HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5745-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5745-A
NAME: LOWE -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE
LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bryant St., approximately 80
feet south of W. 32nd. St., at 3210 S. Bryant St.
DEVELOPER:
JAN LOWE
4319 W. 10th. St.
Little Rock, AR 72204
664-7948
AREA: 0.14 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
AGENT:
JACK MURPHY
7820 W. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 1 72205
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Beauty Salon
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver from the requirement
to provide additional right-of-way along the Bryant St. frontage
of the site.
BACKGROUND:
On November 16, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a POD
entitled the "Murphy-Holitic -- Short -Form POD". On December 7,
1993, the Board of Directors passed an ordinance establishing the
POD, Ordinance No. 16,533. The POD was comprised of two
residential -style structures which had been used as professional
offices since before the area was annexed into the City (for 33
years at that time), and had continued to be used as professional
offices in a non -conforming status. Doctor George Holitik owned
the office at the corner of Bryant St. and 32nd. St.; Dr. Mark
Murphy owned the office immediately to the south. At that time,
no modifications to the structures were proposed, and nq change
in use was proposed. The POD provided for convertibility of use
to any other use listed by right in the 0-1 zoning district.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to amend the Planned Development
previously approved to permit her to operate a beauty salon in
the structure which was occupied by Dr. Mark Murphy, the second
structure south of 32nd. St. No change is proposed for the
structure occupied by Dr. Holitic at the corner of Bryant St. and
32nd. St.
The applicant states that no changes are to be made to the
exterior of the building; however, that off street parking will
be provided in the back yard. There is an existing concrete
FILE NO.: Z- 745-A Cont.
driveway which extends westward off Bryant St., and the paved
parking area is to extend from the end of this driveway to within
4.6 feet of the rear property line, and to extend north to within
4.6 feet of the north property line. The existing drive is 0.3
feet off the south property line, but at the west end of the
driveway, where the new paved parking area begins, the applicant
proposes to off -set the paving to provide a 4.6 foot landscaped
area along this portion of the south property line. The existing
on -street parking is to be eliminated. A 6 foot privacy fence is
proposed to be erected along the west and south property lines as
a screen between the office use and the residential uses.
The applicant proposes that there are to be three beauty
operators, and that the shop will be open from 8:00 AM to 6:00
PM, Tuesdays through Saturdays. The applicant states that she
"want(s) to assure the... Commission that my beauty salon will be
a quietly run operation ... (and that) there will be no more
employees than the four now in the dental office. She states
further that: "I am sure the number of customers I serve when. -I
(am) open will be fewer than the present number of dental
patients."
A waiver is requested from the requirement that 10 additional
feet of right-of-way be dedicated along the Bryant St. frontage
of the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors of an amended PO -D is requested. Approval of a
waiver of the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-
way is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the current location of a dental office, and
retains the appearance of a residence.
The site is zoned PD -O, and includes the medical office in
the residential structure to the north. All the surrounding
properties are zoned R-2. There is a school immediately
across Bryant St. to the east.
C. E GINEERING TILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments that: 1) an additional 10
feet of right-of-way must be dedicated; 2) a stormwater
detention analysis must be provided; and, 3) no fencing or
shrubs are allowed within 15' of back of curb.
Water Works has no objections to the development.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available.
2
FILE NO.: 'Z -5745-A (Cont.)
Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not furnished comments.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. did not furnished comments.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALZDESIGN:
Landscape review comments that the required buffer width
along the western perimeter is 4'-6" and 3'-9" along the
southern perimeter. The Landscape Ordinance requirement in
these areas is a minimum of 4' in width. A 6' high opaque
screen, either a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense
evergreen plantings, is required along the western and
southern property lines.
Sec. 36-279 is the listing for 0-1 Quite Office District
uses. A beauty shop is permitted only as a conditional use
in this listing.
The Planning staff comments that the beauty shop operation,
with the construction of a parking lot which occupies almost
the entire rear yard, is in conflict with the adopted Land
Use Plan which recognizes only residential uses for the
area. In the 1993 comments the Planning staff pointed out
that, except for the school across the street, there are no
other non-residential uses in the area, and cautioned that
the land use plan should not be changed; that the area is
and should remain residential. The POD which was requested,
added the Planing staff, should be limited only to the
existing professional office uses, and that any other uses
should be limited to those allowed by right in the 0-1
district.
