Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6386-A Staff AnalysisApril 19, 2001 ITEM NO.: 14 NAME: Biggs - Short -Form PD -C - Time Extension LOCATION: 6000 Block of Fourche Dam Pike DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: C. Arthur and Caroline Biggs None 20 Longstreet Dr. Little Rock, AR 72206 FILE NO.: Z -6386-A AREA: 1.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PD -C ALLOWED USES: Grocery Store/Restaurant PROPOSED USE: A. BACKGROUND: Grocery Store/Restaurant On February 17, 1998 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 17,673 which rezoned the property from R-2 to PD -C. The PD -C allowed a single commercial building and parking area, with a single access point from Fourche Dam Pike. The building was approved to be used for a restaurant and grocery sales, with hours of operation of 10:00 a.m. - 7:30 p.m., Monday -Friday and 11:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m., Saturday. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-454(e), "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan." This includes submittal of the final plan for staff review and approval. April 19, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6386-A "Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant extensions of not more than three (3) years." On February 9, 2001, Caroline Biggs submitted a letter to staff requesting a three (3) year time extension for the approved PD -C. Mrs. Biggs notes that health problems and other unforeseen obstacles have caused a delay in the project. As of this writing, no building permit has been issued for the project and no site work has taken place. B. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Hermitage Property Owners Association was notified of the requested time extension. As of this writing, staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the three (3) year time extension as requested by the applicant. The applicant will have until February 17, 2004 to submit the final development plans to staff for review and approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 19, 2001) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 2 FILE NO.: Z -6386-A NAME: Biggs PD -C LOCATION: On the east side of Fourche Dam Pike just north of Roosevelt Road intersection. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: C. Arthur and Caroline Biggs None AREA: 1.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 to be PD -C ALLOWED USES: Residential Currently - PD -C would permit grocery and restaurant BACKGROUND: This is a vacant lot rearing on Fourche Creek in the area of the March 1997 tornado. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: To build a new building for a restaurant and grocery sales. The hours of operation would be 10:00 A.M. till 7:30 P.M. on Monday through Friday, and 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Saturday. The business would be closed on Sunday. The applicant states that they have served this area for eleven years and would like to continue. Some landscaping and a low key monument sign are proposed. There is a request for less than ordinance standard for fencing, paving of parking and street improvement. A 5 year deferral on improvements. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is basically a weed lot after the tornado. The remaining trees are damaged as are a number of houses adjacent, some of which look abandoned. Fourche Dam Pike is a County Road two lane pavement without curb, gutter or sidewalk. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. However, we understand the residents of this area want the business to stay in the area. FILE NO.: Z -6386-A (Cont.)_ fm E. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Fourche Dam Pike is listed on the MSP as a collector, dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of street is required. 2. With development construct half street improvements, including sidewalks, to Fourche Dam Pike. Provide streets plans per MSP and site grading and drainage plans to Bruce Kemmet, 701 West Markham, prior to construction. 3. A grading and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Steve Loop or Melvin Hall at 371-4811 for assistance. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 5. Fourche Dam Pike Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 2,500. UTILITIES• Wastewater: No sewer available at this time. Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: County Plannin : No comment, inside city. CATA: Route 20, College Station runs rush hour only. Planning Division: The site is in the Port District. The Plan recommends Single Family Residential use. The request is for Commercial. There have been no land use changes in this area within the last five years. On October 2, the Planning Commission denied a request to change the Plan from Single Family to Commercial. At that time Staff maintained that the area was residential in nature. Due to the circulation pattern in the short and mid-term the area is not likely to change. The applicant provided information on the need for: a restaurant and small grocery, service to the area, etc. Based on the Commissions previous action any PCD which looks and acts as a commercial development cannot be supported. The request is in conflict with the Plan and the application makes no attempt to meet the spirit of the Plan. K FILE NO.:' Z -6386-A Cont. F. ISSUES TECHNICAL DESIGN: 1. Note dumpsters with screening. 2. Provide specifics on alternate parking surface material. 3. Show parking lot lighting, type and height. 4. Provide more detail on building signage. LandscaDe: The site plan submitted does not provide for a six foot wide land buffer north of the proposed vehicular use area. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum width of four feet. The plan submitted allows for a width of two feet. A total of six percent of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands. The plan submitted is 426 square feet short of this Landscape Ordinance requirement. