Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5550-A Staff AnalysisFILE NOS.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 NAME: ENDERLIN MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -5550-A) AND ENDERLIN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT (S-1006) LOCATION: On the south side of Cooper Orbit Road, 1/4 mile west of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: AMOS ENDERLIN #5 Thad Lane Little Rock, AR 72207 227-4667 AREA• 10.65 ACRES ZONING: R-2 to PCD (R-2 to remain at area outside of PCD site) PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 ENGINEER• MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11,225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED U5ES: Mini -Storage at PCD & existing non- conforming use to remain at area out- side PCD site VARIANCES REQUESTED: Three year deferral from the requirements to construct Master Street Plan improvements for the boundary street. STAFF UPDATE• The PCD request was modified by the applicant at the final Planning Commission hearing to include the entire 10.65 acres and to delete the variance requests. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Of the 10.65 acres owned, he proposes to develop 5 acres for the mini -storage use and retain the remaining 5.65 acres for his contracting business equipment and materials storage use. Proposed is a PCD for the development of 6 mini -storage buildings ranging in size from 50 feet wide by 390 feet long, to 40 feet wide by 140 feet long. An existing residential structure located on the site is shown to be retained. The applicant states that he proposes a phased development, beginning with the larger buildings along the west property line, and, when these buildings are completed and leased, to proceed with phase two to involve the smaller buildings along the east side of the PCD site. He states that he will dedicate the right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards, but that he wishes to defer the required improvements until the project enters phase two development, or for three years, FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 (Continued) whichever comes first. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to encompass the entire 10.65 acres, but proposes to final plat only the PCD site at the outset. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD for development as a mini -storage facility. Six buildings are proposed. Two are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 390 feet long with 15,600 square feet in each. One is proposed to be 50 feet wide by 390 feet long with 19,500 square feet in it. These three buildings encompass phase one of the development. Three buildings are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 140 feet long with 5,600 square feet in each. These encompass phase two. The total square footage of the six buildings is 67,500 square feet. It is proposed that the building closest to the west property line be set 110 feet east of that line forming a generous buffer from the residential property to the west. An existing residential structure is shown on the site plan as being retained. The applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way along Cooper Orbit Road to Master Street Plan requirements, but he has requested that the street improvements be deferred until he has competed and leased at least the first three of the six buildings, designated as phase one, or for three years, whichever comes first. The applicant has indicated in conversations with staff that he does not propose any other uses for the PCD than "mini -storage"; no office or residential use has been requested. The applicant requests deferral of the landscape buffer requirement along the PCD property line which abuts his own non -conforming industrial use property, and requests deferral of the buffer requirement along the west property line due to the dense timber and undergrowth along this line. The applicant requests a deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot for the first building until the completion of phase one development, allowing him to lease the first buildings prior to paving the lot. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to encompass the entire 10.65 acres. The area encompassing the PCD would be final platted at the outset; the remainder would remain in the preliminary plat status pending development at a later date. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The applicant's property is presently zoned R-2, but contains a legal non -conforming industrial use. (The use was existing when the area was annexed.) The applicant utilizes the property for his construction company offices, K FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 (Continued) equipment storage and repair, materials and salvage storage, and leased space for similar uses. There are stacks of used brick and block on that portion of the tract which is proposed to be utilized for the mini -storage facility. There is a residence which was, from conversations with the applicant, moved onto the site, but which remains vacant. The site is wooded, but with most of the underbrush being removed. The topography ranges from the low point at the northeast corner of the property at an elevation of less than 442 feet, to a high point mid -way along the east property line of 502 feet, to elevations ranging from 470 to 490 along the west property line. There are residences on the hill overlooking the site across the street and above the site on the land to the west. A mobile home park is on the land catercorner to the northeast, with commercial property being at the corner of Cooper Orbit Road and Kanis Road. There is a distinctive change in topography to the north, west, and south-west of the site where the land becomes more hilly. The applicant's site is more closely identified with the flatter land along Kanis Road. