Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8263-A Staff AnalysisFEBRUARY 25, 2008 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8263-A Owner: Kimberly Mensie Applicant: Stephen B. Niswanger Address: 310 N. Van Buren Street Description: West Side of N. Van Buren Street, between "B" and "C" Streets Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: An appeal is requested of the City's denial of a privilege license/home occupation request. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential with Home Occupation STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments, B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 310 N. Van Buren Street is occupied by a two-story frame single-family residence. There is an alley right-of-way along the north side property line. There is a one -car garage at the northwest corner of the house which is accessed from the alley. The front portion of the residence is one-story in height, with a second floor over the garage area. On September 27, 2007 the Planning Commission denied a rezoning application (Nails by Kimmie Short -Form PD-C) for 310 N. Van Buren Street. The application was for a full service salon with four (4) employees, offering various salon services (manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring and cutting, etc.). Ms. Kimberly Mensie, the property owner and salon operator, was proposing to reside on the site. During the public hearing several changes were made to the application, limiting the number of employees and services provided. At one point Ms. Mensie stated that she was not going to FEBRUARY 25, 2008 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) ivT eon the prop�3 e t efi fa arc a epfember 2T, 2007-Planning Commission minute record for additional details. On January 15, 2008 the Board of Directors denied the applicant's request to appeal the Planning Commission's denial. On October 8, 2007, Staff denied a Business License application for "Nails by Kimmie" at 310 N. Van Buren Street. The application was for "nail art and nail tutoring limited to 2 students at a time." Staff views the proposed use as a beauty shop/ salon -type use which is expressly prohibited as a home occupation according to Section 36-253(b)(6)c.1. of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Barber Shops and Beauty Shops). Additionally, in staff's opinion, the use would generate traffic, parking, sewage and water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood, which is not allowed for home occupations. Please see the attached criteria for home occupations as found in Section 36-253(b)(6) of the Code. Following is the definition of "Barber and Beauty Shop" as found in Section 36-3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "Barber of beauty shop means a facility licensed by the state where hair cutting, hair dressing, shaving, trimming beards, facials, manicures or related services are performed." As noted in this section, "manicures or related services" are included in the definition of "Barber of Beauty Shop". Therefore, staff views Ms. Mensie's proposed use as a beauty shop/salon-type use. The applicant, Kimberly Mensie, is requesting an appeal of this administrative interpretation, in order to operate her "nail art and tutoring" business at 310 N. Van Buren Street as a home occupation. Ms. Mensie's attorney, Steve Niswanger, notes that she will do "nail art" by appointment only with no other employees. He also notes "All Kimmie proposes under the business license application is to do pedicures and manicures which is painting and sculpting. She will not be doing a beauty salon." Please see the attached letter and e- mail from Mr. Niswanger for additional information. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Ms. Mensie's proposed use of the property at 310 N. Van Buren Street qualifies as a home occupation according to section 36-253 of the ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on January 22, 2008, requesting the application be deferred to the February 25, 2008 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 25, 2008 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. FEBRUARY 25, 2008 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2008) Stephen Niswanger and Kimberly Mensie were present, representing the application. There were several persons present with concerns. Staff presented the application. Stephen Niswanger and Kimberly Mensie addressed the Board in support of the application. Mr. Niswanger explained what other non-residential uses were in the area. He explained why painting and sculpting nails should be permitted as a home occupation. He discussed the history of the land use in the area. Chairman Burruss asked if Ms. Mensie's use required licensing by the State. Ms. Mensie stated that it did. The issue of surrounding uses was discussed. Mr. Niswanger further explained why Ms. Mensie's use should be allowed as a home occupation. Andrew Francis explained that he could not support the application with the explanation of Ms. Mensie's use as an art studio. There was a discussion of the State's regulation of this type use. James Van Dover asked Mr. Niswanger the difference between manicure and nail art. This issue was briefly discussed. The issue of excess parking, traffic, etc. was discussed. Mr. Niswanger noted that Ms. Mensie would have only one (1) client at a time, by appointment only. Mr. Francis explained that the proposed use would generate more traffic than what is normal for a residence. He explained that staff had made the correct decision. Ms. Mensie noted that the State Cosmetology Board had approved her use. Mr. Francis explained that the state's licensing guidelines are not binding on the City. The issue was further discussed. The issue of other uses in the area was discussed. The issue of surrounding land uses in the area not being applicable to this application was explained for Ms. Mensie's benefit. Staff noted that, to their knowledge, no beauty shop -type uses have been allowed as home occupations in the past. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal application. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The appeal was denied. September 27, 2007 -- - ITEM- NO.-- 1-7.1 NAME: Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C LOCATION- Located at 310 North Van Buren Street DEVELOPER: Kimberly Mensie C/o Niswanger Law Firm 5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72211 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: Barry Williams Roberts and Williams Associates 1501 N. University Avenue, Suite 430 Little Rock, AR 72207 AREA: 0.19 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: - PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-3, Single-family Single-family residential PD-C FILE NO-: Z--8263 - FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Residential and a Full Service Salon VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is the owner and operator of Nails by Kimmie and the owner of property located at 310 North Van Buren Street. The applicant is seeking a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned Development Commercial to allow the utilization of the site as a full service salon. The shop has four employees including the owner. The shop offers a variety of services including manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring, hair cutting, hair removal, permanent makeup and other beauty/aesthetic services. The applicant also intends to reside in the structure. September 27, 2007 - -- - ITEM -NO.:- -1-7-A --- Cont. FILE NO_: Z-8263 Normal business hours are from 10 am to 8 pm Monday through Saturday. Other times are available by appointment. A single sign to identify the business and direct customers to the rear yard parking is proposed within the front yard area. The rear yard is proposed to be paved with ten (10) parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley located along the northern perimeter. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-family home with a functioning alley located along the northern boundary of the home. The rear yard area is open with a large tree located in the center of the yard_ The non-residential uses have been limited to the area south of B Street. The area north of B Street is primarily residential with the exception of a scattering of non -conforming office and neighborhood commercial uses located along Van Buren Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site along with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Van Buren Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Van Buren Street and the alley. 3. At the time of building permit review, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Location of existing sewer service unknown. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. 2 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM -NO 17-4 -(Cont - _ -- -FlLE NO::--Z-8263--- - - AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if this premise becomes a business or if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Short -form Planned Commercial Development to allow the conversion of an existing single family home to be used as a residence and a nail salon with three to four employees. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda (LU07-04-01). Master Street Plan: North Van Buren is shown as a Minor Arterial with reduced standards on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Reco, nized Neiqhborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal states: "Adopt a plan of action to stop the degradation, to reverse its course, and to recreate a neighborhood that is one again a pleasant place to work and live. This includes no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses." 3 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION TEM- NO.: '17.1 {Cont. Landscape: FILE NO.: Z-8263 1. The site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") land use buffer between this property and the property to the west. Seventy percent of this area is to remain undisturbed. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") landscape strip around the sites entirety. A variance from this minimal amount must be obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The property to the west is zoned residential, therefore, a six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the western perimeter of the site. 5. This area is located within the designated mature area of the City. 6. Credit for saving existing on site trees can be given thus reducing the number of trees that will be required to plant as a part of this application. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 6, 2007) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant was requesting a rezoning to allow the use of the site as a residence and a full service salon. Staff stated there were a number of technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff questioned the total square footage of the existing structure and the proposed expansion area. Staff also questioned if the site would utilize a dumpster and, if so, the location of the proposed dumpster facility. Staff stated the site was located within the newly adopted Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Staff stated they had provided the overlay district standards and requested the applicant provide details of the indicated items. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of way 35-feet from centerline would be required per the Master Street Plan. Staff also stated a 20-foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the alley and Van Buren Street. Landscaping Comments were addressed. Staff stated buffering and screening would be required along the perimeters of the site. Staff also stated any variances from the Landscape Ordinance would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. n September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont-) --FILE NO.: Z-8263- Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information and 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 site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the September 6, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the site will not utilize a dumpster, provided the total square footage of the existing structure and the expansion area and provided details of their site related to the Hillcrest Design Overlay District typical standards. The applicant is seeking a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned Development Commercial to allow the utilization of the site as a full service salon. The shop has four employees including the owner. The shop offers a variety of services including manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring, hair cutting, hair- removal, permanent makeup and other beauty/aesthetic services. The applicant has indicated she will reside in the structure as well. The existing structure contains 1,228 square feet and the site plan includes an expansion area of 1,016 square feet. The typical parking required for a salon is one space per two hundred square feet of gross building area or 6 spaces with the existing square footage and 11 spaces with the expanded area. The parking standard per Hillcrest Design Overlay District is set at 50 percent of the typical parking requirement of the zoning ordinance with the maximum parking allowed being the minimum parking established by the ordinance. Based this assessment the maximum parking allowed would be eleven spaces and the preferred parking would be five spaces. The rear yard is proposed with ten (10) parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley located along the northern perimeter. The current floor area ratio is 15.6 percent and the floor area ratio with the addition of the future residential area would be 22.1 percent. The building height has been indicated not to exceed 39-feet or two and one-half stories. The Hillcrest Design Overlay District indicates a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 percent for residential structure with more than one floor and a lot area in excess of 8,000 square feet. Maximum building heights allowed is 39-feet for two and one-half story homes. The site plan indicates the placement of a monument sign in the front yard area with a maximum height of eight feet and a total sign area of 120 square feet. The Hillcrest Design Overlay District typically allows signage as permitted in office 5 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NE)::--17.9-- Coat: - -------FILE Na::-Z-8263-- - and institutional zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The business hours proposed are Monday through Saturday from 10 am to 8 pm. Other times will be available by appointment. Staff is not supportive of the request. Staff feels the expansion of the commercial activities into the neighborhood could significantly impact the area. The development is proposed as a full service salon with four operators. The proposed use is not a quiet commercial use but in fact a commercial activity which could potentially generate in excess of 40 to 50 trips per day. (Typical single-family trip generation is eight to ten trips per day.) As indicated in the write-up for the Future Land Use Plan amendment, the change to the Future Land Use Plan for this site would in effect create another small island of non-residential uses on Van Buren Street. The addition of new zoning and land use categories further north than exists today could be seen as encroaching into the neighborhood and on the single-family homes located along Van Buren Street. Staff feels the single family residential nature of North Van Buren Street should be protected and upheld. - Staff feels the commercial activities should remain as presently exist and be maintained south of B Street and along West Markham Street and not be allowed to erode the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2007) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Steve Niswanger addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated his desire was to amend the application and more clearly state the intent of the development. He stated the application was amended to limit the number of full time employees to one and two part time employees. He stated the business would be run by appointment only. He stated the business would not allow massages, tanning or permanent make-up. He stated the site plan would be revised to allow eight parking spaces and not the ten as indicated. He stated the use would be limited to Ms. Mensie and not be a transferable use to any future property owner. He stated if Ms. Mensie moved or no longer operated the shop the property would revert to the R-3, Single- family zoning as it currently held. He stated presently there were a number of commercial businesses located in the area. He stated to the north and south were commercial establishments fronting on Van Buren Street. He stated traffic in the area 9 September 27, 2007 UBDIVISION ITEM NO. --`I7.1(Cont.)FILE ND.:- Z-82T3 . _ was a concern. He stated Van Buren Street was a cut -through street from the Heights to 1-630. Ms. Sara Chastain addressed the Commission in support. She stated she was a customer of Ms. Mensie and had been for a number of years. She stated Ms. Mensie was a hard worker and should be allowed to operate her business from the site. Ms. Sandra Tindall addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated Ms. Mensie provided a service to the cancer patients staying in the nearby hotel. She stated Ms. Mensie would come -in on Sundays and provide nail care service to these clients. Ms. Elizabeth Clarke addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she lived in Hillcrest and felt the addition of the business was an asset to the area. She stated she would be happy to have Ms. Mensie as a neighbor. She stated she was a customer of