HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5217-A Staff AnalysisAugust 11, 1992
1TEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -5217-A
NAME: Drs. Cloud, Cloud, Cloud Property - Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 1925 Napa Valley
DEVELOPER•
DRS. CLOUD, CLOUD, CLOUD
12631 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
221-1222
AREA• 39,140 sq. ft.
ZONING• 0-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES_REOUESTED:
1. Reduced Side Yard
2. Opaque Screening
ARCHITECT•
KENT TAYLOR
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
372-2900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: N/A
PROPOSED USES: Expansion of Building
A. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Minor arterial right-of-way and improvements are required
for Napa Valley. Placement of channelization island on the
driveway to allow right turn in and right turn out only.
B. UTILITY COMMENTS:
Little Rock Waste Water Utility
Sewer service not available. Sewer shown on drawings as a
private sewer owned by the library and is not a part of the
utility's system. The Cloud property cannot connect to a
private sewer main. The sewer main extension is required
with easements.
Arkansas Power and Light Com an
Several additional easements will have to be provided on
the site.
Southwestern Bell Telephone
Several easements will have to be provided on the site.
1
August 11, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: Z -5217-A
C. ANALYSIS•
This property was rezoned from R-2 Single Family to 0-2 Office
and Institutional on September 19, 1989.
The applicant proposes to build a dental clinic of approxi-
mately 5,200 square feet, including and incorporating the
existing 2,340 square foot two story residence. The residence
will be redesigned to match the design of the addition. The
design concept is of a small scale, residential -appearing
facility set into a beautiful landscape, with the goal of
blending into the neighborhood and providing a peaceful,
relaxing setting for patients.
The applicants are requesting relief from three provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 36-280 requires setbacks of 25 feet on all sides of
the property. The existing house is approximately 6 1/2 feet
south of the north property land. It is functionally
impractical to offset the proposed addition 18 1/2 feet from
the existing house to provide a 25 foot setback. Further, the
25 foot setback will require us to remove many more trees and
regrade more of the sloping lot. We request the setback
requirement in the north property line to be reduced to align
with the existing house.
Section 36-523 requires opaque screening as a part of a buffer
along vehicular use and other areas. The south edge of the
property, between the access drive and the adjoining property,
is heavily wooded. The remainder of the "front" yard will
also remain wooded. The opaque screening for the westernmost
100 feet of the south property line will be eliminated. This
waiver can only be granted by the Board of Adjustment.
The applicants are also requesting a site plan review to amend
Section 2 of Ordinance No. 15,746 approved by the City Board
of Directors which states:
"That the office development on the described
tract of land shall be restricted to one
building and have a height limit of one story
with a maximum of twenty (20) feet."
The request is that the ordinance be amended to allow a height
limit of two stories with a maximum of thirty (30) feet. This
will allow them to retain and improve the existing two-story
residence as the core of the proposed clinic. Without this
relief the applicant states that they will be forced to
6
August 11, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: 7-A
demolish the existing residence in order to comply with
the ordinance, as interpreted by Jerry Gardner (his letter
of April 17, 1992) and by Jim Lawson (his letter of
June 4, 1992).
The Planning Commission has no authority to officially act on
this request. It can offer the Board a recommendation of
approval or denial.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff's review indicated no problem with the zoning site plan
if all waivers are approved through proper channels. The
comments from Engineering and the utilities should be
resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
Kent Taylor represented the applicant.
what the issues of concern. Mr. Taylor
issues discussed back to his client. No
place.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 23, 1992)
Staff gave an overview of
stated he would take the
other discussion took
(AUGUST 11, 1992)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance.
Kent Taylor, the architect for the project, gave a detailed
overview. The applicant intends to add an addition to the existing
structure for a dentist office. The parking will be placed in a
clear area which was formerly a garden while retaining as many of
the trees as possible. The widening of Napa Valley per the City's
requirement and also widening the existing drive to the parking
lot. A question was asked as to when the property was rezoned in
1989, a height restriction was placed on the structure. The
restriction indicated that only a single story structure could be
constructed no more than 20 feet, primarily due to the new west
side library.
