Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6098 Staff Analysisa NAME: HARRIS -- SHORT -FORM POD LOCATION: On the east side of S. Battery St., approximately 500 feet south of W. Roosevelt Rd., at 2609 S. Battery St. DEVELOPER: Mary L. Harris 2609 S. Battery St. Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 0.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOT : 1 FT. NEW STREET• 0 ZONING: R-4 PR POSED USES: Single -Family Residence & Beauty Shop PLANNING DISTRICT: Central City (8) CEN IIS TRACT• 11 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to operate a one -chair beauty shop in an accessory building on the property which she owns and on which her home is located. She related that there will be only one or two customers at a time. She proposed to reside in the home and limit the beauty shop operation to the single chair, with herself as the sole beautician. The applicant, before knowing that there was a requirement for approval by the City, bought the accessory structure and located it beside the house, along the north property line. She spent a •great deal" of money for plumbing and electrical work to prepare for operation of the beauty shop before she found out that Zoning approval is required. Subsequently, to comply with building setback requirements, she relocated the building to the rear of the residence, as reflected on the site plan. She proposes to add a new driveway alongside the existing "broken brick" driveway, to provided needed parking. A. PROPOSAL RE ZEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a POD. FILE Z -(Cont.) B. C. i� EXISTING --CONDITIONS: The site is a 75 foot wide by 140 foot deep City lot, with frontage on S. Battery St. and an alley in the rear. There is an existing one-story home on the property and a small storage shed at the rear of the lot. A manufactured building has been located on the site at the rear of the residence. A "broken brick" driveway lies along the north property line, extending from the street to the rear of the residence. The site is zoned R-4. All abutting and area properties are zoned R-4, as well. EN INEERIN ❑TZLITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments include: Any damage to the sidewalk or curb along the Battery St. frontage of the site must be repaired or replaced. The north edge of the drive must be a minimum of 5 feet from the north property line. (Normally, commercial drives are to be 25 feet from the property line; however, with the limited commercial use proposed, staff can support the 5 foot setback.) The driveway must be an all-weather surface. Little Rock Municipal Water Works will require a RPZ backflow preventer on the domestic service to the beauty shop. Little Rock Wastewater Utility notes that sewer service is available. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Neighborhoods and Planning comments include: The survey shows a 9 foot broken brick driveway; the site plan shows an additional proposed 9 foot driveway. Clarification needs to be provided by the applicant as to whether both driveways are to remain or whether the removal of the broken brick driveway is intended. Conformance with the Public Works requirement for a minimum 5 foot distance form the driveway access point 2 It to the north property line must be gained. The driveway must be an all-weather surface. The site plan needs to have the dimensions added to show the distance of the new building from the property lines and from the residence. walks will be required to the building. Sec. 36-452 states that: "The POD district is intended to accommodate planned office developments, as well as mixed use developments combining residential, commer- cial, or both, with office uses...." Sections 36-279 and 36-280 permit beauty shops as conditional uses in the 0-1 and 0-2 zoning district; Sec. 36-281 permits beauty shops as both accessory and conditional uses in the 0-3 district. Combining this "office" use with the residential use qualifies the development as a "POD". The building is 225 square feet in size. The Ordinance requires one parking space for each 200 feet of floor area. Parking for one vehicle is required; there is stacked parking in the existing driveway. Signage and site lighting have not been addressed. These issues need to be discussed and resolved. The Plans Review Specialist notes that a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the north side of this property which abuts residentially zoned property. This screen may be a 6 foot high wood fence, with its structural supports on the inside of the fence, or may be evergreen shrubs 30" in height, spaced every 3 feet, with the ability to grow to 6 feet within 3 years. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff comment that the site is in the Central City District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single - Family uses. The request is Single -Family and Commercial. The proposed use is, then, in conflict with the Plan. There is not justification to place such a non-residential use in this location. There are minor site plan and project narrative issues to be resolved, as noted in the staff report. The major issue is the conflict with the Land Use Plan. Although the proposed use is extremely limited, it is, nevertheless, in conflict with the Land Use Plan. In deliberating the appropriateness of the use in the neighborhood, and the issue of the conflict with the Land Use, the Commission also needs to consider whether an amendment to the Land Use Plan is appropriate. (In other K, FILE Z- (Cont-) words, if the Commission deems the use to be appropriate, should the Land Use Plan be amended to accommodate the use or, alternatively, is the use so limited that a Land Use Plan amendment is unnecessary.) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the POD because of the conflict with the Land Use Plan. SUBDIVISION CQMMITTEE_CDMMEN_T: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) The applicant and her representative were present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the applicant's request and reviewed with the Committee members the proposal and the site plan. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, reviewed the Public works comments, noting the requirement to repair or replace any damaged sidewalk and curb, and to maintain a minimum 5 foot clearance from the north property line to the drive access point. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reviewed with the applicant and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, noted the buffer requirements between the commercial use and the abutting residential use area. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the requested use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan, and that three phone calls and one letter had been received form neighbors who object to the proposed use. Staff pointed out that the proposed one -chair beauty shop use is to be in an accessory building. Staff recommended denial of the POD. The applicant, Ms. Mary Harris, and her representative, Mr. Randal Mitchell, were present. Mr. Mitchell reported that Ms. Harris is requesting a one -chair beauty salon, and that she would comply with the requirements to relocate the north edge of the driveway to provide a 5 foot clearance between the driveway and the north property line, and to widen the driveway 8 additional feet. Ms. Harris, he related, would install a 6 foot privacy fence along the north property line, and he said that signage would be limited to a 2 foot by 2 foot sign to be mounted on the face of the building. Commissioner Putnam asked if the Land Use Plan would be required to be changed if the Commission were to approve the very limited one -chair beauty shop use. 4 FILE Z- (Cont.) Staff responded that a change in the Land Use Plan would not be required, since the use is of such limited scope. Commissioner Ball asked for information as to the appropriate location for a beauty shop, to which Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator, responded that the first place in the Zoning Ordinance at which beauty and barber shops appear as "by right" uses is in the C-1 zoning district; that they are permitted as conditional -uses in each of the Office zoning districts. Chairperson Woods asked if the accessory building which is proposed for use as the beauty shop is a proposed or existing building. Mr. Mitchell explained that Ms. Harris had not been familiar with zoning and building code requirements; that she had purchased the building from Morgan Buildings, who had delivered and set up the building, and had begun electrical and plumbing work on the building before the electrical inspector had informed her of the requirements to get zoning clearance on the use. He had also learned that the location Morgan Buildings had set the building was not in conformance with building setback requirement, and that she had had to relocated the building. He related that Ms. Harris has spent approximately $8,000 to date in an attempt to begin her business, and that the money would be lost if the planned development were not approved. Commissioner Ball asked if there were "sunsetting" provisions which can be imposed on a PUD, to which staff and Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson responded that, since a PUD is a zoning action, no further review or time limitation is possible. Assistant City Attorney Dawson added that approval of a use does not set a president which will be applicable in future applications. Staff explained that, initially, Morgan Buildings had placed the building along the north property line, at the east end of the driveway, and that Ms. Harris had had to pay to have the building moved to meet side yard setbacks to a location behind her home. Commissioner Daniel suggested that the POD be limited to Ms. Harris's use only; that the beauty shop use not be allowed to be transferred to another user should Ms. Harris not continue operation of the beauty shop, to which staff responded that this could be a condition of the approval, explaining that the proposed POD is the "Harris POD", and, absent a request by the applicant for inclusion of other users, could be limited to the applicant's exclusive use. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD, subject to the POD being limited to the applicant's use, and subject to her compliance with the conditions cited in the staff 5 ISOARM .1I a report. The motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position.