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office indicates that the Ordinance will require construction of Master Street Plan improvements along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage of the site, involving dedication of right-of-way to the minor arterial standard of a total width of 90 feet, construction of one-half of a minor arterial roadway of a total width of 60 feet, and a sidewalk. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable in the development of the site. Engineering advises that the state should be contacted for the NPDES permit. Water Works reports that a pro -rata front footage charge will apply for water service to the site. The 20 foot easement shown is a water line easement, not a non-specified "utility" easement. Wastewater Utility indicates that the site is outside the service boundary of the Utility. ARKLA Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that the full buffer width requirement around the perimeter of the PCD site is 21 feet. The minimum requirement is 14 3 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 (continued) _ feet. The proposed 10 foot eastern buffer should be increased to minimum of 14 feet. Since the adjacent properties are zoned residential, a 6 foot high opaque "good neighbor" wooden fence or dense vegetation is required by the Ordinance for screening purposes. Trees and shrubs are required within areas designated for buffers. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The required project narrative outlining the applicant's request and describing the character and rationale behind the request does not furnish all needed information. There is a house which is shown remaining on the PCD site, but there is no indication as to the use which it will be put, nor has the application addressed alternative or accessory uses of the PCD. If an office or on-site residence is requested, this must be noted. This information needs to be presented. A landscape plan is required. Any signage proposed for the development must be designated. A preliminary Bill of Assurance must be submitted. If the non -conforming use area is to remain in the preliminary plat status, a phasing plan for the plat needs to be shown. The configuration of the two lots within the site do not conform to the lot depth to width ratio. The requirement needs to be addressed, or the applicant needs to address the rationale for the decision, or the Commission needs to review and confirm the proposed layout. The applicant has requested a waiver, or at least a deferral, of the application of the landscape buffer requirements to the PCD site. He has noted that a buffer is required along the PCD property line abutting his own property because that property is zoned R-2. In reality, the property is a non -conforming industrial use, the site is large and wooded, and it "does not make sense" to require a fence along this internal property line. He has also noted that, along the west property line, the existing woods and undergrowth form a natural buffer, and that he is proposing to place the edge of the new parking lot development 91 feet from the western property line. He therefore requests a waiver from the buffer requirements along this west line. The applicant request a deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot of the phase one development until that phase is completed. He proposes to provide a gravel drive area for tenant use while he is constructing the second and third buildings, and proposes to lease the first building during the construction of these buildings. The Planning staff reports that the proposed use is in conflict with the land use plan for this area and would be a 4 FILE NO.: Z-5550-A & S-1006 Continued major change in the plan. The proposed PCD is in the Ellis Mountain District, and the plan recommends the area for single-family development. The Planning staff admits, however, that the plan may need to be updated and the delineation between single-family and other transitional uses may need to be refined. At present, the delineation line lies along a small creek immediately to the east of the applicant's property. It may well be more appropriately located along the crest of the hill to the west. The applicant's property may be better designated as being in a "transitional" area. In any case, if the Commission approves the PCD request, then an amendment to the Land Use Plan will be required. E. ANALYSIS• The site, the applicant maintains, is not a good candidate for single-family development because of its topography; the proximity to the mobile home park and to Kanis Road; the lack of sewer and natural gas and the high cost of water service; and the lack of residential development in the area. The applicant feels that if he is to make use of the property in another way than his non -conforming industrial use, a mini -storage use should be an appropriate alternative. The mini -storage does not need the utility services. Other mini -storage facilities owned by the applicant, he reports, have very little traffic and close at sundown, so the use should not be objectionable to residential neighbors. Comments received from abutting and area landowners have ranged from objections to a feeling that a mini -storage facility would be an improvement to the construction equipment and materials storage that presently occupies the entire site. The site involves 10.65 acres, with divisions of 5 acres or greater. The Subdivision Ordinance allows subdivisions of land of 5 acres or greater without Planning Commission review. There is a concern about the configuration of the two "lots" and their not meeting the depth to width ratio. Each of these "lots", however, is 5 acres or greater. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request with the adopted land use plan. If the the request, a land use study and plan required. 