Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5333 Staff AnalysisJune 19, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5333 NAME: Paint and body shop - Short Form "PCD" LOCATION: SE Corner of Commerce and 21st Streets DEVELOPER: .ENGINEER: Amer Abdin McGetrick Engineering 3009 Loma Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72221 375-3624 AREA: 0.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• "C-3" PROPOSED USES: "PCD" auto related services PLANNING DISTRICT: Central City CENSUS TRACT• 4 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. None - STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The development proposal is a one user, one building, one owner, permanent structure to be utilized as an auto paint and body shop. The building area is approximately 3000 square feet. The site will contain an entrance on 21st Street and a gravel driveway from Commerce Street. The Developer would like to install a fence with 2 gates on the back for security purposes. All services will be done inside the existing structure. A. PROPOSAL RE VEST: The Developer proposes to use 3000 square feet of the existing building, zoned "C-311, for an auto paint and body shop. 1 June 19, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Continued B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by one large structure. The building is in a state of disrepair with parts of cars laying around the building. The adjacent streets are developed to City standards. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The proposed access from Commerce appears to cross adjacent property not included in this application. Ownership of the access strip by the applicant, or permanent easement should be documented. D. ISSUES/LEGAL1TECHNICALIDESIGN: The several issues to be introduced here are as follows: 1. The principal concern of the Staff is the adopted plan use for this neighborhood which provides for maintaining 11C-3" uses along East 21st Street. 2. The site plan is only partially dimensioned thereby leaving too many -elements to question. 3. The access to the parking lot from the rear is understood to be through adjacent properties not included in this "PCD". 4. The Bill of Assurance should be filed. 5. The building structure has to pass the Fire Department inspection. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff's view of this proposal is that it is entirely inappropriate given the land use plan for this area. The Staff feels that approval of the "PCD" would only add to existing problems along East 21st Street. We feel there is sufficient 11C-4" zoning East of this area that would accommodate this use. Such areas are located at the intersection of 21st and Interstate I-30 as well as the area of Roosevelt Road and Interstate I-30. There are several additional items concerning the site plan that require additional work on the part of the Developer. The plan requires complete dimensioning. 2 June 19, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Continued The landscaping should be indicated on the drawing. There is also an access problem on this property which has to be resolved before "PCD" can be approved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends denial of this application. We feel that the adopted plan for the area should be maintained for 11C-3" uses. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COY24ENTS: (May 24, 1990) The applicant was present. A brief general discussion was held dealing with the land use question. Mr. Flower responded to several questions from the Committee concerning whether or not it could be distinguished as a continuation of nonconforming auto repair business. Commissioner Perkins advised the applicant to search the records for a privilege license from the previous business to provide proof of nonconforming use. He stated that this would allow the applicant to continue nonconforming use under the existing auto repair business. The applicant agreed to search the records and bring to the Planning Commission meeting. The matter was forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 5, 1990) Mr. Flower, the applicant, was not present and was not represented. The Planning Staff reported that it had not received contact with Mr. Flower since the Subdivision Committee meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it was appropriate to defer this item for 2 weeks. The motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. 3 June 19, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. B Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 19, 1990) Applicant was not present. The Planning Staff recommended withdrawal. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda for withdrawal without prejudice. The motion was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. 4