Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5702 Staff AnalysisAugust 24, 1993 ITEM NO, ; F FILE NO.: Z-5702 NAME: LOCATIO QWNERIAPPL T CANT: PROPOSAL: t ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDAR_D�: 1. Site Location Pankey New Life Support Center - Conditional Use Permit 13421 Cantrell Road Janie Bledsoe/Barbara Douglas,* representing the Pankey Community Improvement Association, Applicant A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the use of the existing structure on this R-2 zoned property as a community service center. The Pankey New Life Support Center is a community based, nonprofit, health and social services program operating under the auspices of the Little Rock Fighting Back Program. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the $125.00 filing fee. The site is a single family zoned residential lot, located on the south side of Cantrell Road (State Highway No. 10), between Russ Street and Rightsell Street, in the Pankey community. 2, m i ili with i rh The zoning in the immediate vicinity is R-2 with the surrounding uses being almost exclusively single family residential. A vacant, nonresidential structure sits adjacent, to the west. There are a few nonconforming, nonresidential uses such as a church and an auto repair garage located within two to three blocks of this site. Compatibility with the neighborhood is gained by the support and encouragement of neighbors for this proposed use. 3. gn-Site Drives and Parking An area has been paved for on-site parking for two to three care in the front of structure. A parking area has been created in the rear of the property, taking access off of an alley from Russ Street. August 24, 1993 SUBDIVISTO ITEM F n in FILE 4. SQr!�2eninQ ,..end Buffers None required S. Qmmnts No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis While staff questions the appropriateness of placing this Proposed "community center" at this location, it also recognizes that there is a need for the proposed use in the community and it appears that there is widespread neighborhood support for the center. It is also con&eivable that this is not a permanent use of this property. Long range plans, according to center officials, are to build a community center on the site of the former Pulaski County Exceptional School, approximately three blocks west on Cantrell Road. If this occurs, the Pankey New Life Support Center would relocate to the new community center. 8. gaff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application, subject to compliance with the signage standards established by the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance. Staff would also recommend that the conditional use permit be granted for this specific use only. If and when this use vacates the site, the property should revert back to single family residential. Staff recommends approval of the request to waive the filing fee. BDIVI I r ITTEE MMF T: (JUNE 24, 1993) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and recommended to the Committee that the Highway 10 Overlay standards for signage be followed and that the conditional use permit be limited to this specific use. The Subdivision Committee agreed with these recommendations and forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. 2 August 24, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM F (Conti=ed) g _ PLANNING COMMISSI N ACTION: (JULY 13, 1993) The applicant, Barbara Douglas, was present. There was one objector present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that late news had been received that there may be a potential property line dispute concerning this property and the property adjacent to the west. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, informed the Commission that he had a conversation with the attorney representing the adjacent property owner, concerning the property line dispute. Mr. Giles informed the Commission that it would prudent to defer this item to a later date to allow time for this property line dispute to be resolved. John T. Root, Jr., attorney for the adjacent property owner, then addressed the Commission. He informed the Commission that there is pending legal action regarding the property line dispute. He agreed with Mr. Giles' recommendation to defer this item. Barbara Douglas then addressed the Commission. She stated that she was unaware of any legal problems regarding the property line, but that she also agreed with the recommendation to defer the item to a later date. A motion was then made to place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Barbara Douglas asked the Commission about any potential code enforcement action against the New Life Support Center since it was already open and operating. Chairman Walker informed Ms. Douglas that any enforcement action would be put in abeyance since there was an application pending before the Planning Commission. SUBDIVISION Co— ITTEE COMIMENT: (AUGUST 5, 1993) The applicant, Barbara Douglas, was present. Staff presented the item and again recommended to the Committee that the Highway 10 Overlay standards for signage be followed, and that the conditional use permit be limited to this specific use. The Committee was informed that staff has not received the results of the reported litigation regarding the property line. 3 Ai;gust 24, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5702 Ms. Douglas stated that Arkla Gas Company had agreed to finish paving the parking lot and alley shortly, and that she would adhere to the Highway 10 sign regulations, if the conditional use permit is approved. Ms. Douglas stated that she was unaware of further legal action on the property line. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 24, 1993) The applicant, Barbara Douglas, was present. There was one objector present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that there had apparently been no resolution of the dispute regarding the property line. Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, informed the Commission that he had spoken with the attorney representing the adjacent property owner. Mr. Giles stated that the dispute had not been resolved. Barbara Douglas then addressed the Commission. She stated that the property line issue was an ongoing dispute, some 20 years or better, and requested that the Commission act on her application. Chairman Walker stated that the Commission's reticence to hear the item is not based on the merits of the application, but is . based on the fact that the adjacent, involved property owner has not agreed to the proposal. Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, stated that the property line dispute is many years old and may not ever be resolved. He further stated that the matter could be forwarded to the Board of Directors who could act on the item without the adjacent property owner's approval. Mr. Giles interjected that the Planning Commission has final authority on conditional use permit applications, pending an appeal. Commissioner Chachere asked if the Planning Commission could act on this matter without the adjacent property owner's approval. Mr. Giles replied that the Commission could. 4 August 24, 1993 OVBDIVISIC]1�I ITEM NO.: F (Continmed) _ FILE NO.; Z-5702 John T. Root, Jr., attorney for the adjacent property owner, then addressed the Commission. He stated that his client does not object to the proposed use, but only to the encroachment on her property. Commissioner Chachere asked if the parties have met in an effort to resolve the dispute. Mr. Root replied that the only conversations have been by telephone, and that there appears to be an impasse. Commissioner Chachere stated that unless there is hope of resolution of the dispute, any further deferral of this item would be a waste of time. Mr. Root asked that the Commission give him time to try to resolve the issue. Mr. Giles suggested that Mr. Root draft a written agreement, amicable to both parties, and then come back to the Commission. Ms. Douglas then stated that Mr. Root's client was attempting to force the Pankey community to cease opposition to any attempt to rezone the adjacent property in return for his client's lifting her opposition to the Pankey New Life Support Center conditional use permit. Chairman Walker then asked Ms. Douglas if she wanted a vote or wished to request a deferral. Ms. Douglas responded that she wanted a vote. Commissioner Nicholson asked Mr. Giles what implications there would be in approving this conditional use permit application over the neighboring property owner's objection. Mr. Giles stated that he saw no legal problem with the Commission approving the proposed use. The neighbor does not object to the proposed use, but to the encroachment on her property. Commissioner Woods then asked Mr. Root if it was all right with him that the Commission vote on this item, since his client does not object to the use. Mr. Root responded that the proposed use, without resolving the property line dispute, would have an impact on his client's property. Commissioner Willis then made a motion to approve the application. After the motion was seconded, there was further discussion. 5 August 24, 1993 ITEM N4.: F �Continuedi FILE Z--5702 Chairman Walker asked staff who had the authority to submit this application which involved not only the applicant's lot, but also part of the adjacent lot, Lot 4. Mr. Lawson replied that there has been an established use relationship for 27t years and that relationship was recognized by staff for purposes of taking this application. After further discussion, Commissioner Oleson asked if there had been any consideration of putting a time limit on this proposed use. Mr. Lawson responded that there had not. After a brief discussion, it was determined that putting a time limit on the use was not a suitable option. A vote was then taken on the motion to approve the application. The vote was 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. The application was approved. R