5 due to the conflict commission approves amendment would be FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 (continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Amos Enderlin, and the engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. Staff presented the item and the concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Enderlin explained his position that the site is unsuited for residential development, that he had attempted unsuccessfully to get the property zoned I-2 last year, and that, if he were going to be able to make use of his property, he needed some other option than residential uses. He related that he felt that a mini - storage facility is an acceptable use which is compatible with the residential uses to the north and west, and with the mobile home park to the northeast with the commercial uses along Ranis Road to the east. Mr. Enderlin objected to the characterization of the site as a "dump site" for his demolition activities, but said that he does have salvage materials properly stored on the site. The concern about the configuration of the lots and their not meeting the lot depth to width ratio was brought up by staff. Mr. Enderlin responded that, because of the topography of the site and trying to develop that portion that would allow for proper siting of the buildings, he needed to divide the property as presented in the plans. Following the review and conversation, the Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had provided additional information to indicate: 1) that the existing residential structure located on the property is to be used for a resident managers apartment and office; 2) a request for a deferral of interior driveway paving until the completion of Phase I; 3) a request for a deferral of the landscaping requirements along the west property line and along the internal property line which abuts the applicant's property until the area is annexed to the City; 4) a request to the Board of Directors for a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement for a lot depth to width ratio not to exceed 3:1 to allow the "sawtooth" shaped lot to be approved; and 5) a request to the Board of Directors for a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements for construction of one-half of Cooper Orbit Road and construction of a sidewalk along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage for a period not to exceed three (3) years, or until the completion of Phase I construction. Staff reported that approval of the PCD would require a Land Use Plan amendment; that the current use of the site is for residential development, although the mobile home use cater- corner across the street to the northeast a non-residential use, and that the limits of non-residential uses lie along Mr. Enderlin's property's eastern property line. The Planning 6 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006. (Continued - Staff had reported, staff related, that Mr. Enderlin's property and the property lying along Cooper Orbit Road for a distance further west could possibly be designated as a "transitional" zone use area. The appropriate use of the site was the important question needing discussion. Staff also reported that the owner of abutting property had contacted staff to report that he had not seen the required sign posted and had not gotten certified mail notification of the hearing. Staff reported that the sign had, indeed, been posted; that staff had witnessed the sign being in place thirty (30) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and on two (2) subsequent site visits. Staff confirmed that the certified list from the title company had not included the neighbor's name, consequently he had not been notified by mail, but that the applicant had met the requirements of the bylaws by getting a certified list from the title company and mailing the required letters by certified mail to those whose names appeared on the list. Evidence of the mailing has been furnished to staff. Chairperson Chachere called on the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Enderlin reported that he wished to construct a mini -storage facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Initially, he continued, he wanted to build the mini -storage units on about one-half of his property and leave the remaining one-half for his use for his demolition contracting business. He explained that the reason that the property was being divided into two "sawtooth" -shaped lots was due to the topography of the site; that the area designated for the mini -storage lends itself best to the development and forms a natural division between the proposed development and the area to remain in its current situation. Mr. Enderlin continued that he wished to start renting storage units as soon as he got the first building completed, but wished to delay paving the driveway until several buildings were built and Phase I was complete. Since there is, Mr. Enderlin explained, dense woods which lie along the west property line, and since the development anticipates leaving 91 feet from the west property line to the edge of the new development, it is felt that adding landscaping along this west property line is unnecessary; consequently, a deferral is requested. Since, Mr. Enderlin went on to say, the PCD site takes about one-half of his property, leaving an internal lot line which the Landscaping Regulations require to be landscaped, and Mr. Enderlin sees no point in providing this landscaping along his own abutting property, he asked for a deferral of this landscaping requirement. Since, Mr. Enderlin concluded, the Master Street Plan designates Cooper Orbit Road as a minor arterial roadway, adding pavement and curb and gutter to provide one-half of a 60 foot roadway for such a short section of Cooper Orbit Road, especially when the grades may change when the roadway is fully developed, seems unreasonable; consequently the deferral is requested. 