Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0466 Staff AnalysisJuly 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 NAME: Fields "Short -Form PCD" (Z-4475) LOCATION: 13,830 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Leon T. Fields =Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. 7324 Rockwood Road 2nd at Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR Phone: 663-5314 Phone: 375-5331 AREA: 1.73 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Commercial/Restaurant A. Site History This site is located in an older subdivision to the west of the City entitled Pankey Addition. Recently, the owner was mistakenly issued a remodeling permit for $5,000 for the abandoned building on the site, which was used for commercial at one time. The land is currently zoned for "R-2" Single Family. The existing building was constructed in the early 1930's and was always used as some type of commercial structure. Past uses include a doctor's office, beer joint, barbecue and beer, drug store and medical laboratory. The building was condemned in 1982. The current owner bought the structure in 1984. B. Proposal 1. The use of an existing, one-story rock and frame structure of approximately 1,650 square feet for a barbecue restaurant. 2. The provision of 16 parking spaces. C. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way on Highway 10 to arterial standards; 50' of right-of-way is required. July 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued 2. Clarify encroachment into right-of-way of Highway 10 and parking encroachment into street right-of-way. 3. Roadway improvements to be discussed at Committee meeting. 4. Parking plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. D. Analysis From a land use point of view, staff has no choice but to recommend denial of the plan due to its conflict with the Suburban Plan, which recommends single family zoning in this area; however, staff defers consideration of the usual policy on hardship cases to the Planning Commission or City Board. This may possibly be considered a hardship since the applicant received a $5,000 remodeling permit by the City. Staff has other concerns/requests, which include: (1) Removal of the porch from the right-of-way. (2) Expansion of parking lot into City right-of-way and 5' over into neighboring property owner's land. (3) In -lieu contribution in front of site. (4) Closing of Wells Street. (5) Replatting of various lots and ownerships. (6) Indication of additional area designed for restaurant on site plan. (7) Withhold requirements to plat Josephine and Arnold until further development occurs. E. Staff Recommendation (1) Denial of land use based on Surburban Plan; (2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission or Board. July 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and his attorney were present. The applicant agreed to remove the porch from the right-of-way, provide in -lieu contribution for the area in front of the site and to close Wells Street if the abutting property owner agrees. He explained that his tenants mistakenly expanded the parking lot over into the City's right-of-way and he would try to clear the issue up. Some discussion concerned whether or not to replat the entire ownership or just a portion with the restaurant. Some committee members expressed concern over allowing commercial on all the property. Others felt that the PUD process required specifics on all the property. A suggestion was made to phase the application. Nothing was resolved. Some members felt that the site plan couldn't be approved without the closing of the streets, others felt that it could be a condition of the approval. It was pointed out that if they weren't closed, the streets would have to be improved. Engineering indicated that the encroachment of the building into the right-of-way could possibly be granted nonconforming status. The applicant was asked to provide a revised plan showing the addition to the building and the removal of the parking spaces and porch in the right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Prior to the discussion of this matter, a general discussion was held between Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, the Planning Commission members, staff and the City Attorney. This discussion centered on the merits of hearing the case simply on the basis of a land use issue or on hearing all of the details of the history of the case. This discussion resulted in a decision to hear all of the information which could be offered. Mr. Roy Beard of the Public Works Department made a presentation at the request of the Commission offering the full details of the building permit history. He also discussed the involvement of various staff members in the review process. July 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued A determination was then made by polling the audience as to the number of persons present in support of Mr. Fields' application. There were 10 persons identified in support. In addition, three persons identified themselves as being opposed to the issue. Mr. Fields then offered a survey of Highway 10 businesses for a substantial length of Highway 10 in support of his proposal. Mr. Walker, his attorney, offered four pages of signatures of support and offered objection to the land use plan approaches to establishment of zoning lines. Mr. Jim Threet, an abutting owner representative, stated his support of Mr. Fields' application. Mr. Harold Flowers, an attorney and minister and resident of the area, stated his objections to the use and conversion, especially with respect to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Saugey, an owner and business operator in the area, spoke on the issue of spot and strip zoning of Highway 10 and the need for maintaining the land use plan. She opposed the application. Bob Lane of the Public Works Department offered, at the request of the Commission, an