Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7809 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7810 NAME: Harvey Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike DEVELOPER: Paul Harvey P.O. Box 192607 Little Rock, AR 72219 ENGINEER: Marlar Engineering Co., Inc 5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72116 AREA: 1.96 acre CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONIN NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family Single-family residential PCD FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF PROPOSED USE: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses, Indoor warehousing and limited outdoor display VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The R-2, Single-family zoned site located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike was developed prior to annexation by the City of Little Rock. The site was grandfathered in upon annexation with a non -conforming status for commercial activity. The site has not operated as a business for more than one year and has lost its non -conforming status. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PCD to allow the site to be marketed as a commercial property. The applicant is requesting uses with outdoor display of items to be sold on computer internet sites, warehousing indoor for items to be sold on computer internet sites and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses. FILE NO.: Z-7810 (Cont. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a vacant non-residential building located on a single parcel of land. There have been a number of commercial uses located on the site in the past and most recently the site housed a limousine service. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the west of the site (Pinedale) and a single-family neighborhood located to the northeast of the site (Mavis Circle). Mabelvale Pike contains a number of uses including single-family, multi- family and commercial uses. The commercial uses are predominately located nearer the Interstate access road and further south within Mabelvale. The road is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in place adjacent to the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Pinedale Neighborhood Association, the Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all property owners 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. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Mabelvale Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 -feet from centerline will be required. 2. Boundary street improvements and storm water detention do not apply unless construction is proposed with a future building permit. 3. Furnish signage and notarized dedications with final Board of Directors approval of the rezoning request. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are required. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7810 Cont. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Routes #17 and #17A, the Mabelvale-Downtown and Mabelvale UALR Routes. F. ISSUESITECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division_: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to use an existing commercial building for a business. The PZD (Planned Zoning Development) process will allow a thorough and detailed review of the development. Since the applicant is proposing to use an existing commercial building, the same infrastructure, is not planning expansion, and the property has historically been used as a non conforming commercial use, Staff feels a Land Use Plan Amendment is not necessary for this particular application. Master Street Plan: Mabelvale Pike is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. A Collector street's primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Mabelvale Pike will require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 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: A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The development of a new parking lot will require landscaping and buffers in compliance with ordinance requirements. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site was a commercial building located on Mabelvale Pike which had been grandfathered into the City as a non -conforming use. Staff stated the building had not functioned as a business for more than one year resulting in the loss of its non- conforming status. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if the request was to allow the first 348 feet to be zoned as PCD with the remainder of the site remaining zoned 3 R-2, Single-family. Staff also requested the applicant provide the total square footage of the building and the days and hours of operation in the general notes section of the site plan. Staff requested the applicant provide a historical list of uses that had occurred on the site. Staff stated the request included the development of the site with C-4, Open Display District uses. Staff stated they felt a C-4, Open Display District development at this location was too intense. Staff stated they would recommend selecting specific uses for redevelopment or consider redevelopment with C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses. Staff suggested the applicant be more specific of his requested uses and narrow down the listing of requested uses. Staff stated they felt C-1 uses were more appropriate uses for the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way 45 -feet from centerline would be required along Mabelvale Pike. Staff noted upon dedication the front parking area would be very limited. Staff suggested the applicant design parking in the rear of the building. Staff stated boundary street improvements and storm water detention did not apply unless construction was proposed with a future building permit. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings was required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. Staff also stated the development of a new parking lot would require landscaping and buffering in compliance with ordinance requirements. 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 March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the front portion of the property zoned as PCD and the remainder of the property zoned R-2, Single-family. The applicant has also indicated the total building square footage in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the building contains 4050 square feet and the building is constructed of metal and rock. The applicant has also indicated a proposed parking area in the rear of the building to be used as outdoor display and customer parking. The applicant has indicated the proposed uses of the site are outdoor display of boats, autos and motorcycles to be sold on computer internet sites, the allowance of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses and indoor warehousing and storage of merchandise to be sold on computer internet sites. The applicant has indicated there will be limited site visits to allow viewing of the merchandise held for internet sales. The applicant has also indicated there is a potential for the sale of these items based on these viewings. 0 FILE NO.: Z-7810 (Cont. The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan. The applicant has indicated a new parking area will be added to the rear of the building in the future. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing parking area in the front of the building until Mabelvale Pike is widened at which time the applicant will construct the rear customer parking area. Based on the total square footage of the building the typical minimum parking required would be 13 parking spaces for retail use. The applicant has indicated nine future customer parking spaces along the rear of the building. The indicated parking is not adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a retail use or a restaurant use, which is an allowable uses under C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff feels the indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical parking demand required for a retail use but would recommend a restaurant not be an allowable use for the site due to the in adequate parking proposed. Staff also has concerns with the use of the right-of-way for customer maneuvering room from the existing parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the proposed rear parking area will not be constructed immediately and is requesting to utilize the right-of-way for customer backing out space and maneuvering area. Although, the customers will not be backing into the right-of- way staff has safety concerns with allowing the customers to utilize the right-of- way as a maneuvering area. The proposed site plan includes the placement of an eight foot wood fence along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The applicant also proposes the placement of an eight foot fence between the commercially and residentially zoned portions of the property. The applicant has indicated a six foot landscape strip along the parking lot perimeters and has indicated landscaping will be added in the future when the parking lot is paved. The applicant has not indicated signage on the proposed site plan. If approved staff would recommend limiting signage for the proposed development to signage similar to office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The applicant has indicated the parking area behind the building is currently unpaved. The applicant has indicated the parking area will remain unpaved for a limited time but the area will not be utilized for customer parking or storage until the area is paved. Although, staff is supportive of the indoor aspects of the proposed development if limited to uses, which do not require parking at a rate far greater than is proposed, staff has concerns with the proposed outdoor display area. There are residential uses located to the north, south and west of the site. The western property line has a significant buffer provided by the applicant, the properties to the north and south do not have this increased buffer area. With such a close proximity to residential uses staff feels the outdoor display area could adversely impact the adjoining properties and should not be allowed. 5 FILE NO.: Z-7810 Cont. 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) Mr. David Jones was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the primary concern was with the placement of the outdoor storage area. Mr. Jones addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated the building was constructed 20 plus years before as a commercial building. He stated the site had a history of commercial uses including outdoor storage. He stated his client had purchased the property and had utilized the site as a commercial business in the past. He stated the client did not know if there was not a commercial activity on the site the site would lose its non -conforming status. Mr. Jones stated his client was requesting the outdoor display for boats, motorcycles and cars to be sold on an Internet site such as E -bay. He stated the units would only be on site for 10 to 30 days depending on the length of the auction. He stated the units would be screened from view by the placement of an eight -foot wood fence. He stated the units would be loaded and unloaded behind the fence and the units would not be for sale at the site. Ms. Elizabeth Stewart addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was President of the Mabelvale Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association. She stated her home was across the street from the proposed commercial business. She stated the applicant was living in the structure. She stated even if the business was an Internet business there would still be customer traffic to the site. She stated there would be merchandise to drop off or pick up from the site. She stated the area had developed with commercial businesses to the north and south of the site. She stated the neighborhood had remained in tact in this area. She stated the site was not appropriate for a commercial business and felt the residential zoning should remain. Ms. Elizabeth Peel addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she lived adjacent to the site and did not wish to have a commercial business adjacent to her home. She stated the business would generate traffic due to the nature of the use. She stated if a business were to prosper then one would anticipate traffic into the area. Mr. Jones stated the applicant was only requesting to get back what he had lost. He stated it was important to have the outdoor storage area for the boats, motorcycles and cars. He stated this was a growing part of the Internet sales business. He stated he felt the proposed request was in keeping with the neighborhood. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and potential access and sales from the site. Mr. Jones assured the Commission that no direct sales A FILE NO.: Z-7810 (Cont. would take place from the site. There was also a general discussion concerning the proposed fence height. Mr. Jones requested an amendment to his application. Mr. Jones stated he was amending his request to remove the outdoor storage area and reduce the fence height to six feet. A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. 7 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-7810 NAME: Harvey Short -form PCD LOCATION: located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Is the request to allow the first 348 feet to be zoned as PCD with the remainder of the site remaining zoned R-2, Single-family? 3. Provide the total square footage of the building in the general notes section of the site plan. 4. After the dedication of right-of-way the front parking will be limited. Provide a parking plan on the proposed site plan, including access to the rear of the site and the proposed parking layout. 5. Provide the days and hours of operation in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. 6. Provide a historical list of uses that have occurred on the site. The request includes the development of the site with C-4 uses. Staff feels a C-4 development is this location is too intense. Staff would recommend selecting specific uses and/or staff feels C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses would be more appropriate for the site. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: 1. Mabelvale Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 -feet from centerline will be required. 2. Boundary street improvement and storm water detention do not apply unless construction is proposed with a future building permit. 3. Furnish signage and notarized dedications with final Board of Directors approval of the rezoning request. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water is larger and/or additional meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Routes #17 and 17A, the Mabelvale- Downtown and Mabelvale UALR Routes. IT ,,YR79 M$ I Landscape: A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The development of a new parking lot will require landscaping and buffers in compliance with ordinance requirements. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 30, 2005. April 14, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 NAME: Harvey Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike DEVELOPER: Paul Harvey P.O. Box 192607 Little Rock, AR 72219 ENGINEER: Marlar Engineering Co., Inc 5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72116 AREA: 1.96 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family Single-family residential PCD FILE NO.: Z-7810 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF PROPOSED USE: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses, Indoor warehousing and limited outdoor display VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The R-2, Single-family zoned site located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike was developed prior to annexation by the City of Little Rock. The site was grandfathered in upon annexation with a non -conforming status for commercial activity. The site has not operated as a business for more than one year and has lost its non -conforming status. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PCD to allow the site to be marketed as a commercial property. The applicant is requesting uses with outdoor display of items to be sold on computer internet April 14, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-781 0 sites, warehousing indoor for items to be sold on computer internet sites and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a vacant non-residential building located on a single parcel of land. There have been a number of commercial uses located on the site in the past and most recently the site housed a limousine service. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the west of the site (Pinedale) and a single-family neighborhood located to the northeast of the site (Mavis Circle). Mabelvale Pike contains a number of uses including single-family, multi- family and commercial uses. The commercial uses are predominately located nearer the Interstate access road and further south within Mabelvale. The road is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in place adjacent to the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Pinedale Neighborhood Association, the Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all property owners 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. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Mabelvale Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 -feet from centerline will be required. 2. Boundary street improvements and storm water detention do not apply unless construction is proposed with a future building permit. 3. Furnish signage and notarized dedications with final Board of Directors approval of the rezoning request. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. K April 14, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7810 SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Routes #17 and #17A, the Mabelvale-Downtown and Mabelvale UALR Routes. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to use an existing commercial building for a business. The PZD (Planned Zoning Development) process will allow a thorough and detailed review of the development. Since the applicant is proposing to use an existing commercial building, the same infrastructure, is not planning expansion, and the property has historically been used as a non conforming commercial use, Staff feels a Land Use Plan Amendment is not necessary for this particular application. Master Street Plan: Mabelvale Pike is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. A Collector street's primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Mabelvale Pike will require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Ci 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: A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The development of a new parking lot will require landscaping and buffers in compliance with ordinance requirements. 3 April 14, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7810 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site was a commercial building located on Mabelvale Pike which had been grandfathered into the City as a non -conforming use. Staff stated the building had not functioned as a business for more than one year resulting in the loss of its non- conforming status. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if the request was to allow the first 348 feet to be zoned as PCD with the remainder of the site remaining zoned R-2, Single-family. Staff also requested the applicant provide the total square footage of the building and the days and hours of operation in_ the general notes section of the site plan. Staff requested the applicant provide a historical list of uses that had occurred on the site. Staff stated the request included the development of the site with C-4, Open Display District uses. Staff stated they felt a C-4, Open Display District development at this location was too intense. Staff stated they would recommend selecting specific uses for redevelopment or consider 'redevelopment with C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses. Staff suggested the applicant be more specific of his requested uses and narrow down the listing of requested uses. Staff stated they felt C-1 uses were more appropriate uses for the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way 45 -feet from centerline would be required along Mabelvale Pike. Staff noted upon dedication the front parking area would be very limited. Staff suggested the applicant design parking in the rear of the building. Staff stated boundary street improvements and storm water detention did not apply unless construction was proposed with a future building permit. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings was required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. Staff also stated the development of a new parking lot would require landscaping and buffering in compliance with ordinance requirements. 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 March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the front portion of the property zoned as PCD and the remainder 4 April 14, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7810 of the property zoned R-2, Single-family. The applicant has also indicated the total building square footage in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the building contains 4050 square feet and the building is constructed of metal and rock. The applicant has also indicated a proposed parking area in the rear of the building to be used as outdoor display and customer parking. The applicant has indicated the proposed uses of the site are outdoor display of boats, autos and motorcycles to be sold on computer internet sites, the allowance of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses and indoor warehousing and storage of merchandise to be sold on computer internet sites. The applicant has indicated there will be limited site visits to allow viewing of the merchandise held for internet sales. The applicant has also indicated there is a potential for the sale of these items based on these viewings. The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan. The applicant has indicated a new parking area will be added to the rear of the building in the future. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing parking area in the front of the building until Mabelvale Pike is widened at which time the applicant will construct the rear customer parking area. Based on the total square footage of the building the typical minimum parking required would be 13 parking spaces for retail use. The applicant has indicated nine future customer parking spaces along the rear of the building. The indicated parking is not adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a retail use or a restaurant use, which is an allowable uses under C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff feels the indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical parking demand required for a retail use but would recommend a restaurant not be an allowable use for the site due to the in adequate parking proposed. Staff also has concerns with the use of the right-of-way for customer maneuvering room from the existing parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the proposed rear parking area will not be constructed immediately and- is requesting to utilize the right-of-way for customer backing out space and maneuvering area. Although, the customers will not be backing into the right-of- way staff has safety concerns with allowing the customers to utilize the right-of- way as a maneuvering area. The proposed site plan includes the placement of an eight foot wood fence along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The