Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6165 Staff AnalysisOctober 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-6165 NAME: HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI COUNTY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 14600 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Humane Society of The Mehlburger Firm Pulaski County Wes Louder 14600 Colonel Glenn Road P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72210 Little Rock, AR 72203 227-6166 375-5331 AREA: 3.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: Humane Society Animal Shelter PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Street Improvements along Colonel Glenn Road 2) Filing fee BACKGROUND: This application is the culmination of much effort and time in design, site search and fundraising. Planning Staff has over time assisted in attempts to locate a good affordable properly zoned site with the result that the society has chosen to remain on the existing site. The property is zoned R-2 as is much of the area adjacent. A PCD was chosen as the vehicle since it afforded site plan review for all involved and would probably be better received. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: A one lot PCD with one primary structure and removal of all existing building and use areas once constructed. Parking, landscaping and all basic elements of ordinance are addressed. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A tract of land occupied by a varied and nonfunctioning or poorly functioning animal compound. Much of the activity is outdoor. The parking does not meet any standard of design. Maneuvering of cars on the site involves the street creating a hazard. There are multiple buildings and pens crowded onto mostly the east one-half of the site which has over time had many of the trees removed. Colonel Glenn Road is a principal arterial street on the Master Street Plan but is a two lane county asphalt road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has at this writing received numerous calls primarily from adjacent owners opposing the project. There are ten letters in the file from objectors. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. Street improvements for this principal arterial are required. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct 100 percent of culvert crossings to accommodate a 25 year rain event. Street improvements involve widening to 30 feet from centerline with a sidewalk. 1992 traffic count appears to be in the 3000 to 5000 ADT range for the section adjacent to site. E. UTILITY COMMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Fire Departmenticounty Plannin Wastewater: Outside service area - No comment Water: Has existing service, contact Water Works if additional service is needed. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: Outside city limits County Plannin : OK 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6165 F. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: Landscape Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the business activity of this site from adjacent residential properties to the north, east and west. Existing natural dense vegetation on site can count toward fulfilling this requirement. The Landscape Ordinance requires that six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area be landscape with interior islands. The proposed western parking area will require 544 square feet of interior landscaping while the proposed eastern parking lot is short of the 1,116 square foot interior landscaping requirement by 243 square feet. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic. The following are the follow-up items on the PCD submittal and basic questions about development. ■ Timing on existing building removal ■ Site lighting, how tall, how many, where placed and directed. ■ On site drainage features ■ Treatment of outdoor runs ■ Hours of operation • Signage, building and freestanding • Any overhear doors ■ Dead animal disposal • Sound systems, external • Dumpster, treatment and pickup time ■ Number of full time personnel, paid or otherwise. • Will there be a full time on site manager? Planning Division: The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. There has been no change in the area. There is no justification for plan amendment at this time. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 G. ANALYSIS• The Planning Staff has been acquainted with some of the needs, issues and players in this development proposal for some time. This includes people on both sides of the issue at hand. We are well aware that this property was not included at the time of the extraterritorial zoning establishment. The concerns that we have voiced to those involved is that how such a project is done is at least as important as whether it is done. There are few sites that we can point to as alternate locations, but each of them has negatives much as the neighborhood at hand. The thorough review of this project by staff, City Engineer and myriad others will surely produce an end -product that can better suit all involved. We do not feel that simply saying no and remain as is a solution. We feel the nonconforming status has some value to staying here and rebuilding. A planned development is an acceptable means of doing so. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the project be approved but that it be retitled as a PD -C in as much as all the uses included within this building are one use. We strongly recommend neighborhood involvement as well as addressing all of the many design issues raised by Planning and Public Works Department in paragraphs D, E and F above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The application was represented by Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm. Mr. Riggins was accompanied by others as agents of the Humane Society. Mr. Riggins presented the application and addressed the concerns offered by City Staff. A lengthy discussion followed with numerous questions about traffic, drainage, construction and others. Chief among these was a question as to whether the Humane Society has met with neighbors. The response was no, and this prompted the Committee to direct they do so, before the public hearing. David Scherer, of Public Works, offered comments on traffic and access plus safety issues attendant to the current poor parking arrangement. The curb cut spacing at less than 300 feet was not viewed as a problem since there is over 200 feet between them and a long property front on the street. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FI_LE NO.: Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Prior to the initiation of discussion of this item, the Chairman offered extended comment on the effects of the shortage of commissioners at this meeting and the potential effect upon such an item as the one about to be presented. Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office offered comments. His comments had to do with the applicant's ability to bring an application back to the Commission of the same or substantially the same request within one year of action. The item about to be heard is a rezoning or a PCD item which has to go to the City Board. So to make a point of clarification, the City Attorney in concurring with Jim Lawson determined that should this item not receive the required six votes for approval or denial, it would go on to the City Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial. The Chairman then identified that the application belongs to the applicant and they had a right to present their case and proceed with the application before the Commission. Richard Wood, of the Staff, injected at this point a statement that perhaps the staff needed to layout the basic issues and offer staff recommendation. The Chairman concurred in this comment and asked that staff proceed. Wood stated that he would make a brief comment and offered that David Scherer, of Public works, perhaps could offer some commentary on the street improvements that would be involved. Wood proceeded to read the staff recommendation and presented the application as a PCD. He outlined the basic issues and the staff position being one of approval supporting maintenance of a use that is already there. The proposal before the Commission would only improve the circumstances. At the end of Wood's comments, Jim Lawson of the Staff offered a comment. He had received information that there was a property line dispute involved in this issue about to be presented, but this is not an issue the Planning Commission could resolve. The Chairman commented this was a title issue and the title company had apparently made the description error. However, this would be resolved. David Scherer, of Public Works, then came forward to offer a brief comment. Mr. Scherer's comments included notations on the type of street improvements which would be constructed if this plan is approved and the difference between this and the Master Street Plan requirement. He also discussed the spacing on the driveways which would be required normally 300 feet, but in this case they 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont_) FILE NO.: Z-6165 are somewhat closer. The total property frontage is a quite long frontage. Scherer also commented on the drainage issues which have been discussed by the developer and Public Works and those have been covered. Chairman Putnam stated he felt like the Commission needed to backup a little bit to a point where we could identify the spokeperson or persons for the Humane Society and what they wish to do in these circumstances. Wes Lowder came forward identifying himself with his firm as being an agent for the Humane Society in this application. Mr. Lowder stated that he hated proceeding under these current circumstances with the unforeseen attendance problem with the Commission and the large number of people present. These folks have to come back for another hearing at a later date, if deferred. He stated, "even though the Commission might have a problem with the vote, even if someone abstains, the item will still have the opportunity of proceeding to the Board of Directors for a hearing at that level." Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Lowder if his constituents or the applicants were in accordance with this comment. Mr. Lowder stated that in the interest of time and considering the agenda today and the number of people here, he did not want all of his side of the issue or the involved parties to speak to the Commission on the application. At this point, Mr. Lowder asked that all the persons present in the room on the Humane Society issue being for the application to please stand. There were a number of persons standing, approximately 20 people. At this point, Mr. Lowder identified Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm as being the person who filed this application and attended the Subdivision Committee and that he would offer the presentation. Chairman Putnam directed a question to a Mr. Engstrom, the lead person for the opposition to the Humane Society proposal. The question being whether or not they had concerns about the applicant proceeding with making a presentation of the application before hearing from the objectors. Mr. Engstrom's response was that they should proceed with presenting the application. Mr. Frank Riggins then came forward and proceeded to offer commentary on the application. He offered a brief presentation of the issue and restated some of the points raised by Richard Wood, of the Staff, and the staff recommendation. He first stated this is a 3 1/2 acre tract located along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and this property had been occupied approximately 20 years by the Humane Society with the previous user being a chinchilla or fur ranch of some sort. He stated the proposal before the Planning Commission 6 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont._) FILE NO.: Z-6165 was a state of the art replacement structure or facility for the existing activities on the property. He briefly identified the existing circumstance for the buildings and grounds being in a state of poor repair with a strong need for upgrade. He stated that the Humane Society is currently involved in a fund raising program to construct this building. He identified the intended structure to serve the kinds of animal maintenance and care which the current building provides, except it would be provided in an enclosed building plus allowing four educational office space, treatment rooms, adoption rooms and such. He stated the primary intent is to keep the animals indoor with some of the cages having guillotine type doors so that the animals can get fresh air and spend some time outdoors as well as allowing maintenance of their cages on the interior. The animals would be retained on the inside of the building at night. He described the proposed plan as allowing more on-site parking so as to resolve the current problems on-site. He stated the plan would provide for landscaping buffers and landscaping in accordance with city code. He also restated a comment offered by David Scherer, of Public Works, that in this redevelopment there will be an additional lane provided on Kanis Road so as to provide a left turn lane to enter and exit the property. He stated the hours of operation will be from 1:00 to 8:00 p.m. from Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and on Saturday and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The facility would be closed to public on Wednesdays. There will be one ground mounted monument type sign on the Colonel Glenn frontage and that the parking lot lighting will be programmed to go off one hour after the facility closes each day. In closing his comments and presentation, he requested the Planning Commission's aid and assistance in the continuance of the Humane Society's program and efforts on this property. He stated that a "no" vote by the Planning Commission will simply keep them there where they are in the current facilities and would keep all of the other elements in place such as the poor parking, backing into Colonel Glenn, outdoor cages, etc. A "no" vote would be rejection of what they feel will be a significant improvement of what is there now. The Chairman then turned his attention to the cards of speakers which had been turned in previously. He identified that there were three persons that had signed cards. After identifying them as being present, the Chairman then recognized Mr. Wes Lowder who came forward again. He stated for the record that there 15+ people present that he had encouraged not fill out cards and simply not overburdening the Commission's time with excessive number of speakers. He closed his comment by saying that he would appreciate these people being granted the same opportunity 7 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6155 to speak that the opposition would be granted if they are all allowed to come forward to address the issue. Chairman Putnam