Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7791 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7791 NAME: Colclasure and George Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located at 18501 Lawson Road DEVELOPER: Sheila Colclasure and Todd Wilson George 18501 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR FNC;INFFR- Donald W. Brooks, Inc. 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family residential and a non -conforming cabinet and wood working shop PCD PROPOSED USE: Cabinet and wood working shop and the addition of a liquor store VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the addition of liquor sales to the allowable uses for the site. The building was constructed prior to the City exercising Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction and was used as a cabinet shop. The liquor sales was added to the site after the City extended its Planning Boundary. The applicant has indicated the site has a history of commercial activity including a flower shop. FILE NO.: Z-7791 (Cont. The front of the site is currently paved with a drive extending the entire length of the property. The site plan includes the striping of eleven parking spaces. The existing right-of-way is 25 -feet from centerline. The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way to 40 -feet from centerline to meet the Master Street Plan requirement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a metal building currently being used as a liquor store. The liquor store appears to be using a small portion of the building. The building was once used as a cabinet shop but there is no indication the cabinet shop still exists on the site. There is a paved area located adjacent to Lawson Road but there is no striping on the paved area to indicate parking spaces. In addition the driveway extends the entire length of the property. The area contains a combination of uses including residential and non-residential uses. There is a restaurant located to the west of the site and a salvage yard located to the east of the site. The single-family homes located in the general area are both site built and manufactured homes. Immediately east and south of the site are single-family homes. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from area residents in opposition to the proposed request. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Lawson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. The proposed parking area would be in the Master Street Plan right-of-way. 2. Any future construction of site re -development will be subject to Master Street Plan construction requirements. 3. Driveway width should be limited to 36 feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point EneM: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. FILE NO.: Z-7791 Cont. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Central Arkansas Water records do not show water service to this address. If water service is provided all Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for obtaining service. Approval of the City of Little Rock will be required prior to water service being provided. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: A 40 -foot setback is required along all property lines. Plan must meet state minimum standards. Access should be controlled by means of an entrance drive as opposed to access throughout entire width of parking area. Driveway will need County permit and design review. Additional right-of-way should be dedicated in compliance with Pulaski County Master Highway Plan, which list Lawson Road as a Rural Minor Collector (80' total r/w width). Therefore, the County will require an additional 15 -feet dedication under separate description. Indicate owners and use of adjoining parcels. Meet requirements of the City of Little Rock. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows MCI (Mixed Commercial Industrial) for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a liquor store. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Lawson Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and is not constructed to Minor Arterial standards. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Lawson Road will require dedication of right-of-way and half street improvements. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7791 Cont. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide for the average 11 -foot wide on-site street buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum requirement is 9 feet in width at any given point. Additionally, the plan does not provide for the 9 -foot wide street on-site perimeter landscape strip required by the Landscape Ordinance. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen vegetation, is required west of the business activity area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005) Mr. Stephen Giles and Ms. Sheila Colclasure were present representing the request. Staff stated the property was located outside the City limits but within the Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated the site was zoned R-2, Single-family but was a legal non -conforming use for a cabinet shop. Staff stated the applicant had added liquor sales to the site, which was not in compliance with the approved non -conforming status. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide a cover letter outlining the proposed development. Staff also requested the applicant provide the days and hours of operation for each business, the number of employees of each business and the total square footage designated for each use. Staff also requested the applicant provide details of any proposed signage. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated drive did not comply with City ordinances. Staff stated the site would be limited to one drive a maximum of 36 -feet in width. Staff also stated a dedication of right-of-way 45 - feet from centerline would be required. Staff noted this would greatly impact the parking on the site. County Planning stated their required right-of-way would be 40 -feet from centerline. City staff stated they would defer to the County's required right-of-way. County staff also stated they would allow the applicant to utilize the right-of-way for parking until such time as the road was widened. Landscape comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated site plan did not allow for sufficient landscaping. The applicant stated all the improvements were existing. Staff stated the landscaping comments did not apply to the proposed development since no new construction or paved areas were planned. