Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7948-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -7948-A NAME: Gillam Photograph Revised Short -form PD -O LOCATION: Located at 1 Portrait Place DEVELOPER: Corey Gillum — Gillum Photography 315 N. Bowman Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 1.97 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Photography Studio Revised PD -O FT. NEVA STREET: 0 LF Photography Studio — Placement of a dumpster on the site. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,449 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 5, 2005, established Gillum Photography Short -form PD -O. The proposal included a two lot plat of a 3.462 acre tract. Lot 1 was approved containing 1.197 acres and Lot 2 containing 2.265 acres. A 100 -foot building setback adjacent to Highway 10 and a 25 -foot building setback adjacent to Morgan Cemetery Road were also approved. The approval included phasing of the proposed street improvements to Cantrell and Morgan Cemetery Roads with the final platting of the respective lots. The approval allow for the construction of a two story building on Lot 1 with a total square footage of 3,376 square feet. The site was approved for the use of Gillum Photography. Nine parking spaces were approved to serve the proposed building. FILE NO.: Z -7948-A Cont. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Lot 1 has been final platted and the photography studio along with the associated parking have been constructed. The access drive extending from Cantrell Road has also been installed. The applicant is proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned Office Development to allow the placement of a dumpster on the site. According to the applicant during the original approval process the dumpster was mistakenly omitted from the site plan. The dumpster is located at the end of the existing service drive with an alternative location indicated on the site plan to relocate the dumpster when the property to the east develops and the drive becomes utilized by the adjoining property. The applicant has provided a letter from the solid waste collection provider indicating the pickup will be in the early morning hours. According to the collection provider due to customer density calculations there is only one route that services the area. According to the provider as the customer base grows and/or zoning areas change it may be possible to alter the schedule to allow for later pick-ups. Two trash receptacles have been placed on the site to minimize the number of pick-ups per month required. According to the applicant the trash will be picked -up only once a month to lessen the impact on the adjoining property owners. There are no other modifications proposed for the previously approved site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a photography studio along with the associated parking. The area to the east is a vacant tree covered site with a drainage ditch running through the middle of the site from north to south. The Joe T. Robinson Elementary School is located to the east of the site, across Morgan Cemetery Road and the Joe T. Robinson Middle and High School campus is located to the southeast across Highway 10. The land adjacent to the site to the west contains a non -conforming auto garage and single-family residence. Properties proposed as a part of the Chenal Valley Development are located directly south of the site and are currently vacant. The owners previously proposed this property for commercial zoning but later withdrew their request. Chalamont is located south of the site, adjacent to Joe T. Robinson High School. Chalamont extends from Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway by way of Chalamont/Northfield. There are several single-family subdivisions currently under construction accessed from Chalamont and Northfield. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site, the Duquesne Place Property Owners Association and the Collation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. 2 FILE NO__ Z -7948-A (Cont. D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were no remaining technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request included the placement of a dumpster on the site which was not a part of the original approved site plan. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. E. ANALYSIS: There were no remaining issues to address raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to allow the placement of a dumpster on the site with limited service. According to the applicant during the original approval process the dumpster was mistakenly omitted from the site plan. The dumpster is currently located at the end of the existing service drive with an alternative location indicated on the site plan to relocate the dumpster when the property to the east develops and the drive becomes utilized by the adjoining property. Two trash receptacles have been placed on the site (the location is screened per the typical minimum ordinance requirements) to minimize the number of pick-ups per month required. A letter from the solid waste collection provider indicates the pickup will be in the early morning hours and according to the collection provider due to customer density calculations there is only one route that services the area. The letter states as the customer base grows and/or zoning areas change it may be possible to alter the schedule to allow for later pick-ups. According to the applicant the trash will be picked -up only once a month to lessen the impact on the adjoining property owners. The applicant has also contacted other waste collection providers, none of which have indicated a willingness to commit to a scheduled pick-up during daylight hours. Staff has concerns with the inability of the waste provider to commit to servicing the dumpster during daylight hours. The site is located adjacent to a single- family residence and there are single-family homes located to the north of the site as well. Staff feels the residences should be protected from the intrusion of the dumpster dumping during the early morning hours. Although the applicant has indicated a willingness to limit the hours of service, the waste collection providers have not indicated it is within their means to provide the service during the daylight hours. Staff recommends the dumpster service be limited to once monthly during the non -daylight hours. Staff also recommends the applicant continue to work with the waste provider to schedule collection during daylight hours and as schedules become available the waste collection be limited to daylight hours. t FILE NO_: Z -7948-A (Cont. There are no other modifications proposed to the previously approved Planned Office Development. To Staff's knowledge there are no remaining outstanding issues associated with the request. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the applicant continue to work with the waste provider to schedule waste collection during daylight hours and as schedules become available the waste collection be limited to daylight hours and the service be limited to once a month while being serviced during non -daylight hours. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Corey Gillam addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he was not sure why the original site plan did not include a dumpster location. He stated his business generated a great deal of trash and a dumpster was required. He stated he -could not receive garbage collection from Pulaski County since he was a business. He stated he had contacted a number of waste providers to seek pick-up during daylight hours and none had committed to servicing'the dumpster during daylight hours. Mr. Bill Lessenberry addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located adjacent to the site and he had been awaken a number of times to the sound of dumping dumpsters. He stated there were other options for disposal of trash other than a dumpster. He stated recycling was an option. He stated during the public hearing process the Commission questioned if a dumpster would be used. Mr. Lessenberry stated the owners representative specifically stated no dumpster would be placed on the site. Mr. Pat Gillum addressed the Commission. He stated he felt there was an oversight by the engineer by not placing the dumpster on the site plan. He stated there were two design professional working on the site plan and during the process one of the design professional left off the dumpster. He stated the intent was always to have a dumpster due to the volume of packing material the business receives. There was a general discussion concerning the previous request and the allowance of a dumpster. Staff stated they were not sure. Mr. Lessenberry provided a digital copy of the planning commission meeting with Mr. Pat McGetrick addressing the Commission stating there would not be a dumpster located on the site. Commissioner Rector stated one was not shown on the site plan and one would not be allowed without revising the site plan to allow a dumpster. Commissioner Williams stated the video was interesting but the current request was to allow the dumpster. There was a general discussion of the dumpster, the hours of service and the options for trash removal. Mr. Gillam stated the site was located on Highway 10 which was well traveled by both cars and 18 -wheelers. He stated the road was not a quiet road. He stated the nearest home was 300 feet away and the next was over 500 -feet away from the dumpster site. He stated this was equal to two football fields. El FILE NO.: Z -7948-A (Cont. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. 5 December 7, 2006 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z -7948 - NAME: Gillam Photograph Revised Short -form PD -0 LOCATION: Located at 1 Portrait Place DEVELOPER: Corey Gillum — Gillum Photography 315 N. Bowman Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER; McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 1.97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD -O ALLOWED USES: Photography Studio PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD -O PROPOSED USE: Photography Studio — Placement of a dumpster on the site. VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,449 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 5, 2005, established Gillum Photography Short -form PD -O. The proposal included a twe lot plat of a 3.462 acre tract. Lot 1 was approved containing 1.197 acres and Lot 2 containing 2.265 acres. A 100 -foot building setback adjacent to Highway 10 and a 25 -foot building setback adjacent to Morgan Cemetery Road were also approved. The approval included phasing of the proposed street improvements to Cantrell and Morgan Cemetery Roads with the final platting of the respective lots. The approval allow for the construction of a two story building on Lot 1 with a total square footage of 3,376 square feet. The site was approved for the use of Gillum Photography. Nine parking spaces were approved to serve the proposed building. December 7, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -7948-A A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: Lot 1 has been final platted and the photography studio along with the associated parking have been constructed. The access drive extending from Cantrell Road has also been installed. The applicant is proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned Office Development to allow the placement of a dumpster on the site. According to the applicant during the original approval process the dumpster was mistakenly omitted from the site plan. The dumpster is located at the end of the existing service drive with an alternative location indicated on the site plan to relocate the dumpster when the property to the east develops and the drive becomes utilized by the adjoining property. The applicant has provided a letter from the solid waste collection provider indicating the pickup will be in the early morning hours. According to the collection provider due to customer density calculations there is only one route that services the area. According to the provider as the customer base grows and/or zoning areas change it may be possible to alter the schedule to allow for later pick-ups. Two trash receptacles have been placed on the site to minimize the number of pick-ups per month required. According to the applicant the trash will be picked -up only once a month to lessen the impact on the adjoining property owners. There are no other modifications proposed for the previously approved site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a photography studio along with the associated parking. The area to the east is a vacant tree covered site with a drainage ditch running through the middle of the site from north to south. The Joe T. Robinson Elementary School is located to the east of the site, across Morgan Cemetery Road and the Joe T. Robinson Middle and High School campus is located to the southeast across Highway 10. The land adjacent to the site to the west contains a non -conforming auto garage and single-family residence. Properties proposed as a part of the Chenal Valley Development are located directly south of the site and are currently vacant. The owners previously proposed this property for commercial zoning but later withdrew their request. Chalamont is located south of the site, adjacent to Joe T. Robinson High School. Chalamont extends from Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway by way of Chalamont/Northfield. There are several single-family subdivisions currently under construction accessed from Chalamont and Northfield. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site, the Duquesne Place Property 2 December 7, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7948-A Owners Association and the Collation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were no remaining technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request included the placement of a dumpster on the site which was not a part of the original approved site plan. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. E. ANALYSIS - There were no remaining issues to address raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to allow the placement of a dumpster on the site with limited service. According to the applicant during the original approval process the dumpster was mistakenly omitted from the site plan. The dumpster is currently located at the end of the existing service drive with an alternative location indicated on the site plan to relocate the dumpster when the property to the east develops and the drive becomes utilized by the adjoining property, , Two: trash receptacles have been placed on the site (the location is screened per the typical minimum ordinance requirements) to minimize the number of pick-ups per month required. A letter from the solid waste collection provider indicates the pickup will be in the early morning hours and according to the collection provider due to customer density calculations there is only one route that services the area. The letter states as the customer base grows an zoning areas change it may be possible to alter the schedule to allow for later pick-ups. According to the applicant the trash will be picked -up only once a month to lessen the impact on the adjoining property owners. The applicant has also contacted other waste collection providers, none of which have indicated a willingness to commit to a scheduled pick-up during daylight hours. Staff has concerns with the inability of the waste provider to commit to servicing the dumpster during daylight hours. The site is located adjacent to a single- family residence and there are single-family homes located to the north of the site as well. Staff feels the residences should be protected from the intrusion of the dumpster dumping during the early morning hours. Although the applicant has indicated a willingness to limit the hours of service, the waste collection providers have not indicated it is within their means to provide the service during the daylight hours. Staff recommends the dumpster service be limited to once monthly during the non -daylight hours. Staff also recommends the applicant K December 7, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7948-A continue to work with the waste provider to schedule collection during daylight hours and as schedules become available the waste collection be limited to daylight hours. There are no other modifications proposed to the previously approved Planned Office Development. To Staff's knowledge there are no remaining outstanding issues associated with the request. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the applicant continue to work with the waste provider to schedule waste collection during daylight hours and as schedules become available the waste collection be limited to daylight hours and the service be limited to once a month while being serviced during non -daylight hours. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Corey Gillam addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he was not sure why the original site plan did not include a dumpster location. He stated his business generated a great deal of trash and a dumpster was required. He stated he could not receive garbage collection from Pulaski County since he was a business. He stated he had contacted a number of waste providers to seek pick-up during daylight hours and none had committed to servicing the dumpster during daylight hours. Mr. Bill Lessenberry addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located adjacent to the site and he had been awaken a number of times to the sound of dumping dumpsters. He stated there were other options for disposal of trash other than a dumpster. He stated recycling was an option. He stated during the public hearing process the Commission questioned if a dumpster would be used. Mr. Lessenberry stated the owners representative specifically stated no dumpster would be placed on the site. Mr. Pat Gillum addressed the Commission. He stated he felt there was an oversight by the engineer by not placing the dumpster on the site plan. He stated there were two design professional working on the site plan and during the process one of the design professional left off the dumpster. He stated the intent was always to have a dumpster due to the volume of packing material the business receives. There was a general discussion concerning the previous request and the allowance of a dumpster. Staff stated they were not sure. Mr. Lessenberry provided a digital copy of the planning commission meeting with Mr. Pat McGetrick addressing the Commission stating there would not be a dumpster located on the site. Commissioner Rector stated one was not shown on the site plan and one would not be allowed without revising the site plan to allow a dumpster. CI December 7, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -7948-A Commissioner Williams stated the video was interesting but the current request was to allow the dumpster. There was a general discussion of the dumpster, the hours of service and the options for trash removal. Mr. Gillam stated the site was located on Highway 10 which was well traveled by both cars and 18 -wheelers. He stated the road was not a quiet road. He stated the nearest home was 300 feet away and the next was over 500 -feet away from the dumpster site. He stated this was equal to two football fields. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. 5 M NO.: 14. NAME: Gillam Photograph Revised Short -form PD -O LOCATION: located at 1 Portrait Place Plannina Staff Comments: Z -7948-A 1. Provide notification of all property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than November 22, 2006. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than November 30, 2006. VarianceMaivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: No objection to dumpster location. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection to dumpster location. Fire Department: No comment. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 -the Highway 10 Express Route. Planning Division: This request is located in the Barrett Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a previously approved POD to allow the placement of a dumpster facility on the site. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Item # 14 Master Street Plan: Highway 10 is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Highway 10 since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of- way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown south of this property on Highway 10. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5 foot shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required. 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: No comment. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, November 22, 2006. Item # 14