identified that the Planning Commission had recently established a time line for hearing public hearing items and 45 minutes is the alloted time for hearing a case with both sides of the issue. Mr. Lowder stated that he wished to proceed with the three persons present, who wish to speak to the application. The first one to come forward was Ms. Shawna Skoronski. She made a single statement which was she wanted to hear the opposition's comments before proceeding. A brief discussion followed involving the Chairman and the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the procedure suggested by Ms. Skoronski. Steve Giles,of the City Attorney's Office, responded by saying that the bylaws proposed that the applicant present a case then the opposition. Again Ms. Skoronski stated that she would like to hear what the opposition is from those persons present. She appreciates the Commission's position relative to the bylaws, but she would like to know what those items are that she needs to respond to. A lengthy discussion followed involving the City Attorney and several commissioners as to the appropriateness of the action to be taken with no resolution. The Chairman then asked Ms. Skoronski if there were others present on the "for" side of the issue that wished to address the Commission at this time. She stated that there were not. It was agreed upon between Ms. Skoronski and the Chairman that he then offer the floor to the opposition. Mr. Steve Engstrom came forward as the principal or the leader of the opposition. Mr. Engstrom offered comments to the effect that he was the unofficial leader of the opposition representing most of the people that live in the valley below Ellis Mountain and in close proximity to this application. He requested that everyone present in the room in opposition to this application please stand (20+). He followed up by asking those who live in the valley remain standing and others be seated. He then turned his attention to those persons present who identified themselves as being in support of the application stand, if they lived in the valley. He proceeded with his presentation by identifying himself as an attorney and as resident of the area since March 1974, prior to the Humane Society's movement into the valley. Engstrom indicated that his patio and other outdoor facilities of his residential property had been affected by the activities of the Humane Society. He stated that his attendance at the meeting today was for one primary reason, to act as a panel moderator for a number of persons who wish to make prepared statements. He 8 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 stated that the opposition had worked diligently toward making a presentation and would present an organized objection in a serial manner. The objections would be presented by topics and by different spokespersons. He then moved his comments to a statement that he felt the Humane Society served a community purpose and was a noble cause. He did not want the issue of their activity in this regard to cloud the issue. He stated the issues which he saw were: first, being the enterprise as it exists and as proposed is simply to big for that site and whether the application presented to the Planning Commission is flawed in several respects with regard to noise and traffic, with waste and with regard to poor management. And last, they have too much going on to put it right here meaning that site. Engstrom identified the first speaker for the opposition as being Andrew Hubert. Mr. Hubert came forward and presented a brief statement then identified that he and his companion had bought a sound level meter to perform certain sound tests from certain distances. He stated that the presentation he was about to make was a recording of the noise level at approximately 60 feet from the outdoor pens. He then proceeded to produce a sound measuring device and a recording device on which he played back a tape of multiple dogs barking. At this point the tape becomes too noisy to pick up conversation which was attempted by Mr. Hubert above the noise of the tape playing and some of comments he offered had to do with the level of sound recording and pain threshold for a person observing these noise levels. He stated that this noise goes on behind the Humane Society at all hours of the day and night. After the playing of the tape, Mr. Hubert proceeded to offer some additional commentary. He introduced and identified a resident of the area by the name of Mrs. Beverly Williamson. He stated that this person had recently had their residence appraised and had been told by their appraiser that the value was reduced by the presence of the Humane Society. He stated that persons in the area were unable to entertain due to constant noise coming from the facility. Mr. Hubert then demonstrated with the assistance of another gentleman the coping skills utilized by neighbors in order to sleep at night. Much of the following conversation was off the microphone and was not legible but had to do with certain plugs that were inserted in the ears in order to baffle the sound disturbance. Mr. Hubert continued his commentary by stating that others in the area utilized the same thing plus fans or other devices to shield themselves from the noise disturbance. He stated a key question then as how all of this new facility provided for a reduction of these issues. He stated the construction of this building will bring the noise closer to residents than current and will P October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-61.65 increase an already intolerable situation and the increase in the number of dogs and traffic would inevitably increase an already bad situation. In closing, Mr. Hubert commented that as far as he knew all other central Arkansas facilities of similar nature are completely enclosed and he did not feel they were able to address the noise factor on the currently owned parcel. Mr. Engstrom then identified the second person as a presenter, Mr. Erin Glitten. Mr. Glitten proceeded to offer comments and in lieu of those that had been proposed by his father. He indicated that his propose in speaking was to address the issue of traffic. He pointed out safety related issues relating to traffic in this section of Colonel Glenn Road upon which a number of the persons present in opposition currently lived. He identified the Humane Society as being located on a short but dangerous stretch of Colonel Glenn Road. He identified the road as being very narrow with no shoulders and open ditches and a continuous set of blind curves. He identified that there were countless accidents over a period of years in this stretch of the roadway. He proceeded to offer statistics from the County Sheriff's Department and the Arkansas State Police which resulted in him saying that 31% of the accidents along Colonel Glenn Road in this part of the county were produced in this area which is 10% of the roadway. He then turned his comments to the Little Rock Master Street Plan and identified that which is required by ordinance and this was a principal arterial with 110 feet of right-of-way and would be at least five lanes with turning movement lanes provided. He also pointed out that the future development to this roadway to that standard is a considerable period off. He stated the right-of- way required for Colonel Glenn Road substantially reduces the amount of area available for the development of the site. He felt the dedication of right-of-way would reduce the property from over 3 acres to about 2.55 acres. This gentleman closed his remarks. Mr. Engstrom then identified the next speaker, Dr. Howard Stephens and Dr. Mary Baeyens. These two speakers addressed the subject of water and waste treatment. Dr. Stephens came forward and identified himself as having been past president of the Pulaski County Humane Society. He stated that he felt like at the time they moved to this location their size was appropriate to the amount of land being occupied and was adequate for the number of animals they were keeping. He identified a flood instance of the earlier occupancy by the Humane Society and the destructive effects of that flood. Most of the facility being under water. He offered photographic evidence of this circumstance. 