-5008)
LOCATION: 100' north of Cantrell on
west side of Pinnacle Valley
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Bill R. Lusk Sam L. Davis
#7 Berwyn Drive 5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 664-0324
AREA: .92 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 11R02"
PROPOSED USE: Car Wash/Retail/Office
A. Proposal/Request
1. To develop .92 acre into a commercial
development.
2. The existing frame building of 2,393 square feet
which will be used as an antique shop (80%)
and office space (20%).
3. A self-service car wash is proposed with 1' of
the floor elevation below the 100 -year flood.
All mechanical and electrical services will be
above flood level.
4. Parking area will be asphalt with 19 spaces.
5. Dedication of floodway for Isom Creek.
6. Twenty -foot additional right-of-way dedication
for Pinnacle Valley Road.
Item No. B - Continued
B. Existing Conditions
The area is generally developed as single family.
There are currently an existing building and a mobile
home on the site. The floodway cuts across the
southwestern portion of this property.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Corner of existing building and parking in
floodway.
2. Proposed use is contrary to the Land Use Plan.
3. Applicant should address traffic impact.
4. Submit landscaping plan.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Street improvements on Pinnacle Valley Road.
2. Meet Floodplain Ordinance.
3. Circulation needs to be reviewed with
Engineering.
4. Responsible for street improvements. Liability
not to exceed 15 percent of cost of project,
defer improvement issue to building permit.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial based on traffic impact and departure from Land
Use Plan.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Wastewater stated that the car wash needed to be above
floodplain level. Public Works felt that the driveway
needed to be widened.
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There are no objectors present. The petition was
represented by Mr. Randy Treece. Mr. Don McChesney, City
Engineer, presented comments on the street improvements
associated with Pinnacle Valley Road. He indicated that
the County Judge was involved in discussion with the
Highway Department and others relative to widening and
straightening the curves.
Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated that 20' of
right-of-way was being dedicated to Pinnacle Valley Road.
Mr. Jim Lawson offered a response to questions about the
Highway 10 Plan and floodplain. Gary Greeson discussed the
plan affects on this site. A general discussion followed
involving the plan content, interpretation of lines for
transition zones and site buildability.
The owner went on record as offering to dedicate the
floodway.
The Chairman asked the owner if a deferral would be in
order. Mr. Treece indicated his client needed some action
at this meeting. He further discussed the mix of uses
proposed and existing, stating some retail was involved in
the new car wash and existing antique sales. The
Commission explained that commercial use was not desirable,
especially within the transition zones.
After a brief discussion of deferral, a motion was made to
defer the request until May 31. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that a request for deferral was received
from the applicant.
Item No. B Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
The Applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988)
Staff recommended denial, based on the proposed use of the
property and the departure from the Land Use Plan and
traffic impact on the area. The property was shown as a
transition area on the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Sam Davis, Engineer, represented the Developer. His
feelings were that single family could not be built on the
property because of the amount of road dedication required
by City plans to widen Pinnacle Valley to 48 feet on one
side and the floodway on the western side. The 20 foot of
buildable area left would not support a residential use. He
also submitted signatures of property -owners' names that had
no objection to the proposal. The plan being considered at
this meeting had been revised to be one foot above the
floodplain.
The Commission then entered into discussion of the item.
Some Commissioners were concerned about creating a "taking"
situation if the property was restricted only to single
family. Staff felt that a case for office or multi -family
could be made due to hardships created by topography. This
area is in the transition zone which could allow
office/multi-family in such a situation. Others did not
feel that a carwash was appropriate because the only
existing uses in the area are residential. Staff suggested
that some office use may be appropriate.
It was decided that use of the property should be restricted
to only 80 percent of one type of retail use, an
antique/furniture shop, since it has historically been used
as one, and/or 20 percent of office use. A motion to this
effect was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes,
and 3 absent.
Item No. B_ (Continued}
REASONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
1. The property was formerly used as an antique shop for a
period of about 15 years.
2. The proposed uses are low intensive and therefore
should not adversely affect the neighboring"residential
area or cause traffic problems.
May 31, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
�A Item No. C
NAME: Bill R. and Joe Lusk
"Short -Form" PCD (Z-5008)
LOCATION: 100' north of Cantrell on
west side of Pinnacle Valley
n V17LIT P11C)LID . VW7n TTTPRP e
Bill R. Lusk Sam L. Davis
r #7 Berwyn Drive 5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 664-0324
AREA: .92 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: R-2
PROPOSED USE: Car Wash/Retail/Office
s
A. Proposal/Request
1. To develop .92 acre into a commercial
development.
2. The existing frame building of 2,393 square feet
which will be used as an antique shop (80%)
and office space (20%).
3. A self-service car wash is proposed with 1' of
the floor elevation below the 100 -year flood.
All mechanical and electrical services will be
above flood level.
4. Parking area will be asphalt with 19 spaces.
5. Dedication of floodway for Isom Creek.
6. Twenty -foot additional right-of-way dedication
for Pinnacle Valley Road.
c
May 31, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
B. Existing Conditions
The area is generally developed as single family.
There are currently an existing building and a mobile
home on the site. The floodway cuts across the
southwestern portion of this property.
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Corner of existing building and parking in
floodway.
2. Proposed use is contrary to the Land Use Plan.
3. Applicant should address traffic impact.
4. Submit landscaping plan.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Street improvements on Pinnacle Valley Road.
2. Meet Floodplain Ordinance.
3. Circulation needs to be reviewed with
Engineering.
4. Responsible for street improvements. Liability
not to exceed 15 percent of cost of project,
defer improvement issue to building permit.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial based on traffic impact and departure from Land
Use Plan.
F. Subdivision Committee Review
Wastewater stated that the car wash needed to be above
floodplain level. Public Works felt that the driveway
needed to be widened.
May 31, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There are no objectors present. The petition was
represented by Mr. Randy Treece. Mr. Don McChesney, City
Engineer, presented comments on the street improvements
associated with Pinnacle Valley Road. He indicated that
the County Judge was involved in discussion with the
Highway Department and others relative to widening and
straightening the curves.
Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated that 20' of
right-of-way was being dedicated to Pinnacle Valley Road.
Mr. Jim Lawson offered a response to questions about the
Highway 10 Plan and floodplain. Gary Greeson discussed the
plan affects on this site. A general discussion followed
involving the plan content, interpretation of lines for
transition zones and site buildability.
The owner went on record as offering to dedicate the
floodway.
The Chairman asked the owner if a deferral would be in
order. Mr. Treece indicated his client needed some action
at this meeting. He further discussed the mix of uses
proposed and existing, stating some retail was involved in
the new car wash and existing antique sales. The
Commission explained that commercial use was not desirable,
especially within the transition zones.
After a brief_ discussion of deferral, a motion was made to
defer the request until May 31. The motion passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
May 31, 1988
Item No. C W Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
The Applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
X_