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7791 Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided a cover letter indicating the days and hours of operation, the number of employees and the total square footages of each of the businesses. The applicant has also indicated proposed signage on the site plan. The applicant has indicated the liquor sales business will be open from 8:00 am to 12:00 am six days per week. The applicant has also indicated there are four employees of the business. The applicant has indicted the cabinet shop hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm six days per week. The applicant has indicated signage will conform to signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36 -feet in height and 160 -square feet in area. The applicant has indicated approximately 2,500 square feet of the site is utilized for the liquor sales and the cabinet shop utilizes 6,550 square feet. The site plan includes the placement of eleven on-site parking spaces. The new right-of-way dedication extends to the edge of the proposed parking. After the dedication of right-of-way; the customers will be backing directly into the right-of-way. The typical minimum parking required for the indicated uses would be 16 parking spaces. The commercial aspect would require eight parking spaces and the cabinet shop/warehouse would require eight parking spaces. The indicated parking is not adequate to meet the minimum paring demand. The applicant has also indicated the driveway cannot be narrowed because when semi -trucks are making deliveries and picking up finished product, they cannot maneuver the site with a narrow drive. Staff has concerns with this proposal. In addition to the free flow of traffic accessing the site and causing safety concerns, staff is also concerned that when semi -trucks are accessing the site they will be blocking parking spaces and possible customers. The site is very tight on parking and the blocking of the parking spaces is not an acceptable option. Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request. The design of the site lends itself to activities that do not generate a great deal of traffic to the site such as a cabinet shop or a low volume retail business such as a flower shop. Based on the availability of parking on the site, staff does not feel the proposed use is appropriate. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. 5 FILE NO.: Z-7791 Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005) Mr. Steve Giles was present representing the applicant. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated their primary concern was ingress and egress from the site and the limited parking available. Staff stated based on the current site layout when delivers were made to the site a large majority of the indicated parking would be blocked. Staff also stated upon dedication of right-of-way the customers would be backing into the right-of- way. Mr. Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He provided the Commission with letters and petitions of support from area residents. He stated the proposed development was located on the western edge of the City's Planning Jurisdiction. He stated the site was brought in with an R-2 zoning and a non -conforming status. He stated the applicant was requesting to amend his application to remove the request for the placement of a pole sign on the site. He stated all signage would be containing on the building facade. Mr. Giles stated staff's primary concern was ingress and egress from the site. He stated the applicant was not able to construct a narrow driveway since the construction would take place in the County's right-of-way. He stated the applicant and the County would have an agreement that the right-of-way would be used by the applicant as parking until such time as the road was widened. He stated when the road was widened more than likely the building would be removed. Mr. David Johnson addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He stated he had lived in the area for 25 plus years and did not feel the placement of the liquor store on the site would cause any adverse impact on the area. He stated the area was semi rural. He stated the area was safe and he did not feel the addition of liquor sales would create a safety problem in the area. Ms. Jennie Kirkpatrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she had lived in the area for 50 plus years and felt the addition of the commercial business in the area was not appropriate. She stated traffic was a concern for area residents. She stated the roadway was a narrow two lane roadway without turn lanes. She stated during the am hours and pm hours there was a large number of automobiles utilizing Lawson Road to avoid the interstate. Mr. James Stauber addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was the first home directly south of the liquor store. He stated his primary concerns were safety, quality of life and the reduction of property values. He stated the roadway was a narrow two lane road with open ditches. He stated the placement of a commercial business in the area would only increase traffic. He stated he was also concerned with sight distance near the location. He stated the roadway was a straight roadway but there were several dips in the road which created the sight distance problems. He stated a residential neighborhood was not an appropriate location for a commercial business. He stated commercial businesses were better suited located nearer intersections. Mr. Stauber stated he felt the placement of the liquor store would affect his property values. He stated perception was in fact reality. 