7 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A_& S-1006 (Continued) Chairperson Chachere then called on those who oppose the proposed development to present their position. Jo Jackson identified herself as President of the Board of the Oasis Renewal Center. The Oasis, she continued, is located across Cooper Orbit Road and about 500 feet further to the west. The Center is a Christian retreat, and the Center's Board is in opposition to the proposed mini -storage facility; the Board wants to keep the area quiet, rustic, country -like, and a place of beauty for people to be able to enjoy; they want people to be able to come to the Center's restaurant and enjoy the peaceful setting. Ms. Jackson reported that she had a letter from the Board which outlined their objection to the proposed development. Karen Owings identified herself as representing residents of the Spring Valley neighborhood which lies along Cooper Orbit Road further to the west from Mr. Enderlin's property. She reported that 50 residents representing 36 homes had signed a petition in opposition to the proposed development. She explained that the entire area is residential, with the exception of Lake Nixon on the south and Enderlin's property on the north; that approving the development would only add another non -conforming use to the area. She complained that Mr. Enderlin was wanting to waive every one of the requirements for landscaping, buffers, and road improvements. Jane Bristow identified herself as living directly across the street from Mr. Enderlin's property. She said that, in the past, Mr. Enderlin had sought to re -zone the property for a concrete batch plant, but that she has heard that he this was not what he really wanted to do with the site; that he had sought re -zoning, saying that he was going to do one thing and really planned to do another. Therefore, she wondered what Mr. Enderlin was really trying to do this time. She went on to say that she would not mind mini -storage buildings on the site; what is there now is devaluing the property; but, since he has never done anything to improve the area, she did not feel that he could be relied on to do what he says he will do this time. John Burnett identified himself as the owner of over 200 acres which lie beyond Cooper Orbit Road between the Oasis Center and Spring Valley. He complained that Cooper Orbit Road is the only access to 1000 acres of prime development land, and a mini - storage facility does not make a good entrance for the future development of the area. Mr. Enderlin responded that his mini -storage facility would create little traffic, in fact, much less than the Oasis creates. He said that he is developing a mini -storage facility on Maumelle Blvd., and that he proposes to make the facility on the proposed site look good; that it will be an improvement to what is there now, and that eventually he plans to phase out the construction yard use. 8 FILE NO.: Z-5550 _A & S-1.006 (Continued.) Staff reported that Ms. Bristow's concerns about ulterior motives are unfounded, since the current development request is for a PCD. In the PCD, the uses, building layout, landscaping, buffers, etc. are set; that the development has to conform to the approved plan or it doesn't go in at all. Staff reiterated that there is 90 feet of separation between the west property line and the proposed development, and that the applicant had requested no waivers or deferrals of landscaping along the front of the property or the landscaping required in the interior of the development; that the only deferral was for the interior lot line along the applicant's own property and for adding buffer plantings to the woods along the west property line. Staff said that the land use was the most important issue which needed to be dealt with. Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification of the staff report that a transitional zone might be appropriate. Ron Newman of the Planing Staff reported that two years ago the staff had performed an extensive study of the area, and that a transition zone area might be appropriate along Cooper Orbit Road; that the Planning Staff needed to do further study on the immediate area and possibly update the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification about the sign which was to be posted on the site. Staff responded that the sign had been posted as required and was in place just days prior to the meeting; that dozens of area residents has seen the sign and had called in to ask about the proposal; and, that pieces of the sign were still nailed to the tree. Commissioner Walker asked if a landscape plan had been submitted. Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, responded that he had gotten a schematic landscaping plan. Commissioner Walker added that the Commission has, in the past, allowed mini -storage facilities in areas adjoining residential areas because such a use is incidental to the residential uses; that such uses are appropriate in an area such as the current proposal. Mr. Walker then asked the applicant if he is willing to do the extra things to make the project a high quality development? The deferrals and waivers are not, Mr. Walker concluded, in keeping with an attitude of making the development a high quality one. Mr. Enderlin responded that he planned to leave the trees at the perimeter and where he could in the interior of the development, and that he would plant trees to meet the buffer and landscaping requirements. He promised that the development would be a high quality one. 0 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Can�inued• Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin if he would amend his application to furnish the needed schematic landscaping plan and the site plan with the required information on it, and amend his application to delete the waivers and deferrals. Mr. Enderlin responded that he would improve the plans and would amend his application. Commissioner Walker reiterated that Mr. Enderlin needed to make his development look as good as any, and asked Mr. Enderlin if he is willing to take the steps necessary to do this. Mr. Enderlin replied that he was willing to do what was needed. Commissioner McDaniel counseled Mr. Enderlin that the proposed development needed to encompass the entire 10 acres; that he was not willing to approve the 5 acre site and leave the remaining 5 acres in the present condition; that he was not willing to let him have it both ways. He continued that he was willing to let Mr. Enderlin try something which would improve the site, but that it would have to be a complete project involving the entire tract. Mr. Enderlin explained that he was anticipating on a long-range basis to convert