Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5882-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5882-A NAME: Saugey Revised Short -form POD LOCATION: Located at 16715 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Vicki Saugey 16715 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72212 SURVEYOR: Taylor Surveying P.O. Box 21415 White Hall, AR 71612 AREA: 0.41 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES OVERLAY DISTRICT: PROPOSED ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 -•I FT, NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family residence and a Beauty Salon Highway 10 Design Overlay District Revised POD PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residence and a Beauty Salon — Extend the rear parking area VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,783 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors and November 23, 1994, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to POD. The approval allowed the owner to enclose the garage of her existing residence for use as a beauty salon. The owner was to continue to live in the residence. The approval included three operators including the owner. A single sign was proposed within the front yard area. Seven new parking spaces were proposed within the rear yard area. Dense plantings were provided as a land use buffer between the new parking and the abutting property to the east and south. FILE NO.: Z -5882-A Cont. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The site located at 16715 Cantrell Road is under enforcement for violation of the approved POD site plan. Without receiving site plan approval, the owner paved additional area within the rear yard area removing the previously provided buffer and landscaped area. The site currently contains eighteen (18) parking spaces. The landscape strip along the western perimeter is zero. The landscape strip along the eastern perimeter is four feet and along the southern perimeter is five feet. The owner is proposing to remove paving along the eastern and western perimeters to allow for a nine (9) foot landscape strip. The paving along the rear property line will be removed to allow an eleven (11) foot landscape strip. With the removal of the paved areas, twelve (12) parking spaces will be provided. The property is located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing brick residence with a paved parking area in the rear yard area. The property to the west is vacant and is zoned POD for use as a general and professional office use. The property to the east is a newly developed office park with four office buildings. The property to the south is a newly developed single-family subdivision, Montagne Court. Property to the north is zoned R-2, Single-family and is occupied by a number of single-family homes. C_ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet, the Montagne Court Property Owners Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 3. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 2 FILE NO.: 7-5882-A (Cont_ E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Ener : No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are needed. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Plannin : No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 — the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUESITECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Office Development to allow an asphalt paved area located in the rear of the structure to remain. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Plan. Landsca e: 1. This development is located within the Arkansas Highway 10 Overlay District; therefore, must comply with the standards put forth in the Overlay in addition to the landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A minimal amount of building landscaping is required between the parking lot and the structure. 3 FILE NO.: Z -5882-A Cont. 3. The buffer ordinance requires a ten foot seven inch (107") wide land use buffer along the southern perimeter of the site next to the residentially zoned property. Easements cannot count toward full -filling this requirement. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed. 4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8% of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 1/2 feet in width. Interior islands must be a minimum of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area to qualify towards the minimum landscape ordinance requirements. 5. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires an automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas and a landscape plan stamped by a Registered Landscape Architect. 6. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern, perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year -around requirement. 7. Per the Landscape Ordinance a minimum landscape strip of 9 feet is required along the southern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. The City Beautiful Commission must approve any variation from this requirement. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009) Ms. Ruth Presley and Ms. Vicki Saugey were present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review. Staff stated Ms. Saugey had expanded the rear yard parking area in violation of the currently approved POD site plan. Staff stated the request was to amend the approved site plan to allow the parking to remain as currently exists. Staff stated the site was located within the Highway 10 DOD. Staff stated the parking as expanded was not in compliance with the Highway 10 DOD. Staff stated the rear yard landscape strip was just over five (5) feel and not the 25 foot typically required. Staff also stated the previously installed screening had been removed with the additional paving. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a sidewalk was required along Cantrell Road for the entire length of the property frontage. Ms. Presley questioned staff as to the need for the sidewalk when there were no sidewalks in the area. Commissioner Rector stated with the rezoning request the Boundary Street and Master Street Plan ordinances were applied which resulted in the requirement for sidewalk construction. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated with the addition of the paving in the rear yard the site did not meet the landscaping requirements of the Highway 10 DOD nor the zoning and buffer ordinances. Staff stated in addition to the comments indicated an additional comment concerning the minimum landscape strip should be added. Staff stated a minimum landscape strip of nine (9) feet was required along the south, east and western perimeters. Staff stated 0 FILF NO.: Z-5882-6 Cont. any variation from this minimum requirement would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan indicates the landscape strip as required by Landscape Ordinance or a minimum strip of nine (9) feet adjacent to the new paved areas along the eastern and western perimeters. The landscape strip along the southern perimeter is indicated at eleven (11) feet. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing wood fence located along the property line with Montagne Court as the required screening. This site was originally constructed as a single-family home. A number of years ago the Board of Directors approved an ordinance rezoning the property to allow the use of the property as a residence and beauty salon. Seven (7) parking spaces were approved to serve the salon which housed three (3) operators. The applicant receives a number of shipments per week via UPS or FedEx. During deliveries, the trucks park on the shoulder of Cantrell Road or pull into the drive, blocking the driveway, makes the delivery and back out onto Cantrell Road. This creates an unsafe situation for the customers and for the delivery vehicles. With the new design, the delivery vehicles are able to circle into the site thus eliminating the need to back out into Cantrell Road. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the site is not provided the typically required twenty-five (25) foot landscape strip along the side and rear perimeters, staff feels the landscaping provided is adequate. Based on the size constraints of this property, less than one-half acre, staff feels the applicant has provided a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standard. There are no changes proposed to the previously approved signage plan, the days and hours of operation or the uses allowed on the site. The approval allows three operators including the owner and the site must be maintained as the owner's residence. Highway 10 DOD Requirements: —L—otsize-7 There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two (2) acres. 5 Applicant's proposal: The lot exists containing u.4 i au Cz, and was established prior to the adoption of the Highway 10 Desi n Overla District. FILE NO.: Z -5882-A Cont. (PUD) section of the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: as typically required per the Highway 10 DOD. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 14, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant's justification for the deferral request was to allow additional time to review various options with regard to the parking lot layout. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a request dated May 27, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 27, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. N FILE NO.: Z-5882-A(Cont.) STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has requested this item be deferred one additional time to allow the applicant, her attorney and staff to meet to discuss options concerning the site plan and the various options for redevelopment of the site. The applicant also failed to mail the required notification of the date and time for the public hearing. Based on the applicant's request for additional time and the lack of notification, staff recommends this item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested the item be deferred one additional time to allow the applicant, her attorney and staff to meet to discuss options concerning the site plan and the various options for redevelopment of the site. Staff stated the applicant also had not provided notification as required by the Commission's By-laws. Staff stated based on the applicant's request for additional time and the lack of notification, staff recommended the item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. WC