Ms. Mensie and when she was in the salon there was a maximum of five cars in the parking lot. She stated the business operated by appointment only which allowed for Ms. Menise to provide full service to her customers. Ms. Marcella Callaham addressed the Commission in support. She stated Ms. Mensie was a hard working individual and she would be glad to have Ms. Mensie as a neighbor. She stated she felt the addition of a minority business in the area would be an asset. Ms. Becky Whelan addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated Ms. Mensie was a hard working individual and she could not imagine why the neighbors did not want Ms. Menise as a neighbor. She stated the site was in disrepair when Ms. Mensie bought the place and she had cleaned the site and added improvements to the structure and the lawn. She stated the property had improved and would only continue to improve if Ms. Mensie was allowed to operate her salon from the site. Ms. Marcia Camp addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the neighbors were working to increase property values in the area. She stated the placement of a commercial business in the neighborhood would act to detract from property values. She stated crime was a concern of the neighbors. She stated with the placement of a commercial business in the area there was a potential for the criminal element to increase. She stated the neighborhood was plagued with persons walking the neighborhood casing the area looking for things to steal. She stated this was not a perceived problem and stated she provided the Commission with police reports noting the criminal activity in the area. Mr. Clint Davis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the traffic on B Street and Van Buren Street was significant. He stated he agreed with staff and did not feel the site an appropriate location for a commercial business. 7 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.-:-17-.1(Cortt:j`_ . -FfE O. Z-8263 Mr. Robert Germany addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home abutted the back yard of Ms. Mensie. He stated he did not feel the location appropriate for commercial. He stated the water from Ms. Mensie's site drained across his property. He stated if the rear yard was paved this would only increase the water run-off onto his property: He stated traffic was a concern. He stated the traffic on Van Buren Street was significant. He stated there were a number of businesses located along Van Buren Street but most were grand-farthered in and had been commercial establishments for a number of years. He stated. commercial activities should remain on West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard and not be allowed ,to encroach into the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Paula Lingo addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the residents were working to fix their homes and did not feel it appropriate for a commercial business to locate in the area. She stated she was in strong support of the Overlay which was recently adopted by the Board of Directors which established design guidelines for the area. She stated she was concerned with traffic backing into the alley. She stated a number of the homes were accessed via alleyways but she did not feel the alley should provide ingress and egress for commercial businesses. She stated the alley was for personal access to the homes and not commercial establishments. Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission. He stated he was president of the Hillcrest Residents Association. He stated the association was not in support of the request. He stated he felt the neighborhood should be protected. He stated he felt the use was proposed in the wrong place within the neighborhood. Ms. Delores Lecompte addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was in support of Kimmie but not in changing the zoning. She questioned if there was a way to keep Kimmie and not change the zoning. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the request was spot zoning. She stated the area was a residential neighborhood. She stated in some cities the character of the homes abutting an arterial was different on each side of the street. She stated this was not the case in Hillcrest. She stated the area had maintained the residential qualities and did not feel the commercial should be allowed to encroach into the neighborhood. Ms. Mensie addressed the Commission. She stated there were a number of improvements envisioned for the property including the rear yard area and the alley. Mr. Barry Williams, the landscape architect for the development, addressed the Commission. He stated the request was a PD-C request which would limit the future uses of the property. He stated with the commercial business the area would be protected by allowing customers and neighbors to watch out for each other. He stated Ms. Mensie had restricted her application and felt the request reasonable. September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17-1—{Coat.} ---1'1LE-NO::TZ-8263 There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the proposed use of the property and the impact the commercial business would have on the area. The Commission indicated the request was a planning and zoning issue. The Commission questioned Ms. Mensie as to when she purchased the property if she was told she could operate her business from the site. She stated she was told it should not be an issue. The Commission also questioned if Ms. Mensie would -reside in the home. She stated she would not live in the home only use the structure for her business. Mr. Niswanger stated the application request was to reside in the home. He stated he felt the response by Ms. Mensie was an emotional response. The Commissioners stated they felt there were adequate properties zoned for commercial uses located along West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard and could not support the request. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 6 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 001 September 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 17.1 NAME: Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C LOCATION: Located at 310 North Van Buren Street DEVELOPER: Kimberly Mensie C/o Niswanger Law Firm 5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72211 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: Barry Williams Roberts and Williams Associates 1501 N. University Avenue, Suite 430 Little Rock, AR 72207 AREA: 0.19 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: - PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-3, Single-family Single-family residential P D-C FILE NO.: Z-8263 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Residential and a Full Service Salon VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is the owner and operator of Nails by Kimmie and the owner of property located at 310 North Van Buren Street. The applicant is seeking a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned Development Commercial to allow the utilization of the site as a full service salon. The shop has four employees including the owner. The shop offers a variety of services including manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring, hair cutting, hair removal, permanent makeup and other beauty/aesthetic services. The applicant also intends to reside in the structure. September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8263 Normal business hours are from 10 am to 8 pm Monday through Saturday. Other times are available by appointment. A single sign to identify the business and direct customers to the rear yard parking is proposed within the front yard area. The rear yard is proposed to be paved with ten (10) parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley located along the northern perimeter. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-family home with a functioning alley located along the northern boundary of the home. The rear yard area is open with a large tree located in the center of the yard. The non-residential uses have been limited to the area south of B Street. The area north of B Street is primarily residential with the exception of a scattering of non -conforming office and neighborhood commercial uses located along Van Buren Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site along with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Van Buren Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Van Buren Street and the alley. 3. At the time of building permit review, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Location of existing sewer service unknown. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energv: No comment received. 2 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont. F AT & T: No comment received. LE NO.: Z-8263 Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if this premise becomes a business or if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning,: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Short -form Planned Commercial Development to allow the conversion of an existing single family home to be used as a residence and a nail salon with three to four employees. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda (LU07-04-01). Master Street Plan: North Van Buren is shown as a Minor Arterial with reduced standards on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. 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 applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal states: "Adopt a plan of action to stop the degradation, to reverse its course, and to recreate a neighborhood that is one again a pleasant place to work and live. This includes no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses." -93 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263 Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") land use buffer between this property and the property to the west. Seventy percent of this area is to remain undisturbed. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") landscape strip around the sites entirety. A variance from this minimal amount must be obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The property to the west is zoned residential, therefore, a six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the western perimeter of the site. 5. This area is located within the designated mature area of the City. 6. Credit for saving existing on site trees can be given thus reducing the number of trees that will be required to plant as a part of this application. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 6, 2007) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant was requesting a rezoning to allow the use of the site as a residence and a full service salon. Staff stated there were a number of technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff questioned the total square footage of the existing structure and the proposed expansion area. Staff also questioned if the site would utilize a dumpster and, if so, the location of the proposed dumpster facility. Staff stated the site was located within the newly adopted Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Staff stated they had provided the overlay district standards and requested the applicant provide details of the indicated items. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of way 35-feet from centerline would be required per the Master Street Plan. Staff also stated a 20-foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the alley and Van Buren Street. Landscaping Comments were addressed. Staff stated buffering and screening would be required along the perimeters of the site. Staff also stated any variances from the Landscape Ordinance would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. 