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six foot high opaque screen is required to help screen this site from residential properties to the north and south. This screen may be a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. The levee should provide adequate screening to the east. Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. G. ANALYSIS• The development of this tract for commercial has been under review for several months. First as a plan amendment since the current plan shown residential. Amending the plan failed but there was a suggestion that a PD -C might be well received and not looked upon as a commercial change in the plan. Thus the application before the Commission at this time. Planning Staff still has a lot of problems with inserting this one lot commercial at this point. We feel it could be a deterrent to other owners to fix their storm damaged homes. This especially in light of this application wanting grass parking lot and less than standard on other features. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the application as being incompatible with the neighborhood and the adopted Land Use Plan. 3 FILE NO.: Z -6386-A Cont. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was present. There was considerable discussion by Committee and staff about various exceptions from ordinance standards. The street improvement deferral for 5 years is not particularly difficult to accept. However, Public Works, Planning and Committee had a problem with a grass parking lot, especially this large. The chainlink in place of board fence atop the levee is acceptable but specifics need to be submitted on signage, parking lot, lighting, dumpster and building finish or elevation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of the staff for purposes of introducing this item and offering staff recommendation. Wood briefly ran through the proposal that was originally filed. He identified the location of the property and its history relative to the land use plan amendment which had failed previously. Wood concluded his remarks by stating that staff has a revised cover letter which has been delivered to staff immediately prior to the public hearing. It significantly amends the application. The amendments are to remove all of the waivers that were previously requested with the exception of deferral of the street improvements as agreed upon with Public Works and the erection of chainlink fencing as opposed to opaque fencing on the perimeter. The Chairman recognized at this point Commissioner Nunnley for a comment. Commissioner Nunnley asked Wood of the staff to restate his previous comment. Wood went on to describe what was submitted by the applicant, that being a very sketchy drawing with a very limited amount of information indicating no on-site improvements except the building. Wood expanded on his comment by including some commentary on the proposed parking and landscaping and the deficiencies that would have been attached to such a development proposal. At the conclusion of Wood's response, the Chairman directed the hearing to the applicant. Again Commissioner Nunnley asked before we began this part of the conversation for some history on the road and the deferral of those improvements. Wood offered a brief commentary of the history of the roadway relative to annexation and it being an old county road with less than standard improvements. He stated this owner proposed to continue that status for a period of several years to allow him to financially accommodate it and would within a specific time period build the improvements. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Berry for a comment. Commissioner Berry asked what the requirement for parking spaces were for this type of use. Staff responded by saying, For this type of restaurant or food service use the ordinance typically requires one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. But 4 FILE NO.:' Z -6386-A (Cont in this instance, it is a planned development and the ordinance only acts as a guide and not a fixed number." The Chairman then attempted to regain control over the meeting and move the meeting back to the required protocol. He recognized Mr. Biggs to speak for his application. Mr. Biggs began his commentary by stating that he was trying to do something good for the neighborhood and he and his wife had worked long and hard to do so. He then moved into a history of the issue relative to the last several months and the assistance that had been rendered by various public officials. He continued by offering some history and discussion with Mr. Lawson and others relative to whether or not this area was within the airport expansion area. Apparently, some discussions were held that confirmed their suspicion. The airport had no immediate plans to move into this area and did not know if they would ever have any involvement in this area. Mr. Biggs then presented to the Commission a rendering of his proposal illustrating the buildings and landscaping and an improved parking area. This was passed about to the several commissioners. Mr. Biggs offered comments on the existing land use in the immediate area identifying other businesses nearby. Mr. Biggs also commented on how this residential area had been impacted by recent developments and activities both by the airport commission expansion and two new large businesses nearby as well as the March tornado which rendered significant damage to the area. Mr. Biggs then directed the Commission to that part of his application wherein there is commentary by the Planning division of the Planning Department relative to the adopted land use plan for the area and the effect this might have on the area. He offered extensive commentary on neighborhood support for his proposal as well as the status of the number of homes that are continued in the damaged condition from the March tornado. Mr. Biggs responded to comments he had heard earlier about the late submittal of his cover letter. He stated that was simply because so many things have changed in this application since he originally filed it. Mr. Biggs produced at this point several surveys that he had accomplished in this area with the assistance of his wife relative to land use and occupancy and various other things. One of these studies being related to land use development. He pointed specifically to the United Parcel Services and the large parcel of I-1 zoning immediately across the street from his project. He pointed out that his review of the record on that industrial zoning was that staff supported this action. Mr. Biggs concluded his remarks at this point. The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present that wished to speak for or against this issue. There being none, the Chairman turned the issue to the Commission for a discussion. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Nunnley. Commissioner Nunnley offered a question to Mr. Biggs as to what portion of his proposed building would be devoted to grocery sales. Mr. Biggs stated that it would not be a significant portion. The numbers 6i FILE NO.:' Z -6386-A (Cont. that he offered would be an area within the building about 30 feet by 40 feet. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Hawn for comment. He stated that Mr. Biggs was doing exactly what the Commission had asked that he do at the last public hearing which was to come back to the Commission with a planned development. The revised letter in which the Commission is now in receipt indicates that Mr. Biggs is willing to comply with all of the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Hawn continued his remarks by saying Mr. Biggs is apparently the only person that is stepping up and trying to do something with his property and make it profitable. The Commission should make every effort to make it convenient and profitable. He further stated that he would be supportive of deferring the boundary street improvements as requested until such time as the rest of the street is improved. He said that he would be willing to approve this PCD. The Chairman then recognized Jim Lawson of the staff. Lawson reminded the Commission that the staff was opposed to the land use change when it was submitted and it was turned down. He stated that this is a residential area and that we recognize some of the structures in the area were damaged by the tornado, some were rebuilt and some were not. He indicated that it is still a residential pocket and the plan still shows it as residential. But to go in and zone it for a restaurant, grocery store or commercial was the same thing to him as just zoning it C-3. If the plan shows it residential and the Commission goes in and zones it to PCD, then it is still just commercial. The next time we go to court there may be some problems associated with defending that position. The Commission and the city may be held arbitrary and capricious by our actions. He stated that it was improper to make the argument that it would be okay in these kind of circumstances because it is a PCD and that it is no different than were it zoned C-3. If you drive down this street, you will see a commercial use. Lawson stated that the question is from a staff view, "Do we want it to be a residential pocket? If we decide that we don't want it to be residential, then we need to change the plan and not just this one tract." Lawson stated that he felt this was a very important case. This is why staff brought the land use plan to the Commission first because it was a very serious issue. Chairman Lichty responded at the end of Lawson's comments. He said there has never been a situations where this Commission has not had exceptions to the land use plan but never in a situation where we had denied previously a change in the land use plan. He asked Lawson if that was staff's point. Lawson responded to the Chairman by saying, "The staff read the previous action of the Commission to say this is a residential pocket and it should remain." After several brief comments between Lawson and Lichty, the Chairman then recognized Commissioner Berry for a comment. Commissioner Berry asked Lawson, "If the land use plan had been 6 FILE NO.: Z -6386-A (Cont. amended and this would be a neighborhood commercial use on a scale which he felt this application really was. He felt like this would be what would be called third place, meaning places in a neighborhood to go and gather. This type of use represents this. He asked if it was conceivable that this is proper with the land use of neighborhood and commercial." Lawson responded by saying, "This is something that staff will just have to look at. This is not a corner property but it is in midblock. If your typical neighborhood commercial is located on a corner and if the Commission has decided this was neighborhood commercial, then the Planning staff would not be recommending against it. With this being shown single family and dropped in, staff has no other choice." The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment. Commissioner Putnam pointed out to the rest of the Commission several features of the drawing that was in the agenda packet identifying specifically what is currently zoned industrial, the United Parcel site. He pointed out that most of the old family, good residential that is in this residential pocket is on the upper end of the area and not down in the storm damaged portion. He stated that he felt like there were little stores of this nature all over this eastern part of Little Rock. Chairman Lichty then offered a comment that he personally had a problem with this application being in the middle of a block. It would be more palatable to him if it were on the corner. He then recognized Commissioner Hawn for a comment. Commissioner Hawn offered a question as to whether or not this restaurant is replacing one that was either storm damaged or previously in the area. Mr. Biggs responded by saying it was not specifically replacing one, but there was one in the area several blocks to the west -south of the property. Mr. Biggs pointed out that the storm did not destroy that store and they had the building leased. The property owner assumed control of the property for his uses. He stated that the man who owned the buildings in this immediate commercial complex lost his buildings and assumed this structure for his business activity. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Nunnley for a comment. Commissioner Nunnley pointed out that he had some concerns about the amount of traffic that would be generated by this development's delivery services. He said he wanted to know what would be the effect if the road repairs or improvement were deferred. If truck traffic would occur, what vehicles would trigger those repairs being accomplished? Lawson's response was "the only way this would occur for improvements beyond this actual development site would be if other developments were to occur. Those kinds of redevelopment issues for commercial uses would trigger road improvements." David Scherer of Public Works gained the attention of the Chairman. He requested permission to address a point. Mr. Vl FILE NO.: Z -6386-A Cont. Scherer pointed out that the city currently has a public project. This project is to improve Fourche Dam Pike which is a collector on the Master Street Plan. He directed the Commission to a sketch in their agenda packet and identified for them the location of the improvement which is basically to the south and east of the subject property. Mr. Scherer stated what Public Works has asked this applicant to do in lieu because they have a narrow frontage on Fourche Dam Pike and doing a small frontage does not provide a benefit. That in lieu to be contributed by the developer for this frontage and the in lieu funds be contributed to the road improvement project. Mr. Scherer stated that the owner had agreed to contribute to the in -lieu on a one year basis then provide for the payment over a three year period. He stated that the payments would be provided at the end of each of the three years beginning at the end of the first year. The City would use the bid price for the public project as the basis for making the financial determination. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Downing for comments. Commissioner Downing posed a question to Jim Lawson of staff. The question being as to whether or not Commissioner Berry's comments earlier had been discussed with the applicant. Jim Lawson's response to that was the plan amendment submitted earlier and submitted to the Commission for its review was a straight commercial and did not deal with the subject that Commissioner Berry raised. He stated that he did not believe that this subject had been discussed with the applicant. Lawson expanded on that comment by saying if the Commission determined that it would approve this action today, then he was going to ask the Commission to act on a plan amendment. This would be a rezoning guiding the land use plan but it probably would be a better position for the court. Commissioner Downing followed up his first question with another one. He stated that if Commissioner Berry's concept was to occur, would the staff position relative to this application be different? Lawson responded by saying it could be different. Lawson continued his remarks by saying that if the Commission decided to insert this neighborhood commercial that the staff would figure out how to make it fit. The Commission would ask the staff to look at the whole area and point out where neighborhood commercial should be. Commissioner Downing then posed a question, "Because of the damages and the boarded up houses in the area, has the staff perhaps considered a review of the plan and perhaps changed the use because of what has occurred in the area? Lawson responded by saying no, that staff is going in the opposite direction. He stated that staff sees this as a marginal area but it is still a residential area. Staff does not want to eliminate this residential area. He stated action such as the one proposed would wipe the area out. He said the area is trying to come back and if it is, then you don't want to drop a use such as this into this location. He concluded his remark by saying a decision 8 FILE NO.:' Z -6386-A (Cont. needs to be made if this is going to be a residential area or not. Chairman Lichty inserted a comment at this point that he could not recall the Commission having asked the staff to re-examine the area in a comprehensive way when this first came before the Commission. Chairman Lichty then stated he would receive a motion on the issue. Commissioner Hawn gained the floor for a motion. His motion was that the application be approved as filed with the deferral agreement on the boundary street improvements which would include the fence request for chainlink as oppose to opaque fencing. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 3 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Rohn Muse). The Chairman declared the application to have been denied for failure to receive sufficient votes. At the conclusion of the vote on this item, Commissioner Adcock asked the Chairman if there was not some way the staff could look at the area? The Chairman responded by saying the appropriate time to have done that was back when the original application for the plan review was submitted. He stated at that time there was no compelling reason to do so. He said he understood there was apparently no change. A brief discussion then followed involving the Commission and the applicant. When there was a discussion of circumstances of the area, Commissioner Adcock asked if there was not the possibility of appealing their denial to the Board of Directors. Chairman Lichty gained attention of the applicants before they left the room and instructed them there was the right of appeal to the Board of Directors. 7