the entire site to the mini -storage use, but that he had wanted to do it in stages. Commissioner McDaniel told Mr. Enderlin to phase the development, but to include the whole tract. Commissioner Nicholson recommended to Mr. Enderlin that he seek a deferral to allow him to amend his application and site plan. Commissioner Oleson asked the Planning Staff if they would be able to do the study for the Land Use issue in 60 days. Ron Newman indicated that the 60 days would be sufficient time. Commissioner Walker encouraged Mr. Enderlin to propose a quality project. Commissioner Putnam related that some mini -storage facilities can look good and be an asset the area. He cited the facility on Green Mountain Drive. Ms. Bristow interjected that she and her husband want all requirements imposed so that the facility will look good. Commissioner Chachere entertained a motion to allow Mr. Enderlin to request a 60 -day deferral until the May 3, 1994 hearing in which Mr. Enderlin is to modify his proposal. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, one no, one absent, no abstentions, and one open position. 10 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Continued, SUBDIVISION COMM TT- E COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Amos Enderlin, and his engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. Staff outlined the request and presented the revised plan. Mr. McGetrick reported that, in response to the Commission's suggestion at the previous meeting, the application was being amended to provide: 1) for inclusion of the entire site in the PCD as a phased development; and, 2) for an agreement to construct the required Master Street Plan improvements along Cooper Orbit Road. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Enderlin and Mr. McGetrick the revised plans and the items in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he had no questions about any of the comments, and would make the necessary corrections in the plans. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that the original PCD request had been amended to include: the entire site in lieu of being limited to the front one-half of the site; construction of the Cooper Orbit Road improvements as required by the Master Street Plan; and installation of the landscaping and buffering as required by the Ordinance. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, outlined the request and the changes since the last Commission meeting. He reported that the application now complies with all ordinance requirements regarding landscaping and the Master Street Plan; that the applicant had withdrawn all requests for waivers or variances. He related that the PCD now included a 2 -lot plat, with development scheduled over 3 phases; the first phase taking place on Lot 1. He indicated that a solid board fence would be constructed along the front of the property, as well as along the side property lines. On the west, there was to be a 90 foot buffer retained, except for the single residence which was previously placed on the property. On the east, there are large open space buffers containing the detention areas. Commissioner Ball inquired of staff if, in light of the changes in the plan, staff had changed its recommendation. Staff related that the recommendation had not changed, since the recommendation for denial was based on the proposed use not complying with the Land Use Plan. 11 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 (Continued) Commissioner Oleson recalled that, at the previous hearing, she had asked that staff review the Land Use Plan in the area, to see if a change in the Plan were justified. Ron Newman, with the planning staff, responded that staff had taken a look at the area, and had ascertained that, since the plan for the area had been developed and adopted in 1991, there had been virtually no changes which would suggest changes in the Plan. He said that neighborhood commercial is the most intense land use in the area, and that type use is at intersections. The only non-residential uses along Cooper Orbit Road, he continued, are the Oasis Renewal Center and Lake Nixon at the southern end of the road. If the transition zone is extended westward along Cooper Orbit Road, Mr. Newman explained, it would inevitably lead to additional non-residential uses in the area. Mr. Jim Albert, who indicated that he lived directly across the street from the proposed mini -storage facility, said that, if Mr. Enderlin was going to do away with the present construction yard use, he would support the change. Staff explained that the proposal was for a phased development, that the construction yard use would be eliminated over a period of time. In light of this explanation, Mr. Albert responded that Mr. Enderlin has made the area a junk yard and has made no effort to keep it clean; therefore, not believing that the construction yard use would ever be eliminated, he said that he was against the zoning change. Commissioner Nicholson addressed Mr. Albert and said that it had been the Commission that had sent Mr. Enderlin "back to the drawing board" to re -design the site to include the entire tract in the PCD so that the construction yard use would be eliminated. Also, as a result of the Commission's reaction to the original submission, Mr. Enderlin has now withdrawn his request for waivers. Commissioner Willis confirmed with staff that the proposed development is outside the City Limits of Little Rock. Ms. Jane Bristow addressed the Commission. She related that Mr. Enderlin's property is surrounded by residential property, and concluded that Mr. Enderlin's property should stay residential. She explained that she had lived on abutting property between 1981 and 1989, but, since that time, she had lived in a temporary home while she tried to sell the property on Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. Enderlin's construction yard affects the value of her property; that people don't like to look at it, and she has not been able to sell her property. As a result, she is 12 FILE NO.: Z -.5550-A & S-1006 Continued probably going to have to move back to the property. She complained that when she had tried to subdivide her property and sell off portions of her tract, she had been stopped; yet, Mr. Enderlin is allowed to continue to bring junk in and operate his construction yard. Ms. Bristow also suggested that there are already too many mini -storage units in the area, and that there is no need for additional units. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded to Ms. Bristow's comment about there being too many mini -storage units, saying that such factors are not legitimate land use considerations, but are business decisions to be based on market factors; that the Commission cannot legitimately make land use decisions on whether or not the Commissions feels that the business decision is a wise one or not. If too many businesses affect traffic or land planning issues, then the Commission can address the matter from that perspective. Ms. Jo Jackson of the Oasis Renewal Center indicted that she had little to add from the last Commission hearing on the issue. He reiterated that the Oasis Renewal Center has tried to maintain a quiet, retreat setting for reflection, and that any commercial rezoning would detract from the aura which has been created. Ms. Mary Waldo introduced herself as the assistant executive director of the Oasis Renewal Center. She related that the Center is opposed to any change in the zoning which would change the character of the area. She said that the Oasis Renewal Center was purposefully established in a residential area, and had relied on the Land Use Plan's designation of the area as residential when the facility was planned. Commissioner Nicholson explained to the objectors that Mr. Enderlin's construction yard use is a legal non -conforming use of the property which was in existence prior to the City's jurisdiction being extended to the area. Commissioner Putnam, responding to those who object to the proposed development, explained that the objectors have a way of getting rid of what they don't like in supporting the change in the zoning; that they have a choice between a mini -storage on the property or the property possibly staying like it is "until hell freezes over" since it is a non -conforming use. The brick yard, or materials yard, can remain as a non -conforming use; however, if the PCD is approved, Mr. Enderlin will eventually have to cease that operation and use of the property. The mini -storage use, it would seem, is the lesser of two evils, and is a way to get the objectionable use off the property. He pointed out that, on Green Mountain Drive, there are a number of mini -storage facilities, one being directly across from Fox Run, and one does not even see them. Commissioner Willis inquired if the City has any jurisdiction in the area. 13 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Continued - Deputy City Attorney Giles responded that the City has only zoning jurisdiction in the extraterritorial area. Commissioner Woods confirmed with Mr. Giles that the City cannot enforce clean-up ordinances on Mr. Enderlin's property; but can only enforce the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Putnam observed that if Mr. Enderlin could be convinced to complete the entire project involving both the front and back lots, then the whole site would be cleaned up and the non -conforming situation would be ended. Mr. Putnam then asked staff if there was a stated time -frame for completing all phases. Staff responded that there was no time -frame proposed. Commissioner Putnam observed that the non -conforming use could continue forever. Commissioner McDaniel interjected that he could support the proposal if there were a definite time limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use; if there was a tradeout which would benefit the neighbors. Commissioner Willis, addressing the applicant, asked if Mr. Enderlin would want to amend his application to include a time -limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use. Commissioner McDaniel explained that the Commissioners were not seeking to have Mr. Enderlin commit to building the remaining phases, but only to cleaning up the site and ending the construction yard activity. Chairperson Chachere clarified the Commissioner's position, and addressed Mr. Enderlin, saying that the approval of the mini -storage PCD would be contingent on Mr. Enderlin agreeing to cease the construction yard activity within a certain time period. Commissioner Selz added that the site also must be cleaned up, not just the activity stopped. Mr. Enderlin, reacting to the Commissioners' comments, stated that he would agree to stop the activity and clean up the site within one year of the beginning of the construction of the first phase of the mini -storage PCD. Chairperson Chachere stated that the one-year time period needed to begin with the approval by the City. Deputy City Attorney Giles added that the one-year time period should be in with the date of the approval by the Board of Directors of the PCD ordinance. 14 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Continued A motion was then made to approve the PCD request, with the condition that the non -conforming construction yard activity cease and the site be cleaned up of construction materials within one year from the date of approval of the PCD ordinance by the Board of Directors. The motion failed to receive the required number of votes for a positive recommendation with the vote of 5 ayes, 5 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. The item was, therefore, deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) Staff presented the item and recalled that the item was deferred to the May 17th. agenda from the May 3rd. meeting because it failed to receive the required six votes for approval or denial. Mr. Enderlin made his appeal for approval and indicated that he would meet Master Street Plan requirements and landscaping and buffer requirements, and, that he would build a nice, clean facility that would be an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Karen Owings spoke, indicating that she was opposed to