Mr. Taylor stated that his clients are requesting a waiver from
this requirement to allow for a structure up to 30 feet tall.
Other items being requested are as follows:
A. Setback lines on the north side, 25 feet is required and
only six feet can be provided.
B. Elimination of the easement on the north side.
C. Requirement for the applicant to provide sewer to the
property.
3
August 11, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: 2-5217-A
His client did not understand this portion because he went along
with the library in order for them to gain sewer. A commissioner
then asked if the "no left turn" going south was still restricted?
Dr. William Cloud then addressed the Commission and distributed
material to the Commission. Dr. Cloud stated that he personally
has lived in the house and most of his clients used the turn going
south on Napa Valley. To his knowledge, no problems have ever
occurred.
Dr. Cloud stated he had a lot of respect for the staff, but the
material handed out indicate approximately 14 curb cuts on Napa
Valley from the east and west. As far as site distance from the
crest of the two hills, some are much closer than what they are
proposing here . In view of the fact that no other site on Napa
Valley has been restricted, he should be allowed to turn left going
south on Napa Valley. He stated sewer is available on the site as
well as an AP&L easement and Southwestern Bell.
Mr. Ernie Peters addressed the Commission representing the Clouds'
interest. Mr. Peters stated that Dr. Cloud was correct. There are
other curb cuts on Napa Valley. There is only one exception where
left turns are restricted near Asbury United Methodist Church. The
situation here where the site distance is limited is not similar to
locations along Napa Valley Drive. Specifically, the intersection
at St. Charles and Napa Valley, Ridgehaven and Napa Valley, and
Eagle Point and Napa Valley where the three street intersections
are limited. The city recently has raised the speed limit on Napa
Valley from 30 mph to 35 mph without imposing any site
restrictions. It appears that because of the low traffic volume,
expected by this business, approximately 20 to 30 cars maximum per
day, there will not be a large volume. This will not create a
circumstance in which the left turn south should be restricted.
Additionally, the office hours are confined to the midpart of the
day and the movements will not be occurring during the time period
when the peak of traffic is on the street. Therefore, the
conflicts are minimal and site distance tests have been performed
from the north end. In his opinion, this property owner should not
be singled out.
A distance of 300 feet is needed for a 30 mph speed limit, and a
distance of 350 feet is needed for a 35 mph speed limit.
Therefore, a site distance deficiency of 45 feet is produced. The
library has two drives, but its site distance is not as bad as the
Clouds' property.
A question was asked of the City Attorney if the Planning
Commission had the right to address a traffic issue when it is not
in the subdivision ordinance nor zoning ordinance. Stephen Giles
stated that the Planning Commission is an administrative body and
4
August 11, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: Z -5217-A
is authorized to interpret the type of ordinance restricted within
their area. He explained that the Planning Commission cannot grant
a variance from the subdivision or traffic ordinance. In order for
a variance to be granted, it would take an ordinance granted by a
legislative body (i.e. the Board of Directors).
A commissioner then wanted to know under what terms can a
restriction be placed on a traffic issue. Bill Henry of Traffic
Engineering stated most of the time the issue becomes a safety
concern. Occasionally, the property owner will request
restrictions of some type.
A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding the proper
board to act on the traffic issue. It was determined that the
Board of Directors would be the proper body. Another area of
discussion was the waiver for(the height restriction. Dr. Cloud
stated due to the new restrictions by OSHA, a lot of changes will
have to occur.
No new story will be added. Presently, the structure is a two
story with a garage to be added. The present garage will be used
for additional office space. The height restriction is to be
changed to 30 feet from 20 feet. No more than six trees will be
removed.
A motion was made to approve the zoning site plan review per the
Engineering requirement being met. Traffic Engineering has agreed
to permit a left hand turn into the site coming from the north,
going south. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
5