10 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 As a nonconforming use on this premise within a single family neighborhood, they should go along at their current pace. But once they initiate an application to broaden their activities and expand, they have too much planned for this site and the neighborhood simply does not believe them when they offer the large parking lots, the large building and other activities on this narrow sliver of land. He felt this issue should be placed on a tract of land that is large enough to give an effective buffer. He stated 20 acres somewhere would solve the noise problem and other such activities. He stated that he did not believe them when they said they could not go some place else. At this point, Ms. Skoronski came forward again and offered a question to the staff. The question being did not the staff attempt to help the society earlier in attempting to locate another site that would be adequate. This generated a. discussion between several parties of which some were lost because generally they were not speaking into the microphone. Jim Lawson addressed the Chairman saying he thought at this point, Mr. Lowder wanted to address the Commission relatively to a deferral of his application. Mr. Lowder came forward and stated for the record that they would like a deferral and an opportunity to answer some of the neighborhood's concerns. Jim Lawson then offered a statement which ended by offering the staff's assistance in setting up such a neighborhood meeting and identifying the Commission's issues which would be dealt with at that meeting. However, he specifically stated that he wanted to hold a civil meeting and address issues such as were addressed today and not where neighbors said they simply do not want the Society on this property. Therefore, the only purpose of that meeting would be to attempt to clarify the issues. However, this meeting would not be a meeting for him to attempt to gain the neighborhood support for the Humane Society. Commissioner Earnest inserted a thought that the issues to be addressed should be on the material submitted to the Commission. He identified items 1 through 5 on the petition. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, accepted this as the direction for staff and for the meeting. Commissioner Lichty then identified a person in the audience and asked him to come forward to make a comment if he had one to offer. This gentleman identified himself as Cole Williamson who is a resident of the Colonel Glenn area. The question that he posed was did not the Planning Commission offer to this group as well as others at the beginning of the meeting the opportunity to defer their case if they felt uncomfortable with the attendance of the Commission at this time. 11 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z--6165 The question was clarified by Staff and identified by the Chairman that this issue dealt with the quorum present and those persons who may have desired a deferral due to that circumstance. The Chairman then offered an extended explanation of what he attempted to do at the early part of the meeting and it was the applicant's option to pursue the hearing at a later time. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner McCarthy who stated that she hoped the land boundary dispute could be resolved before it comes back to the Planning Commission. Jim Lawson pointed out the Planning Commission could not resolve the land dispute and he felt like the City Attorney's Office supported us in this contention. He stated that he proposes no structure or physical improvement be located in such a fashion as to encroach upon the disputed boundary. Commissioner McCarthy then stated her appreciation to the neighborhood opposition and congratulated them on doing a very good presentation. She also stated for the neighborhood that they should not leave here feeling this was all for naught but the issues were well presented and the Commission did hear them. Maybe once the neighborhood and the applicant are together and discuss this, some of the issues can be resolved. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion. The motion being that this item be deferred until such time as the meeting can be held under the chairmanship of Mr. Lawson of the Staff. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) There was no representative of the project present. Staff indicated that a meeting between the neighbors and project proponents is scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 1996, 6:15 p.m. at the Metro Plan Conference Room 501 West Markham Street. This meeting was setup at the request of the Planning Commission at their July 18, 1996 meeting. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for action. 12 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) Chairman woods announced to the audience that any applicant on the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full Commission can request a deferral at this time. Mr. Wes Lowder of the Mehlburger firm requested a deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Mr. Wes Lowder, briefly presented the case for the applicants. He indicated that over the course of this project they have met with the neighbors at a night meeting sponsored by staff and fielded many calls from the opposition over the phone. As a result of these contacts the Mehlburger Firm has revised the site plan three times and responded to a 17 point letter from Steve Engstrom. This response letter was dated September 23, 1996. Mr. Lowder stated that the Humane Society has worked three years on this modernization project. Mr. Lowder stated that the Planning Commission needed to decide whether they wanted a modernized Humane Society facility or the inadequate existing animal shelter. Mr. Steve Engstrom summarized the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that the Humane Society was trying via this application to increase their activity on small piece of land. He also said that the primary item that his group objected is the proposed outdoor dog runs. Dr. Marilynn Baeyens spoke in behalf of the neighbors. She discussed the features of other animal clinics and animal shelters in the Little Rock area. Mr. Engstrom discussed the current financial condition of the Humane Society. He indicated that they had been given 20 acres of land that was a more suitable site for this project. Chairman Putnam stated that this was the time for Commissioners to ask questions. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Lowder what are the proposed hours of operation. He responded 1-6 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 11:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Lowder referred to a letter'to Steve Engstrom dated September 23, 1996 which outlines the conditions of operation for the proposed facility. Commissioner Rahman asked Mr. Lowder why puppies will not be included in the maximum dog count of 63. Mr. Lowder responded that puppies do not make noise which seemed to be the primary concern of the neighbors. 