the development. She said that the area is predominantly residential, and observed that, in a few years, Mr. Enderlin could sell his property for residential development. She stated that a PCD would not fit into the area. She said that she lives further west in the Spring Valley area, and that Cooper Orbit Road is the only entrance to their area, and that the road into the area needed to be lined with residences, not commercial development. Mr. Elmer Jenkins spoke in objection to the development. Commissioner Oleson observed that the Commission has not discussed how the facility will look, and stated that the looks of the construction is an important element of the PCD to consider. Commissioner Woods said that he had supported the proposal at the previous Commission hearing because he had felt that it would of benefit to the neighborhood in that the clutter would be eliminated. He stated that the area is a residential area, though, and that a sea of overhead doors does not add to the beauty of the area. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Enderlin how long he had owned the land, to which Mr. Enderlin answered that he had owned the land since 1972. Mr. Putnam then asked Mr. Enderlin if there had been any homes in the area when he had purchased the land, to which Mr. Enderlin answered that there had not been any. Mr. Putnam then observed that Mr. Enderlin had preceded the homes in the area, and that the area had built up around Mr. Enderlin's use. Mr. Putnam observed that, as a non -conforming use, Mr. Enderlin 15 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 (Continuedi could continue to use the property for the construction yard for the next twenty years or more, without restriction. On the other hand, if the mini -storage use were allowed to be developed, the area would be cleaned up, landscaped, and fenced. Mr. Ned Wright addressed the Commission, and said that he was speaking on behalf of the Oasis Renewal Center. He said that the Center is in close proximity to Mr. Enderlin's property, and that Mr. Enderlin's property is a detriment to the beauty of the area. He felt that Mr. Enderlin is trying to use as leverage to gain approval for the change in zoning the nuisance which he, himself, has created. He stated that, contrarily, there is another way for the neighborhood to deal with the nuisance: to get a court injunction and have the area declared a public nuisance; or, as a self-help measure, and with court protection, to get a backhoe and bulldozer, dig a hole, push the junk into the hole, and seal it up. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Wright for the date the Oasis opened, to which Mr. Wright responded that it was in 1989. Mr. Putnam countered that Mr. Enderlin had been at his location for 22 years; the Oasis for 5. Ms. Pat Albert spoke in opposition to the PCD request, saying that she had been a resident for 14 years. She said that, originally, the construction yard had been hidden at the back of the property, but that, over the years, it had crept towards the front of the tract. Ms. Jane Bristow contended that before Mr. Enderlin had started junk. the residences were in the area using his land for storage of Mr. Skip Cook related that the neighbors have no confidence that Mr. Enderlin will do what is required by the PCD plan, and asked what assurance could be given that, indeed, the street would be constructed and the site improvements would be made. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded that the PCD ordinance is enforceable thorough the courts; that Mr. Enderlin would have to build the facility in conformance with the approved PCD plans; and, that the street improvements would have to be in place prior to a final plat being approved. Mr. Enderlin again related that he planned to build a nice, clean facility, just like a lot of other such facilities around Little Rock which are also in close proximity to residential areas. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin to explain how he planned to phase the development, and to explain when the junk would be cleared from the site. Commissioner Oleson returned to the question posed earlier regarding how the facility would look. 16 FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 (Continued; Staff reported that Mr. Enderlin had proposed to face the front buildings with brick, but that the buildings themselves were proposed to be a metal building system. Commissioner Oleson observed that the plans submitted by Mr. Enderlin are minimal, and contrasted them with the plans submitted for other PUD developments which have a great deal of detailed information. She complained that there was not the needed information regarding the way the project would look, about the lighting, the hours of operation, etc. Other developers in their proposals have made significant accommodations to the neighbors to gain approval; Mr. Enderlin, she said, has not. Commissioner Walker stated that his primary concern is for the clean-up of the site; that he wanted to be certain that the clean-up is part of the first phase of the development; and, that the non -conforming use not be allowed to continue concurrently with the development of the mini -storage facility; that construction on the subsequent phases of development can progress as the market dictates, but that prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase being approved, the site be cleaned UP. Chairperson Chachere recounted that the motion from the previous meeting had included the provision that within one year from the date of the approval by the Board of Directors of the PCD ordinance, the non -conforming use would cease and the site was to be cleaned up. A motion was then made to approve the PCD, contingent upon the non -conforming use of the site being discontinued within one year of the approval of the PCD by the Board of Directors, and that, within that time period, the site be cleaned up and cleared of the construction materials and other stored materials. The motion failed with the vote to approve of 4 ayes, 6 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 17