2 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8263 Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information and 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 site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the September 6, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the site will not utilize a dumpster, provided the total square footage of the existing structure and the expansion area and provided details of their site related to the Hillcrest Design Overlay District typical standards. The applicant is seeking a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned Development Commercial to allow the utilization of the site as a full service salon. The shop has four employees including the owner. The shop offers a variety of services including manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring, hair cutting, hair removal, permanent makeup and other beauty/aesthetic services. The applicant has indicated she will reside in the structure as well. The existing structure contains 1,228 square feet and the site plan includes an expansion area of 1,016 square feet. The typical parking required for a salon is one space per two hundred square feet of gross building area or 6 spaces with the existing square footage and 11 spaces with the expanded area. The parking standard per Hillcrest Design Overlay District is set at 50 percent of the typical parking requirement of the zoning ordinance with the maximum parking allowed being the minimum parking established by the ordinance. Based this assessment the maximum parking allowed would be eleven spaces and the preferred parking would be five spaces. The rear yard is proposed with ten (10) parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley located along the northern perimeter. The current floor area ratio is 15.6 percent and the floor area ratio with the addition of the future residential area would be 22.1 percent. The building height has been indicated not to exceed 39-feet or two and one-half stories. The Hillcrest Design Overlay District indicates a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 percent for residential structure with more than one floor and a lot area in excess of 8,000 square feet. Maximum building heights allowed is 39-feet for two and one-half story homes. The site plan indicates the placement of a monument sign in the front yard area with a maximum height of eight feet and a total sign area of 120 square feet. The Hillcrest Design Overlay District typically allows signage as permitted in office 5 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8263 and institutional zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The business hours proposed are Monday through Saturday from 10 am to 8 pm. Other times will be available by appointment. Staff is not supportive of the request. Staff feels the expansion of the commercial activities into the neighborhood could significantly impact the area. The development is proposed as a full service salon with four operators. The proposed use is not a quiet commercial use but in fact a commercial activity which could potentially generate in excess of 40 to 50 trips per day. (Typical single-family trip generation is eight to ten trips per day.) As indicated in the write-up for the Future Land Use Plan amendment, the change to the Future Land Use Plan for this site would in effect create another small island of non-residential uses on Van Buren Street. The addition of new zoning and land use categories further north than exists today could be seen as encroaching into the neighborhood and on the single-family homes located along Van Buren Street. Staff feels the single family residential nature of North Van Buren Street should be protected and upheld. Staff feels the commercial activities should remain as presently exist and be maintained south of B Street and along West Markham Street and not be allowed to erode the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2007) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Steve Niswanger addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated his desire was to amend the application and more clearly state the intent of the development. He stated the application was amended to limit the number of full time employees to one and two part time employees. He stated the business would be run by appointment only. He stated the business would not allow massages, tanning or permanent make-up. He stated the site plan would be revised to allow eight parking spaces and not the ten as indicated. He stated the use would be limited to Ms. Mensie and not be a transferable use to any future property owner. He stated if Ms. Mensie moved or no longer operated the shop the property would revert to the R-3, Single- family zoning as it currently held. He stated presently there were a number of commercial businesses located in the area. He stated to the north and south were commercial establishments fronting on Van Buren Street. He stated traffic in the area September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.- 17.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-82 was a concern. He stated Van Buren Street was a cut -through street from the Heights to 1-630. Ms. Sara Chastain addressed the Commission in support. She stated she was a customer of Ms. Mensie and had been for a number of years. She stated Ms. Mensie was a hard worker and should be allowed to operate her business from the site. Ms. Sandra Tindall addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated Ms. Mensie provided a service to the cancer patients staying in the nearby hotel. She stated Ms. Mensie would come -in on Sundays and provide nail care service to these clients. Ms. Elizabeth Clarke addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she lived in Hillcrest and felt the addition of the business was an asset to the area. She stated she would be happy to have Ms. Mensie as a neighbor. She stated she was a customer of Ms. Mensie and when she was in the salon there was a maximum