Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7561 Staff AnalysisJanuary 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9.1 NAME: Coburn Short -form PD -I LOCATION: 10601 Sibley Hole Road DEVELOPER: Coburn Service Company, Inc. 10601 Sibley Hole Road Little Rock, AR 72209 1:Kir_iniM:GD- McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 6.42 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: 1-2, Light Industrial ALLOWED USES: Industrial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PD -I PROPOSED USE: 1-2 uses and outdoor sandblasting VARIAN C ESMAIVE RS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: NO.: Z-7561 The property at 10625 Sibley Hole Road was reviewed by the Commission at their January 25, 2001 Public Hearing for a subdivision site plan review. The site was zoned January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) _ _ FILE NO.: Z-7561 1-2 and being used as a heavy equipment/machinery sales and service. A business of this type had been operated on the site and adjacent property (west) for a number of years. Based on the fact that multiple buildings were proposed, the site plan had to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposal included a two-phase development plan for the property. Phase I included construction of a 7,000 square foot building just south of the existing one-story brick office structure. A ground -mounted sign location and dumpster were also indicated in Phase I. Phase II included the construction of two (2) 7,000 square foot buildings within the southern portion of the property. The buildings were to be used to perform certain service work (mechanical and cosmetic work) on heavy equipment. The Phase I building has been constructed. The majority of the property was gravel -covered and has been used for heavy equipment and truck storage and maintenance for a number of years. The applicant proposed to continue the use of the existing gravel area. The applicant also indicated intentions of working with Public Works to improve access to the property from Sibley Hole Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from 1-2 to PD -1 to allow the use of the site for outdoor sandblasting. The area designated for sandblasting is located along the southeastern property line. The applicant is currently utilizing the eastern portion of the site for sandblasting. This case is an enforcement case for zoning violation. The previously approved site plan included the development of the proposed "future buildings". The location of the buildings will be as was previously approved. The applicant has indicated no new signage will be placed on the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are two single -story structures and an asphalt parking area within the north portion of the property. The remainder of the property is gravel -covered and has been used for heavy equipment and truck storage in the past. The area located along the eastern property line is the area the applicant has been using for sandblasting and painting large beams. The area located to the southwest is being used as a contractor's staging area for a company doing work on the 1-30 upgrades. There is a mixture of industrial uses (including heavy equipment sales and service) to the west and north along 1-30. There is undeveloped 0-3 zoned property to the south, with a church and single-family residence to the east and southwest. K January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Pinedale, Mavis Circle, West Baseline and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing along with all residents located within 300 feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200 -feet of the site. As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls and letters in opposition of the proposed request. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Boundary Street work was completed in a previous project except for the removal of a utility pole from the right-of-way. The change is use would not required additional improvements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact CAW at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. 3 January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs —West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development — Industrial for exterior sand blasting operations. A land use plan amendment for a change to Industrial is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West / 1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an action statement of concentrating development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area and leaving the southern portion of the study area as an "urban reserve." The applicant's property lies near the northern boundary of the study area. The Economic Development Goal lists an action statement of attracting more light industrial uses to the area. This action would reduce the area shown for Light Industrial in favor of more intense industrial uses. Landscape: A six foot high opaque barrier, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern and southern perimeters and that portion of the western perimeter abutting residential property. In addition to the screening, trees and shrubs are required within the land use buffers. The land use buffer width required along the eastern and western perimeters adjacent to residential property is 17 feet. The southern land use buffer width required is 26 -feet. A landscaping upgrade of the existing vehicular use area toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be required. Landscape areas are required to be irrigated. Prior to a building permit being issued, the Landscape Plan must be stamped by a registered Landscape Architect. Since this is an existing development some flexibility with the landscaping requirements is allowed. Buildin s Codes: The proposed and future buildings will require fire rated walls with limited window openings along exterior walls where they are in close proximity to the various property lines. Details on the type and method of construction would be worked out later; there was not enough detail to make specific comments. Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for additional details. C! January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) Mr. Ray Coburn was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant was approved for a site plan of the proposed development in January of 2001 which was soon to expire if none of the proposed improvements had been put in place. Staff stated the current request was to allow outdoor sandblasting to continue on the site. Staff noted the applicant was currently under enforcement for operating the operation without the proper zoning. Public Works indicated all boundary street improvements had been completed as were previously required. Staff noted the removal of a utility pole located in the right-of-way had not been taken care of but the proposed request did not require any additional improvements. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted screening would be required along the eastern and southern portions of the site were abutting single- family zoning. Staff noted the land use buffer required along the eastern and western perimeters was 17 -feet and along the southern perimeter was 26 -feet. Staff also stated a landscaping upgrade of the existing vehicular use area toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance would be required and landscape areas were required to be irrigated. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised drawing to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated there are six to ten employees of the business, the days and hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm or daylight hours and the applicant has indicated there is no new signage proposed for the site. The applicant has indicated on the revised site plan an area for the proposed sandblasting operation. The applicant has indicated sandblasting will take place on the southwest corner of the site. The applicant has indicated sandblasting has taken place in this area for approximately twenty years. The site was formerly owned by a heavy equipment company and the applicant provided sandblasting services for the owner. Staff was not aware of sandblasting taking place on the site until recently. The applicant is currently conducting the sandblasting operation on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has indicated there are currently four sandblasting machines operating at a time, which increases the level of noise on 5 January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 the site and adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated he has a contract, which will be completed on or before March 1, 2004, after which time he will no longer use the eastern portion of the site for sandblasting. The applicant has indicated on the site plan screening will be provided adjacent to residential areas as required by ordinance. The applicant has indicated dense evergreen plantings will be placed along the east, west and southern property lines. The applicant has also indicated if necessary a portable partition will be used to assist in the deflection of noise and dust. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The proposed sandblasting operation would be an 1-3, Industrial District use. As indicted in the Purpose and Intent Section of the 1-3, Industrial District the district is designated to accommodate industrial uses, which involve potentially objectionable uses and hazard, and which, therefore, cannot be reasonably expected to conform to a high level of performance standards, but are essential to the economic viability of the city. The ordinance further states the expressed purpose of the district is by locating them in areas where the negative influences have least impact. Staff feels the placement of such an intense use adjacent to single-family residences is not the best interest of the residents or the City. The area is currently zoned 1-2, Light Industrial District which allows for a variety of industrial activities which conform to high development standards. In this district all activities are to take place indoors with the exception of outdoor storage of equipment, materials or merchandise. Staff feels allowing the site to be utilized to the 1-3, Industrial District standard would have a negative impact on the adjoining properties and neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. R.C. Coburn was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Coburn stated he had operated on the site since 1970 prior to the site being annexed into the City. He stated the original owner was a tractor salvage company and he conducted sandblasting of equipment for the owner. Mr. Coburn stated in 1987 he moved to a permanent location in North Little Rock. Mr. Coburn stated he purchased the site from the previous owner to move his sandblasting operation from North Little Rock to Little Rock in 2000. He stated since he had conducted sandblasting on the site previously he felt he would be able to continue to operate his sandblasting business. A January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 Mr. Coburn stated he would stop sand blasting on March 1, 2004 after the completion of a current contract to allow time to resolve the concerns of the neighbors. He stated the current contract was a large contract, which was not typical for his business. Ms. Dorothy Sesser addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her concerns were the noise and dust. She stated the road was narrow and not sufficient to meet the needs of residents and heavy equipment. Ms. Lydia Smalling addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her property was located east of the site and she had live there for over thirty years. She stated she did not want buildings located adjacent to her property line as indicated on the site plan. She stated the noise was first noticed a few months ago and at first she thought the noise was from the highway construction. Mr. Perry James addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed rezoning. He stated the noise first started a few months ago and was continuous. He stated the noise sounded like a jet airplane trying to take -off. Mr. James stated there was also an objectionable noise when the property owner was moving steal. He stated his family had lived in the area since 1962. Mr. Jerry White addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the use of the site was not a good mix for the neighborhood. He stated the dust and noise was interfering with the quality of life of the residents. Mr. Randy Blue addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was the President of the Pinedale Neighborhood Association. Mr. Blue stated the noise was a major concern of the residents in his neighborhood. He stated the dust was also a problem but his neighborhood was farther away and they were not as affected by the dust as the residents living adjacent to the site. Mr. Woodrow Butler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the noise was similar to a freight train. He stated the noise was interfering with his quality of life. He stated Mr. Coburn did some sandblasting on the site for the previous owner but there was nowhere near the level of activity that was currently taking place. Mr. David Henderson addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he had lived at this residence for approximately thirty-two years. He stated with the sandblasting it was no longer pleasant to be outdoors. He stated the sound was similar to a rocket taking off and never leaving the ground. He stated he had been in business several times in the past and before he move to a location and made any investment he checked the zoning to see if his use was an allowable use for the property. He stated the neighborhood did not have a problem with the sandblasting. He stated the outdoor rl January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7551 activity was the nuisance. He stated the activity was taking place seven days per week and late into the evening. He stated this was interfering with the resident's enjoyment of their homes. Mr. Lem Dreher addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Dreher stated he had lived in the neighborhood for twenty-five years and at no time had the sandblasting been a problem until recently. Mr. Benny Reynolds addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the noise began in August or around Labor Day and had been going seven days per week since that time. He stated the applicant had spent money without checking the zoning and he did not feel the City had a responsibility to resolve the applicant's financial hardship. Ms. Sue Bearden addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was an employee of Scott Construction Equipment. She stated her car had been painted by the applicant. She stated there were five to six cars, either employees or customers of Scott Construction Equipment that had been painted by over spray from the Coburn site. Mr. Joshua Ball addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his car had also been painted from drift from the Coburn site. He stated efforts to detail the vehicle had not been fruitful. Mr. Nicholas Williams did not address the Commission. Mr. Ralph Cerly addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was the General Manager of Scott Construction Equipment. He stated his company was not in direct competition with Mr. Coburn. He stated the previous owner did contract with Mr. Coburn to sandblast equipment but only on occasion. Ms. Barbara Henderson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her family move to Nash Lane in 1972 to get away from the noise of Geyer Springs Road. She stated with the current sandblasting operation her grandchildren can no longer play outdoors. She stated the sandblasting had consumed the livelihood of the neighborhood. Ms. Reba J. Batchelor chose not to address the Commission. Ms. Ann Schweitzer addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed rezoning request. She stated the proposed use was not conducive to the neighborhood because of the noise and dust. She stated activity was currently taking place on the site seven days per week, which was also not conducive to the neighborhood. 0 January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.. Z-7561 Mr. Coburn stated he did not operate twenty-four hours per day seven days per week. He stated he had operated a sandblasting business on the site since 1979. He stated the pictures shown to the Commission were from the 1970's and 1980's and not what he was currently painting. He stated he was not painting yellow paint. He stated his request was to continue operating as he had been in the past. He stated the use would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than the previous owner with welding and hammering of equipment. Commissioner Floyd questioned if Mr. Coburn could move his operation indoors. Mr. Coburn stated a building would be an expense. He stated he was requesting to continue to use his property as he had used the property in the past. Staff stated the sandblasting in the past was incidental to the principal use. Staff stated Mr. Coburn was now requesting to make the sandblasting operation the principal use. Staff stated they were not supportive of allowing outdoor sandblasting to take place on this site as the principal. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. 9