9 FILE NO.: Z-7791 [Cont. Mr. Stauber stated currently the business had a flashing sign and several banners advertising their products. He stated he did not feel this appropriate for a residential area. Mr. Stauber stated the parking lot was dimly lite and he also did not feel this was appropriate for a commercial business. He questioned how the liquor store was approved by the ABC Board without the proper zoning. Ms. Charloette Gilliam addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood opposed the liquor store location when the request was filed with the ABC Board. She stated the neighborhood obtained 460 signatures in opposition of the liquor store and they were dismissed by the Board because they were lead to believe the signatures were obtained by a competitor. She stated this was not the case. She stated the neighborhood went door to door to obtain the signatures. She stated she was also concerned with the safety of the residents of Lawson Road and the customers of the business. She stated Lawson Road was a narrow winding road with limited sight distance. She stated there was a store in the area which sold both wine and beer. She stated the parking lot was not large enough to effectively handle the customer traffic. She stated deliveries to the site limited the number of parking spaces available to patrons. Ms. Gilliam stated the owners made the investment knowing the site was not zoned appropriately for the use. She requested the Commission not approve the request based solely on the investment already made by the owners. Mr. Giles stated the applicant would remove the flashing sign and was not requesting any ground mounted signage as a part of the development. He stated the signage would be placed on the building and lite with back lighting. He stated there was a great deal of traffic on Lawson Road in the area but the back-ups were caused by a daycare center located nearby and school bus traffic loading and unloading children. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed site plan and the indicated parking. A question was raised as to if the rear of the site could be utilized as parking. Mr. Giles stated access to the rear of the site was limited due to setbacks. He stated deliveries of the liquor store could be taken from the east side of the building near existing loading docks and deliveries and pick-ups of materials from the cabinet shop could be taken from the west side of the property. Mr. Giles stated the applicant was also willing to limit the site to no semi -truck traffic. He stated the cabinet shop no longer utilized semi -trucks for pick-up and deliveries. Chairman Rahman stated he was concerned with the free flow of traffic on the site. He stated he felt the approval of the site with an intense commercial business was a recipe for safety problems. He stated the site did not have enough room for maneuvering. Commissioner Rector stated the site was shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Mixed Commercial Industrial. He stated the site was going to develop with a high volume business. Commissioner Rahman stated the business being requested was a stop and go business. He stated the site was more conducive to business that did not have so much in and out traffic. There was a general discussion concerning the current driveway configuration. It was stated this was the nature of rural development. ►/ FILE NO.: Z-7791 Cont. A motion was made to approve the applicant's request as amended to include no ground mounted signage, no parallel deliveries and no semi -truck deliveries subject to compliance with all staff recommendations and comments with the exception of the allowance of a 40 -foot right-of-way dedication in lieu of a 45 -foot right-of-way dedication. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. 0 March 3, 2005 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z-7791 NAME: Colclasure and George Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located at 18501 Lawson Road DEVELOPER: Sheila Colclasure and Todd Wilson George 18501 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: Donald W. Brooks, Inc. 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family residential and a non -conforming cabinet and wood working shop PCD Cabinet and wood working shop and the addition of a liquor store VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the addition of liquor sales to the allowable uses for the site. The building was constructed prior to the City exercising Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction and was used as a cabinet shop. The liquor sales was added to the site after the City extended its Planning Boundary. The applicant has indicated the site has a history of commercial activity including a flower shop. March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION 1TEM NO.: 22 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7791 The front of the site is currently paved with a drive extending the entire length of the property. The site plan includes the striping of eleven parking spaces. The existing right-of-way is 25 -feet from centerline. The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way to 40 -feet from centerline to meet the Master Street Plan requirement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a metal building currently being used as a liquor store. The liquor store appears to be using a small portion of the building. The building was once used as a cabinet shop but there is no indication the cabinet shop still exists on the site. There is a paved area located adjacent to Lawson Road but there is no striping on the paved area to indicate parking spaces. In addition the driveway extends the entire length of the property. The area contains a combination of uses including residential and non-residential uses. There is a restaurant located to the west of the site and a salvage yard located to the east of the site. The single-family homes located in the general area are both site built and manufactured homes. immediately east and south of the site are single-family homes. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from area residents in opposition to the proposed request. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Lawson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A .dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. The proposed parking area would be in the Master Street Plan right-of-way. 2. Any future construction of site re -development will be subject to Master Street Plan construction requirements. 3. Driveway width should be limited to 36 feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Approved as submitted. C��ter�o�nt_ Energy: Aprarov, ed as submitted. 2 March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7701 SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Central Arkansas Water records do not show water service to this address. If water service is provided all Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for obtaining service. Approval of the City of Little Rock will be required prior to water service being provided. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: A 40 -foot setback is required along all property lines. Plan must meet state minimum standards. Access should be controlled by means of an entrance drive as opposed to access throughout entire width of parking area. Driveway will need County permit and design review: Additional right-of-way should be dedicated in compliance with Pulaski County Master Highway Plan, which list Lawson Road as a Rural Minor Collector (80' total r/w width). Therefore, the County will require an additional 15 -feet dedication under separate description. Indicate owners and use of adjoining parcels. Meet requirements of the City of Little Rock. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows MCI (Mixed Commercial Industrial) for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a liquor store. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Lawson Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and is not constructed to Minor Arterial standards. The purpose of a 3 March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-7791 Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Lawson Road will require dedication of right-of-way and half street improvements. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Ci - Reco nized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide for the average 11 -foot wide on-site street buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum requirement is 9 feet in width at any given point. Additionally, the plan does not provide for the 9 -foot wide street on-site perimeter landscape strip required by the Landscape Ordinance. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen vegetation, is required west of the business activity area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005) Mr. Stephen Giles and Ms. Sheila Colclasure were present representing the request. Staff stated the property was 'located outside the City limits but within the Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated the site was zoned R-2, Single-family but was a legal non -conforming use for a cabinet shop: Staff stated the applicant had added liquor sales to the site, which was not in compliance with the approved non -conforming status. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide a cover letter outlining the proposed development. Staff also requested the applicant provide the days and hours of operation for each business, the number of employees of each business and the total square footage designated for each use. Staff also requested the applicant provide details of any proposed signage. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated drive did not comply with City ordinances. Staff stated the site would be limited to one drive a maximum of 36 -feet in width. Staff also stated a dedication of right-of-way 45 - feet from centerline would be required. Staff noted this would greatly impact the parking on the site. County Planning stated their required right-of-way would be 40 -feet from centerline. City staff stated they would defer to the County's required right-of-way. County staff also stated they would allow the applicant to utilize-thesigh -o Vaxfor�arkinuntii such time as the road was widened_ March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Cont. FILE NO.: 7 7791 Landscape comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated site plan did not allow for sufficient landscaping. The applicant stated all the improvements were existing. Staff stated the landscaping comments did not apply to the proposed development since no new construction or paved areas were planned. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided a cover letter indicating the days and hours of operation, the number of employees and the total square footages of each of the businesses. The applicant has also indicated proposed signage on the site plan. The applicant has indicated the liquor sales business will be open from 8:00 am to 12:00 am six days per week. The applicant has also indicated there are four employees of the business. The applicant has indicted the cabinet shop hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm six days per week. The applicant has indicated signage will conform to signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36 -feet in height and 160 -square feet in area. The applicant has indicated approximately 2,500 square feet of the site is utilized for the liquor sales and the cabinet shop utilizes 6,550 square feet. The site plan includes the placement of eleven on-site parking spaces. The new right-of-way dedication extends to the edge of the proposed parking. After the dedication of right-of-way, the customers will be backing directly into the right-of-way. The typical minimum parking required for the indicated uses would be 16 parking spaces. The commercial aspect would require eight parking spaces and the cabinet shop/warehouse would require eight parking spaces. The indicated parking is not adequate to meet the minimum paring demand. The applicant has also indicated the driveway cannot be narrowed because when semi -trucks are making deliveries and picking up finished product, they cannot maneuver the site with a narrow drive. Staff has concerns with this proposal. In addition to the free flow of traffic accessing the site and causing safety concerns, staff is also concerned that when semi -trucks are accessing the site they will be blocking parking spaces and possible customers. The site is very tight on parking and the blocking of the parking spaces is not an acceptable option. y March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7791 Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request. The design of the site lends itself to activities that do not generate a great deal of traffic to the site such as a cabinet shop ora low volume retail business such as a flower shop. Based on the availability of parking on the site, staff does not feel the proposed use is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005) Mr. Steve Giles was present representing the applicant. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated their primary concern was ingress and egress from the site and the limited parking available. Staff stated based on the current site layout when delivers were made to the site a large majority of the indicated parking would be blocked. Staff also stated upon dedication of right-of-way the customers would be backing into the right-of- way. Mr. Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He provided the Commission with letters and petitions of support from area residents. He stated the proposed development was located on the western edge of the City's Planning Jurisdiction. He stated the site was brought in with an R-2 zoning and a non -conforming status. He stated the applicant was requesting to amend his application to remove the request for the placement of a pole sign on the site. He stated all signage would be containing on the building fagade. Mr. Giles stated staffs primary concern was ingress and egress from the site. He stated the applicant was not able to construct a narrow driveway since the construction would take place in the County's right-of-way. He stated the applicant and the County would have an agreement that the right-of-way would be used by the applicant as parking until such time as the road was widened. He stated when the road was widened more than likely the building would be removed. Mr. David Johnson addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He stated he had lived in the area for 25 plus years and did not feel the placement of the liquor store on the site would cause any adverse impact on the area. He stated the area was semi rural. He stated the area was safe and he did not feel the addition of liquor sales would create a safety problem in the area. Ms. Jennie Kirkpatrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she had lived in the area for 50 plus years and felt the addition of the commercial business in the area was not appropriate. She stated traffic was a 6 March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Co FILE NO.: Z - concern for area residents. She stated the roadway was a narrow two lane roadway without turn lanes. She stated during the am hours and pm hours there was a large number of automobiles utilizing Lawson Road to avoid the interstate. Mr. James Stauber addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was the first home directly south of the liquor store. He stated his primary concerns were safety, quality of life and the reduction of property values. He stated the roadway was a narrow two lane road with open ditches. He stated the placement of a commercial business in the area would only increase traffic. He stated he was also concerned with sight distance near the location. He stated the roadway was a straight roadway but there were several dips in the road which created the sight distance problems. He stated a residential neighborhood was not an appropriate location for a commercial business. He stated commercial businesses were better suited located nearer intersections. Mr. Stauber stated he felt the placement of the liquor store would affect his property values. He stated perception was in fact reality. Mr. Stauber stated currently the business had a flashing sign and several banners advertising their products. He stated he did not feel this appropriate for a residential area. Mr. Stauber stated the parking lot was dimly lite and he also did not feel this was appropriate for a commercial business. He questioned how the liquor store was approved by the ABC Board without the proper zoning. Ms. Charloette Gilliam addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood opposed the liquor store location when the request was filed with the ABC Board. She stated the neighborhood obtained 460 signatures in opposition of the liquor store and they were dismissed by the Board because they were lead to believe the signatures were obtained by a competitor. She stated this was not the case. She stated the neighborhood went door to door to obtain the signatures. She stated she was also concerned with the safety of the residents of Lawson Road and the customers of the business. She stated Lawson Road was a narrow winding road with limited sight distance. She stated there was a store in the area which sold both wine and beer. She stated the parking lot was not large enough to effectively handle the customer traffic. She stated deliveries to the site limited the number of parking spaces available to patrons. Ms. Gilliam stated the owners made the investment knowing the site was not zoned appropriately for the use. She requested the Commission not approve the request based solely on the investment already made by the owners. Mr. Giles stated the applicant would remove the flashing sign and was not requesting any ground mounted signage as a part of the development. He stated the signage would be placed on the building and lite with back lighting. He stated there was a great deal of traffic on Lawson Road in the area but the back-ups were caused by a daycare center located nearby and school bus traffic loading and unloading children. 7 March 3, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7791 There was a general discussion concerning the proposed site plan and the indicated parking. A question was raised as to if the rear of the site could be utilized as parking. Mr. Giles stated access to the rear of the site was limited due to setbacks. He stated deliveries of the liquor store could be taken from the east side of the building near existing loading docks and deliveries and pick-ups of materials from the cabinet shop could be taken from the west side of the property. Mr. Giles stated the applicant was also willing to limit the site to no semi -truck traffic. He stated the cabinet shop no longer utilized semi -trucks for pick-up and deliveries. Chairman Rahman stated he was concerned with the free flow of traffic on the site. He stated he felt the approval of the site with an intense commercial business was a recipe for safety problems. He stated the site did not have enough room for maneuvering. Commissioner Rector stated the site was shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Mixed Commercial Industrial. He stated the site was going to develop with a high volume business. Commissioner Rahman stated the business being requested was a stop and go business. He stated the site was more conducive to business that did not have so much in and out traffic. There was a general discussion concerning the current driveway configuration. It was stated this was the nature of rural development. A motion was made to approve the applicant's request as amended to include no ground mounted signage, no parallel deliveries and no semi -truck deliveries subject to compliance with all staff recommendations and comments with the exception of the allowance of a 40 -foot right-of-way dedication in lieu of a 45 -foot right-of-way dedication. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. O