of five cars in the parking lot. She stated the business operated by appointment only which allowed for Ms. Menise to provide full service to her customers. Ms. Marcella Callaham addressed the Commission in support. She stated Ms. Mensie was a hard working individual and she would be glad to have Ms. Mensie as a neighbor. She stated she felt the addition of a minority business in the area would be an asset. Ms. Becky Whelan addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated Ms. Mensie was a hard working individual and she could not imagine why the neighbors did not want Ms. Menise as a neighbor. She stated the site was in disrepair when Ms. Mensie bought the place and she had cleaned the site and added improvements to the structure and the lawn. She stated the property had improved and would only continue to improve if Ms. Mensie was allowed to operate her salon from the site. Ms. Marcia Camp addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the neighbors were working to increase property values in the area. She stated the placement of a commercial business in the neighborhood would act to detract from property values. She stated crime was a concern of the neighbors. She stated with the placement of a commercial business in the area there was a potential for the criminal element to increase. She stated the neighborhood was plagued with persons walking the neighborhood casing the area looking for things to steal. She stated this was not a perceived problem and stated she provided the Commission with police reports noting the criminal activity in the area. Mr. Clint Davis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the traffic on B Street and Van Buren Street was significant. He stated he agreed with staff and did not feel the site an appropriate location for a commercial business. 7 September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263 Mr. Robert Germany addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home abutted the back yard of Ms. Mensie. He stated he did not feel the location appropriate for commercial. He stated the water from Ms. Mensie's site drained across his property. He stated if the rear yard was paved this would only increase the water run-off onto his property: He stated traffic was a concern. He stated the traffic on Van Buren Street was significant. He stated there were a number of businesses located along Van Buren Street but most were grand-farthered in and had been commercial establishments for a number of years. He stated commercial activities should remain on West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard and not be allowed to encroach into the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Paula Lingo addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the residents were working to fix their homes and did not feel it appropriate for a commercial business to locate in the area. She stated she was in strong support of the Overlay which was recently adopted by the Board of Directors which established design guidelines for the area. She stated she was concerned with traffic backing into the alley. She stated a number of the homes were accessed via alleyways but she did not feel the alley should provide ingress and egress for commercial businesses. She stated the alley was for personal access to the homes and not commercial establishments. Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission. He stated he was president of the Hillcrest Residents Association. He stated the association was not in support of the request. He stated he felt the neighborhood should be protected. He stated he felt the use was proposed in the wrong place within the neighborhood. Ms. Delores Lecompte addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was in support of Kimmie but not in changing the zoning. She questioned if there was a way to keep Kimmie and not change the zoning. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the request was spot zoning. She stated the area was a residential neighborhood. She stated in some cities the character of the homes abutting an arterial was different on each side of the street. She stated this was not the case in Hillcrest. She stated the area had maintained the residential qualities and did not feel the commercial should be allowed to encroach into the neighborhood. Ms. Mensie addressed the Commission. She stated there were a number of improvements envisioned for the property including the rear yard area and the alley. Mr. Barry Williams, the landscape architect for the development, addressed the Commission. He stated the request was a PD-C request which would limit the future uses of the property. He stated with the commercial business the area would be protected by allowing customers and neighbors to watch out for each other. He stated Ms. Mensie had restricted her application and felt the request reasonable. September 27, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8263 There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the proposed use of the property and the impact the commercial business would have on the area. The Commission indicated the request was a planning and zoning issue. The Commission questioned Ms. Mensie as to when she purchased the property if she was told she could operate her business from the site. She stated she was told it should not be an issue. The Commission also questioned if Ms. Mensie would reside in the home. She stated she would not live in the home only use the structure for her business. Mr. Niswanger stated the application request was to reside in the home. He stated he felt the response by Ms. Mensie was an emotional response. The Commissioners stated they felt there were adequate properties zoned for commercial uses located along West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard and could not support the request. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 6 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 9