13 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6165 Commissioner Lichty asked about the size and operation of the Fairview Animal Clinic. This facility had been mentioned early by both Mr. Lowder and Engstrom as a typical animal clinic/kennel operation in Little Rock. Mr. Lichty asked the neighbors in the audience to indicate by a show of hands how many own "outside dogs-. commissioner Hawn said he considered the proposal to be appropriate in an industrial area. He asked Mr. Lowder to justify an industrial use in a residential area. Commissioner Adcock asked when will dogs be exercised. A representative from the Humane Society said that dogs will be exercised on a rotating basis between 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Berry asked a number of questions concerning number of animals and type of noise mitigation proposed. These were answered by Mr. Lowder. Commissioner Brandon asked that the Humane Society not allow people convicted of a felony to do court ordered community service work at the faculty. The Humane Society agreed to that condition. Chairman Putnam made some closing statements. A motion was made to approve the application as amended by the previously mentioned September 23, 1996 correspondence from Wes Lowder. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays and 2 absent. 14 August 29, 1996 TEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-6165 DAME: HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI COUNTY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT a,LDCATION: 14600 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: Humane Society of Pulaski County 14600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 227-6166 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm Frank Riggins P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 3.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES RE VESTED: BACKGROUND: #18 - Ellis Mountain 1) Street Improvements Road 2) Filing fee FT. NEW STREET- 0 Humane Society Animal Shelter along Colonel Glenn This application is the culmination of much effort and time in design, site search and fundraising. Planning Staff has over time assisted in attempts to locate a good affordable properly zoned site with the result that the society has chosen to remain on the existing site. The property is zoned R-2 as is much of the area adjacent. A PCD was chosen as the vehicle since it afforded site plan review for all involved and would probably be better received. A. PROPOSALI REQUEST: A one lot PCD with one primary structure and removal of all existing building and use areas once constructed. Parking, landscaping and all basic elements of ordinance are addressed. August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E ont. FILE NO.: 9-05165 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A tract of land occupied by a varied and nonfunctioning or poorly functioning animal compound. Much of the activity is outdoor. The parking does not meet any standard of design. Maneuvering of cars on the site involves the street creating a hazard. There are multiple buildings and pens crowded onto mostly the east one-half of the site which has over time had many of the trees removed. Colonel Glenn Road is a principal arterial street on the Master Street Plan but is a two lane county asphalt road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has at this writing received numerous calls primarily from adjacent owners opposing the project. There are ten letters in the file from objectors. D. ENGINEERING C!Q ENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. Street improvements for this principal arterial are required. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct 100 percent of culvert crossings to accommodate a 25 year rain event. Street improvements involve widening to 30 feet from centerline with a sidewalk. 1992 traffic count appears to be in the 3000 to 5000 ADT range for the section adjacent to site. E, UTILITY COMMENTSIFIRE DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Fire QepartmentZCounty Plannin Wastewater: Outside service area - No comment Water: Has existing service, contact Water Works if additional service is needed. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: Outside city limits County Planning: OK E August 29, 1996 allBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 F. ISSUES/LEGALITECHNICALIDESIGN: Landscape Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the business activity of this site from adjacent residential properties to the north, east and west. Existing natural dense vegetation on site can count toward fulfilling this requirement. The Landscape Ordinance requires that six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area be landscape with interior islands. The proposed western parking area will require 544 square feet of interior landscaping while the proposed eastern parking lot is short of the 1,116 square foot interior landscaping requirement by 243 square feet. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic. The following are the follow-up items on the PCD submittal and basic questions about development. Timing on existing building removal Site lighting, how tall, how many, where placed and directed. On site drainage features Treatment of outdoor runs Hours of operation Signage, building and freestanding a Any overhear doors e Dead animal disposal e Sound systems, external o Dumpster, treatment and pickup time' ► Number of full time personnel, paid or otherwise. • Will there be a full time on site manager? Planning Division: The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. There has been no change in the area. There is no justification for plan amendment at this time. 3 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: E(Cont.).FILE N 7-6165 G. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff has been acquainted with some of the needs, issues and players in this development proposal for some time. This includes people on both sides of the issue at hand. We are well aware that this property was not included at the time of the extraterritorial zoning establishment. The concerns that we have voiced to those involved is that how such a project is done is at least as important as whether it is done. There are few sites that we can point to as alternate locations, but each of them has negatives much as the neighborhood at hand. The thorough review of this project by staff, City Engineer and myriad others will surely produce an end -product that can better suit all involved. We do not feel that simply saying no and remain as is a solution. We feel the nonconforming status has some value to staying here and rebuilding. A planned development is an acceptable means of doing so. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the project be approved but that it be retitled as a PD -C in as much as all the uses included within this building are one use. We strongly recommend neighborhood involvement as well as addressing all of the many design issues raised by Planning and Public Works Department in paragraphs D, E and F above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The application was represented by Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm. Mr. Riggins was accompanied by others as agents of the Humane Society. Mr. Riggins presented the application and addressed the concerns offered by City Staff. A lengthy discussion followed with numerous questions about traffic, drainage, construction and others. Chief among these was a question as to whether the Humane Society has met with neighbors. The response was no, and this prompted the Committee to direct they do so, before the public hearing. David Scherer, of Public Works, offered comments on traffic and access plus safety issues attendant to the current poor parking arrangement. The curb cut spacing at less than 300 feet was not viewed as a problem since there is over 200 feet between them and a long property front on the street. 4 August 29, 1996 BDIVI I ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Prior to the initiation of discussion of this item, the Chairman offered extended comment on the effects of the shortage of commissioners at this meeting and the potential effect upon such an item as the one about to be presented. Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office offered comments. His comments had to do with the applicant's ability to bring an application back to the Commission of the same or substantially the same request within one year of action. The item about to be heard is a rezoning or a PCD item which has to go to the City Board. So to make a point of clarification, the City Attorney in concurring with Jim Lawson determined that should this item not receive the required six votes for approval or denial, it would go on to the City Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial. The Chairman then identified that the application belongs to the applicant and they had a right to present their case and proceed with the application before the Commission. Richard Wood, of the Staff, injected at this point a statement that perhaps the staff needed to layout the basic issues and offer staff recommendation. The Chairman concurred in this comment and asked that staff proceed. Wood stated that he would make a brief comment and offered that David Scherer, of Public works, perhaps could offer some commentary on the street improvements that would be involved. wood proceeded to read the staff recommendation and presented the application as a PCD. He outlined the basic issues and the staff position being one of approval supporting maintenance of a use that is already there. The proposal before the Commission would only improve the circumstances. At the end of Wood's comments, Jim Lawson of the Staff offered a comment. He had received information that there was a property line dispute involved in this issue about to be presented, but this is not an issue the Planning Commission could resolve. The Chairman commented this was a title issue and the title company had apparently made the description error. However, this would be resolved. David Scherer, of Public Works, then came forward to offer a brief comment. Mr. Scherer's comments included notations on the type of street improvements which would be constructed if this plan is approved and the difference between this and the Master Street Plan requirement. He also discussed the spacing on the driveways which would be required normally 300 feet, but in this case they 5 August 29, 1996 BDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z--6165 are somewhat closer. The total property frontage is a quite long frontage. Scherer also commented on the drainage issues which have been discussed by the developer and Public Works and those have been covered. Chairman Putnam stated he felt like the Commission needed to backup a little bit to a point where we could identify the spokeperson or persons for the Humane Society and what they wish to do in these circumstances. Wes Lowder came forward identifying himself with his firm as being an agent for the Humane Society in this application. Mr. Lowder stated that he hated proceeding under these current circumstances with the unforeseen attendance problem with the Commission and the large number of people present. These folks have to come back for another hearing at a later date, if deferred. He stated, "even though the Commission might have a problem with the vote, even if someone abstains, the item will still have the opportunity of proceeding to the Board of Directors for a hearing at that level." Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Lowder if his constituents or the applicants were in accordance with this convment. Mr..Lowder stated that in the interest of time and considering the agenda today and the number of people here, he did not want all of his side of the issue or the involved parties to speak to the Commission on the application. At this point, Mr. Lowder asked that all the persons present in the room on the Humane Society issue being for the application to please stand. There were a number of persons standing, approximately 20 people. At this point, Mr. Lowder identified Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm as being the person who filed this application and attended the Subdivision Committee and that he would offer the presentation. Chairman Putnam directed a question to a Mr. Engstrom, the lead person for the opposition to the Humane Society proposal. The question being whether or not they had concerns about the applicant proceeding with making a presentation of the application before hearing from the objectors. Mr. Engstrom's response was that they should proceed with presenting the application. Mr. Frank Riggins then came forward and proceeded to offer commentary on the application. He offered a brief presentation of the issue and restated some of the points raised by Richard Wood, of the Staff, and the staff recommendation. He first stated this is a 3 1/2 acre tract located along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and this property had been occupied approximately 20 years by the Humane Society with the previous user being a chinchilla or fur ranch of some sort. He stated the proposal before the Planning Commission 11 August 29, 1996 BIIHDIVISION _TEM NO E Cont. FILE Z-616 was a state of the art replacement structure or facility for the existing activities on the property. `le briefly identified the existing circumstance for the buildings and grounds being in a state of poor repair with a strong need for upgrade. He stated that the Humane Society is currently involved in a fund raising program to construct this building. He identified the intended structure to serve the kinds of animal maintenance and care which the current building provides, except it would be provided in an enclosed building plus allowing four educational office space, treatment rooms, adoption rooms and such. He stated the primary intent is to keep the animals indoor with some of the cages having guillotine type doors so that the animals can get fresh air and spend some time outdoors as well as allowing maintenance of their cages on the interior. The animals would be retained on the inside of the building at night. He described the proposed plan as allowing more on-site parking so as to resolve the current problems on-site. He stated the plan would provide for landscaping buffers and landscaping in accordance with city code. He also restated a comment offered by David Scherer, of Public Works, that in this redevelopment there will be an additional lane provided on Kanis Road so as to provide a left turn lane to enter and exit the property. He stated the hours of operation will be from 1:00 to $:00 p.m. from Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and on Saturday and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The facility would be closed to public on Wednesdays. There will be one ground mounted monument type sign on the Colonel Glenn frontage and that the parking lot lighting will be programmed to go off one hour after the facility closes each day. In closing his comments and presentation, he requested the Planning Commission's aid and assistance in the continuance of the Humane Society's program and efforts on this property. He stated that a "no" vote by the Planning Commission will simply keep them there where they are in the current facilities and would keep all of the other elements in place such as the poor parking, backing into Colonel Glenn, outdoor cages, etc. A "no" vote would be rejection of what they feel will be a significant improvement of what is there now. The Chairman then turned his attention to the cards of speakers which had been turned in previously. He identified that there were three persons that had signed cards. After identifying them as being present, the Chairman then recognized Mr. Wes Lowder who came forward again. He stated for the record that there 15+ people present that he had encouraged not fill out cards and simply not overburdening the Commission's time with excessive number of speakers. He closed his comment by saying that he would appreciate these people being granted the same opportunity 7 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION :STEM NO.: E Contj FILE NO.: Z-6165 to speak that the opposition would be granted if they are all allowed to come forward to address the issue. Chairman Putnam identified that the Planning Commission had recently established a time line for hearing public hearing items and 45 minutes is the alloted time for hearing a case with both sides of the issue. Mr. Lowder stated that he wished to proceed with the three persons present, who wish to speak to the application. The first one to come forward was Ms. Shawna Skoronski. She made a single statement which was she wanted to hear the opposition's comments before proceeding. A brief discussion followed involving the Chairman and the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the procedure suggested by Ms. Skoronski. Steve Giles,of the City Attorney's Office, responded by saying that the bylaws proposed that the applicant present a case then the opposition. Again Ms. Skoronski stated that she would like to hear what the opposition is from those persons present. She appreciates the Commission's position relative to the bylaws, but she would like to know what those items are that she needs to respond to. A lengthy discussion followed involving the City Attorney and several commissioners as to the appropriateness of the action to be taken with no resolution. The Chairman then asked Ms. Skoronski if there were others present on the "for" side of the issue that wished to address the Commission at this time. She stated that there were not. It was agreed upon between Ms. Skoronski and the Chairman that he then offer the floor to the opposition. Mr. Steve Engstrom came forward as the principal or the leader of the opposition. Mr. Engstrom offered comments to the effect that he was the unofficial leader of the opposition representing most of the people that live in the valley below Ellis Mountain and in close proximity to this application. He requested that everyone present in the room in opposition to this application please stand (20+). He followed up by asking those who live in the valley remain standing and others be seated. He then turned his attention to those persons present who identified themselves as being in support of the application stand, if they lived in the valley. He proceeded with his presentation by identifying himself as an attorney and as resident of the area since March 1974, prior to the Humane Society's movement into the valley. Engstrom indicated that his patio and other outdoor facilities of his residential property had been affected by the activities of the Humane Society. He stated that his attendance at the meeting today was for one primary reason, to act as a panel moderator for a number of persons who wish to make prepared statements. He 8 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISInN ITEM NO.• E Cont. FILE NO.: 7-616 stated that the opposition had worked diligently toward making a presentation and would present an organized objection in a serial manner. The objections would be presented by topics and by different spokespersons. He then moved his comments to a statement that he felt the Humane Society served a community purpose and was a noble cause. He did not want the issue of their activity in this regard to cloud the issue. He stated the issues which he saw were: first, being the enterprise as it exists and as proposed is simply to big for that site and whether the application presented to the Planning Commission is flawed in several respects with regard to noise and traffic, with waste and with regard to poor management. And last, they have too much going on to put it right here meaning that site. Engstrom identified the first speaker for the opposition as being Andrew Hubert. Mr. Hubert came forward and presented a brief statement then identified that he and his companion had bought a sound level meter to perform certain sound tests from certain distances. He stated that the presentation he was about to make was a recording of the noise level at approximately 60 feet from the outdoor pens. He then proceeded to produce a sound measuring device and a recording device on which he played back a tape of multiple dogs barking. At this point the tape becomes too noisy to pick up conversation which was attempted by Mr. Hubert above the noise of the tape playing and some of comments he offered had to do with the level of sound recording and pain threshold for a person observing these noise levels. He stated that this noise goes on behind the Humane Society at all hours of the day and night. After the playing of the tape, Mr. Hubert proceeded to offer some additional commentary. He introduced and identified a resident of the area by the name of Mrs. Beverly Williamson. He stated that this person had recently had their residence appraised and had been told by their appraiser that the value was reduced by the presence of the Humane Society. He stated that persons in the area were unable to entertain due to constant noise coming from the facility. Mr. Hubert then demonstrated with the assistance of another gentleman the coping skills utilized by neighbors in order to sleep at night. Much of the following conversation was off the microphone and was not legible but had to do with certain plugs that were inserted in the ears in order to baffle the sound disturbance. Mr. Hubert continued his commentary by stating that others in the area utilized the same thing plus fans or other devices to shield themselves from the noise disturbance. He stated a key question then as how all of this new facility provided for a reduction of these issues. He stated the construction of this building will bring the noise closer to residents than current and will 9 August 29, 1996 BDIVI Ia ITEM E_(Cont.)FILE Nd.