E. ANALYSIS•
The staff supported the 1993 rezoning because the two
structures had been used as professional offices for 33
years, and because the structures had retained their
residential character. The current proposal, however, adds
a parking lot which involves paving almost the entire back
yard. The professional office character is to retain less
of its residential -professional office character and will
become more of a commercial operation, retaining no rear
yard. The parking lot will take its access to the rear
parking lot by way of a driveway which lies just 0.3 feet
off the south property line, beyond which lies a single-
family home.
3
FILE NO.: Z -5745-A (Cont.)
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of requested amendment to the PD -O.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995)
Ms. Jan Lowe, the applicant, and Mr. Jack Murphy, representing
the owner -seller, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the
requested development and the nature of the existing POD zoning
of the site. The Committee reviewed with Ms. Lowe and Mr. Murphy
the comments contained in the discussion outline. The need for
landscaping and buffering were discussed. The Public Works
comment regarding having to dedicate 10 feet of additional right-
of-way along Bryant St. was discussed; Mr. Murphy asking why the
right-of-way was needed and why this requirement was not brought
up in 1993 when the existing POD was approved. The Public Works
staff member said that he would review the 1993 comments, but
that the Master Street Plan clearly requires dedication of -the
additional right-of-way. Ms. Lowe and Mr. Murphy said that they
would address the comments contained in the discussion outline,
and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995)
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the staff
recommendation was for denial of the requested change because of
the change in use from professional office to a beauty shop, and
because of the development of a parking lot in the rear yard of
the office structure.
Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Jim Lawson said that the
recommendation for denial was a close call, since a beauty shop
is considered an "office" use in the Zoning Ordinance; since the
impact on number of employees, parking, and clients will be no
greater than the current office use; and, since there have been
no complaints from abutting neighbors regarding the proposed
change. He suggested that the Commission consider these points
in making a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Jack Murphy, representing the applicant, Ms. Lowe, and the
seller, Dr. Mark Murphy, said that the proposed parking lot was
an attempt to alleviate a problem with traffic backing onto
Bryant St. from the existing driveway. He also said that the
applicant was willing to meet the landscape buffer requirements
by installing perimeter fencing or shrubbery, but that the
abutting neighbor to the south did not want a privacy fence or
screening plantings installed. He reported that three are
currently 4 staff persons working in the office, with 3
operatories, and that once or twice a month, patients are seen on
Saturdays.
r
4
FILE N Z-5745-A Cbn .
Ms. Jan Lowe, the applicant, pointed out that there is a junior
high school located directly across Bryant St., and a doctor's
office abutting the site to the north. She said that her office
hours would be from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Tuesdays through
Saturdays. She pointed out that the original POD approved for
the property allowed other uses of the property from the list of
uses by right in the 0-1 zoning district, and maintained that her
beauty shop would be less intense than some of these uses which
could go into the building without amending the POD; such as, a
daycare, orphanage, etc. She said that she proposed to begin
work by herself initially, but to expand to 3 beauty operators in
the shop in the immediate future, with the possibility of
expanding to 4 operators at a later date.
Commissioner Willis pointed out that 5 parking spaces are
provided for on the site plan, and questioned whether the parking
was adequate for the number of employees and clients which was
being proposed.
Commissioner Putnam observed that the activity level would not be
that much different from the dental office which had occupied the
building for years; that parking had not been a problem; that if
there were inadequate parking, clients would not patronize the
business; and, that the activities of the beauty shop would be
totally enclosed within the building.
Commissioner Willis asked staff to explain what the requirement
would be for parking for the use.
Staff explained that, in a planned development, the standard
parking requirements are used as a guide only, but that for an
office use, 5 parking spaces would be required. Staff pointed
out that the parking regulations do not take into account the
number of chairs in a beauty shop.
Mr. Lawson stated that any signage erected would be that as
permitted in the 0-1 zoning district.
The question was called, and the item was approved with the vote
of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
5