applicant also proposes the placement of an eight foot fence between the commercially and residentially zoned portions of the property. The applicant has indicated a six foot landscape strip along the parking lot perimeters and has indicated landscaping will be added in the future when the parking lot is paved. The applicant has not indicated signage on the proposed site plan. If approved staff would recommend limiting signage for the proposed development to signage 5 April 14, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7810 similar to office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The applicant has indicated the parking area behind the building is currently unpaved. The applicant has indicated the parking area will remain unpaved for a limited time but the area will not be utilized for customer parking or storage until the area is paved. Although, staff is supportive of the indoor aspects of the proposed development if limited to uses, which do not require parking at a rate far greater than is proposed, staff has concerns with the proposed outdoor display area. There are residential uses located to the north, south and west of the site. The western property line has a significant buffer provided by the applicant, the properties to the north and south do not have this increased buffer area. With such a close proximity to residential uses staff feels the outdoor display area could adversely impact the adjoining properties and should not be allowed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) Mr. David Jones was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the primary concern was with the placement of the outdoor storage area. Mr. Jones addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated the building was constructed 20 plus years before as a commercial building. He stated the site had a history of commercial uses including outdoor storage. He stated his client had purchased the property and had utilized the site as a commercial business in the past. He stated the client did not know if there was not a commercial activity on the site the site would lose its non -conforming status. Mr. Jones stated his client was requesting the outdoor display for boats, motorcycles and cars to be sold on an Internet site such as E -bay. He stated the units would only be on site for 10 to 30 days depending on the length of the auction. He stated the units would be screened from view by the placement of an eight -foot wood fence. He stated the units would be loaded and unloaded behind the fence and the units would not be for sale at the site. Ms. Elizabeth Stewart addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was President of the Mabelvale Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association. She stated her home was across the street from the proposed commercial business. She stated the applicant was living in the structure. She stated even if the Al April 14, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810 business was an Internet business there would still be customer traffic to the site. She stated there would be merchandise to drop off or pick up from the site. She stated the area had developed with commercial businesses to the north and south of the site. She stated the neighborhood had remained in tact in this area. She stated the site was not appropriate for a commercial business and felt the residential zoning should remain. Ms. Elizabeth Peel addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she lived adjacent to the site and did not wish to have a commercial business adjacent to her home. She stated the business would generate traffic due to the nature of the use. She stated if a business were to prosper then one would anticipate traffic into the area. Mr. Jones stated the applicant was only requesting to get back what he had lost. He stated it was important to have the outdoor storage area for the boats, motorcycles and cars. He stated this was a growing part of the Internet sales business. He stated he felt the proposed request was in keeping with the neighborhood. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and potential access and sales from the site. Mr. Jones assured the Commission that no direct sales would take place from the site. There was also a general discussion concerning the proposed fence height. Mr. Jones requested an amendment to his application. Mr. Jones stated he was amending his request to remove the outdoor storage area and reduce the fence height to six feet. A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. V1 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7809 Owner: Robert Tanner Applicant: Mark Thomas Meador Address: 3010 Painted Valley Drive Description: Lot 7, Block 30, Pleasant Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line, and a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3010 Painted Valley Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a circular drive from Painted Valley Drive which serves as access. The driveway extends along the south side of the residence to an attached carport at the southwest corner of the structure. The single family lot has a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to make two (2) additions to the single family structure. The first addition is a proposed 20 foot by 20 foot porte-cochere addition to the front of the house, over a portion of the circular driveway. The proposed porte- cochere will extend across the front platted building line by approximately 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot front setback. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: A ICON'T. The second proposed addition is a 21 foot by 43 foot addition at the southwest corner of the structure. This addition will include a garage for boat and trailer storage and an exercise/pool room next to an existing swimming pool in the rear yard. This addition will be located six (6) to eight (8) feet from the side (south) property line and 10 feet from the rear (west) property line. There is a 10 foot wide utility easement along the rear property line. The addition is not proposed to extend into the easement. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-254(d)(3) also requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires minimum side setbacks of eight (8) feet for this 100 foot wide lot. In addition, Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line, and the proposed building addition at the southwest corner of the house with reduced side and rear setbacks. Staff does not support the variances, as requested. Staff does not oppose the proposed addition at the southwest corner of the residence, as the neighborhood contains large residential structures on lots which are above average in size. Staff feels that this addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff would require that the applicant obtain a letter of approval from the neighborhood property owners' association for the proposed addition. Staff does oppose the proposed porte-cochere addition. Staff feels this proposed addition will not be compatible with the neighborhood. On inspection of the general area, staff observed no other similar front encroachments in the neighborhood. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed porte-cochere addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the setback and building line variances, as requested. AUGUST 29, 2005 1����i•[�1�_1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the April 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 23, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the August 29, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. 3 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 29, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The Board noted this fifth deferral was with prejudice, and that the application must be heard on August 29, 2005 or withdrawn and refiled at a later date. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 4