• Z-6165 increase an already intolerable situation and the increase in the number of dogs and traffic would inevitably increase an already bad situation. In closing, Mr. Hubert commented that as far as he knew all other central Arkansas facilities of similar nature are completely enclosed and he did not feel they were able to address the noise factor on the currently owned parcel. Mr. Engstrom then identified the second person as a presenter, Mr. Erin Glitten. Mr. Glitten proceeded to offer comments and in lieu of those that had been proposed by his father. He indicated that his propose in speaking was to address the issue of traffic. He pointed out safety related issues relating to traffic in this section of Colonel Glenn Road upon which a number of the persons present in opposition currently lived. He identified the Humane Society as being located on a short but dangerous stretch of Colonel Glenn Road. He identified the road as being very narrow with no shoulders and open ditches and a continuous set of blind curves. He identified that there were countless accidents over a period of years in this stretch of the roadway. He proceeded to offer statistics from the County Sheriff's Department and the Arkansas State Police which resulted in him saying that 31% of the accidents along Colonel Glenn Road in this part of the county were produced in this area which is 10% of the roadway. He then turned his comments to the Little Rock Master Street Plan and identified that which is required by ordinance and this was a principal arterial with 110 feet of right-of-way and would be at least five lanes with turning movement lanes provided. He also pointed out that the future development to this roadway to that standard is a considerable period off. He stated the right-of- way required for Colonel Glenn Road substantially reduces the amount of area available for the development of the site. He felt the dedication of right-of-way would reduce the property from over 3 acres to about 2.55 acres. This gentleman closed his remarks. Mr. Engstrom then identified the next speaker, Dr. Howard Stephens and Dr. Mary Baeyens. These two speakers addressed the subject of water and waste treatment. Dr. Stephens came forward and identified himself as having been past president of the Pulaski County Humane Society. He stated that he felt like at the time they moved to this location their size was appropriate to the amount of land being occupied and was adequate for the number of animals they were keeping. He identified a flood instance of the earlier occupancy by the Humane Society and the destructive effects of that flood. Most of the facility being under water. He offered photographic evidence of this circumstance. 10 August 29, 1996 �'DBDIVISION _TEM NO.. S Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6165 As a nonconforming use on this premise within a single family neighborhood, they should go along at their current pace. But :ince they initiate an application to broaden their activities and expand, they have too much planned for this site and the neighborhood simply does not believe them when they offer the large parking lots, the large building and other activities on this narrow sliver of land. He felt this issue should be placed on a tract of land that is large enough to give an effective buffer. He stated 20 acres somewhere would solve the noise problem and other such activities. He stated that he did not believe them when they said they could not go some place else. At this point, Ms. Skoronski came forward again and offered a question to the staff. The question being did not the staff attempt to help the society earlier in attempting to locate another site that would be adequate. This generated a discussion between several parties of which some were lost because generally they were not speaking into the microphone. Jim Lawson addressed the Chairman saying he thought at this point, Mr. Lowder wanted to address the Commission relatively to a deferral of his application. Mr. Lowder came forward and stated for the record that they would like a deferral and an opportunity to answer some of the neighborhood's concerns. Jim Lawson then offered a statement which ended by offering the staff's assistance in setting up such a neighborhood meeting and identifying the Commission's issues which would be dealt with at that meeting. However, he specifically stated that he wanted to hold a civil meeting and address issues such as were addressed today and not where neighbors said they simply do not want the Society on this property. Therefore, the only purpose of that meeting would be to attempt to clarify the issues. However, this meeting would not be a meeting for him to attempt to gain the neighborhood support for the Humane Society. Commissioner Earnest inserted a thought that the issues to be addressed should be on the material submitted to the Commission. He identified items 1 through 5 on the petition. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, accepted this as the direction for staff and for the meeting. Commissioner Lichty then identified a person in the audience and asked him to come forward to make a comment if he had one to offer. This gentleman identified himself as Cole Williamson who is a resident of the Colonel Glenn area. The question that he posed was did not the Planning Commission offer to this group as well as others at the beginning of the meeting the opportunity to defer their case if they felt uncomfortable with the attendance of the Commission at this time. 11 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: E(Cont.)-FILE NO._ Z-6165 The question was clarified by Staff and identified by the Chairman that this issue dealt with the quorum present and those persons who may have desired a deferral due to that circumstance. The Chairman then offered an extended explanation of what he attempted to do at the early part of the meeting and it was the applicant's option to pursue the hearing at a later time. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner McCarthy who stated that she hoped the land boundary dispute could be resolved before it comes back to the Planning Commission. Jim Lawson pointed out the Planning Commission could not resolve the land dispute and he felt like the City Attorney's Office supported us in this contention. He stated that he proposes no structure or physical improvement be located in such a fashion as to encroach upon the disputed boundary. Commissioner McCarthy then stated her appreciation to the neighborhood opposition and congratulated them on doing a very good presentation. She also stated for the neighborhood that they should not leave here feeling this was all for naught but the issues were well presented and the Commission did hear them. Maybe once the neighborhood and the applicant are together and discuss this, some of the issues can be resolved. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion. The motion being that this item be deferred until such time as the meeting can be held under the chairmanship of Mr. Lawson of the Staff. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) There was no representative of the project present. Staff indicated that a meeting between the neighbors and project proponents is scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 1996, 6:15 p.m. at the Metro Plan Conference Room 501 West Markham Street. This meeting was setup at the request of the Planning Commission at their July 18, 1996 meeting. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for action. 12 August 29. 1996 ';5-aapl SIGN :CTEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full Commission can request a deferral at this time. Mr. Wes Lowder of the Mehlburger firm requested a deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 13