HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5224-J Staff AnalysisJanuary 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -5224-J
NAME: Moonlight Fireworks — Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 7807 Highway 300
OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Terry and Elizabeth Saugey/Stan Wilhite
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a
fireworks stand as a temporary seasonal use on this
1.28 -acre tract. The property was rezoned from C-1
to PCD in early 2003. The applicant has indicated a
desire to revoke the PCD; to restore the previous C-1
zoning.
SITE LOCATION:
The property is located outside of the city limits but within the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction. The site is located at the northwest corner of
Highway 300 and Pinnacle Road.
2, COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located at a small, commercial node at the intersection of
Hwy. 300 and Pinnacle Road. The area is rural in nature and is
characterized primarily by single family homes on large tracts. Existing,
neighborhood oriented commercial uses are located on the subject
property and across Hwy. 300 to the east. The property to the north was
recently approved for development by a church. Hwy. 300 is the principal
entryway to Pinnacle Mountain State Park. Due to the presence of nearby
single family residences, the limited neighborhood type of commercial
uses at the intersection and the scenic nature of the highway leading to
the park, staff does not feel the proposed use is compatible with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Pinnacle Neighborhood
Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site has three existing driveways; two off of Hwy. 300 and one off of
Pinnacle Road. The driveways access a paved parking lot. The
proposed fireworks tent is to be located off of the edge of the parking lot.
Uses in the existing buildings on the site have included antique sales and
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: C (Cont_) FILE NO.: Z -5224-J
beauty salon. The existing parking area appears to be adequate to
support the existing uses and the proposed temporary sales use.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments on temporary fireworks sales.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary. No Comments.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No objection. Water service is not available from Central
Arkansas Water at this location.
Fire Department: Little Rock Fire Department does not approve of the
sale of fireworks.
County Planning: Approved as submitted.
CATA: The site is outside of the CATA service area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 30, 2005)
Mark Stodola was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described
the proposed conditional use permit. Staff noted that some additional
information (hours of operation, signage plan and number of employees) needed
to be provided by the applicant. Staff also noted that the applicant needed to file
a request to revoke the existing PCD zoning for the property, restoring the
previous C-1 zoning.
Staff noted that there were no other outstanding issues associated with the
requested conditional use permit. Mr. Stodola noted that the requested
information would be provided to staff.
PA,
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: C Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5224-J
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The 1.2f acre tract located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 300 and Pinnacle
Road is currently occupied by several frame buildings and a parking lot. The
buildings have historically contained a variety of uses; including an antique store
and beauty salon. On March 4, 2003, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No. 18,831 which rezoned the site from C-1 to PCD. Under the PCD the
property owner proposed to redevelop the site with a 14,800 square foot building
and 50 parking spaces. C-1 uses and an auction house were the approved
uses. The new development has not occurred.
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for
seasonal placement of a fireworks tent on the site. The request is being made
under the property's previous C-1 zoning. If the C.U.P. is approved, the property
owner will petition to have the PCD revoked and the previous C-1 zoning
reinstated. The tent is proposed to be located on the southern side of the
property, off of the parking lot. The proposed days and hours of operation are
from June 20 —July 10 each year, from 8:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. No permanent
signage is proposed. The applicant proposes to place a banner on the tent's
fagade. The business will generally employ 6 persons. There is no bill of
assurance for this unplatted, acreage tract.
Outside of the city limits, within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction, fireworks
sales are permitted as a seasonal and temporary sales activity on C-3 and C-4
zoned properties which permit retail sales not listed (enclosed). That use
requires a C.U.P. in the C-1 district.
Staff is not supportive of approving the C.U.P. to allow fireworks sales. The Little
Rock Fire Department does not approve of the sale of fire works. City Code
prohibits the possession, sale, manufacture or use of fireworks in the City except
in accordance with the fire prevention code. Staff does not believe it is
appropriate to approve under a special action (conditional use permit) a use that
could have a negative impact on the city since it is probable that fireworks sold at
this location could be brought into the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
3
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: C Cont. FILE NO.: Z-522
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant failed to respond to issues raised at the June 30, 2005 Subdivision
Committee meeting. Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the
September 1, 2005 Commission Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 21, 2005)
The applicants were not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
presented the item and recommended that the item be deferred to the
September 1, 2005 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was
placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
STAFF REPORT:
On August 18, 2005, the applicant contacted staff and requested that the item be
deferred to the October 13, 2005 Commission meeting. The applicant has
submitted responses to the issues raised at the June 30, 2005 Subdivision
Committee meeting. Staff supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 1, 2005)
The applicants were not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
informed the Commission of the applicant's deferral request. There was no
further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
for deferral to October 13, 2005. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 13, 2005)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be
deferred to the December 1, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred. The vote was
10 ayes and 1 nay.
With a vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay the Commission voted to waive their bylaws
and accept the request for a third deferral. Commissioner Floyd noted that he
was opposed to an additional deferral.
4
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
LE NO.: Z-5224
(DECEMBER 1, 2005)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had not correctly followed the required notice
procedure; that the applicant had not used an abstract company to obtain the list
of property owners.
The applicant stated they wished to defer the item in order to do the notices
correctly.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the applicant proposed to operate around New
Years. The applicant responded that they only operate around the 4t" of July
and would not operate around New Years.
Chairman Rahman stated this was the fourth deferral. He stated the
Commission would either hear the item or withdraw it at the next meeting.
In response to a question from Commission Taylor, the applicant again stated
they would not operate around New Years.
A motion was made to defer the item to the January 19, 2006 meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 19, 2006)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that, on January 10, 2006, the applicant had requested that the
item be withdrawn. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
l