update on the Highway 10 widening project especially with respect to the subject site. Mr. Lloyd Vaught, an owner and President of the Highway 10 Association, commented on the application from the view of his Association. He offered a description of the premises before Mr. Fields purchased the lots and the improvements which have been made. Mr. Jeffries, a nearby neighbor, offered objection to the sale of beer on the premises and traffic concerns within the area. Mr. Orange Brady, representing the Sims Brothers, the prospective operators of the restaurant, spoke on the position of the Sims. Ms. Saugey then offered rebuttal to information that had been offered relative to the permits issued. She stated that additional work had been accomplished since the City Attorney's notice to Mr. Fields. Barbara Dutton, a resident of the area, opposed commercialization of the Pankey area. Kramer Story, a resident, opposed commercialization of the site. July 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued Mark Stodola, the City Attorney, then offered comments concerning his involvement and contacts with Mr. Fields with respect to the nonconforming status of the property and activities which have occurred on these premises in the past. Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, then presented the application offering arguments in support of Mr. Fields' position on hardships. Mr. Walker responded to questions from the Planning Commission on the status of the property as a nonconforming use. Mr. Fields then offered comments concerning his approach to obtaining the permit. He also gave a site history indicating names and dates as well as products sold. He discussed the removal of prior commercial product contents from the building shortly before he purchased the land. He offered comments concerning his discussions with the various inspectors about repairs to the building. He stated that he had on no occasion requested a privilege license from Mr. Scott's office. When asked by a commissioner, Mr. Fields stated that he did not check the zoning of this property prior to his purchase. He thought that it was zoned commercial. A general discussion then followed involving issues attached to the permit records, the various permits that were allegedly issued and the ability of the Commission to determine whether the nonconformity was revived through the actions of the City by issuance of permits. Mr. Roy Beard responded to this by stating that only one building permit was issued beyond the initial permit and this was for a bathroom containing eight fixtures and a water heater. Brad Walker presented further comments about the history of the Pankey community and the nonconforming status of many uses along this section of Highway 10. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff offered a response to several questions concerning the area land use plan and relationships of that plan to the Pankey community. A general discussion was held concerning relationships of the subject site and existing zoned commercial within the area as well as the potential for rezoning existing nonconformities scattered along Highway 10. July 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued Brad Walker, the attorney for Mr. Fields, offered a rebuttal statement to those comments offered by neighbors and opponents of the project. A procedural motion was then made to vote on calling the issue for a vote. The Commission voted 5 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent to reject the call. The matter remained on the floor for action due to absence of an affirmative vote. Additional discussion occurred during which the Commission requested that they provide additional information on plan detail included in the staff write-up. Staff members of Planning and Public Works updated the matter for the Commission giving specifics on right-of-way, in -lieu street contribution, platting and street abandonment. A general discussion of these requirements followed. A question was then raised as to the vote on the procedural matter placed before the Commission. The City Attorney clarified the bylaws on the procedure to indicate that the motion had indeed passed by a simple majority of those present. The Chairman stated that the motion had been called and asked if additional discussion was needed. None being evidenced, the motion was voted upon to approve the PUD as placed before the Planning Commission on the revised plan. The application failed to receive an affirmative 6 votes; therefore, the bylaw rule for automatic deferral applies. The issue will be reheard August 13, 1985. The issue will be listed first on that agenda. Meeting Date: August 13, 1985 Item Ng_" Z-4475 mglEgL u-e at; Field's "Short -form PCD" (Z-4475) Location: 13,830 Cantrell Developer1Encineer: Leon T. Fields/Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates Existing Status: Abandoned Commercial Structure Proposed Use: Restaurant (1) Denial of land use based on Suburban Plan (2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission or Board. I? l n n i_D9.__C.o?DD igg Denial of the proposal due to; (1) nonconformance with the City's Suburban Land Use Plan; (2) a feeling among Commissioners that the hardship was self-imposed; and (3) potential negative effects of strip -zoning along Highway 10. R C m D-cl.!2t3-zn_Forwarded _With: 3 ayes, 4 noes 2 abstentions NAME: Fields "Short -Form PCD" (Z-4475) LOCATION: 13,830 Cantrell Road nEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Leon T. Fields Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. 7324 Rockwood Road 2nd at Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR Phone: 663-5314 Phone: 375-5331 AREA: 1.73 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Commercial/Restaurant A. Site History This site is located in an older subdivision to the west of the City entitled Pankey Addition. Recently, the owner was mistakenly issued a remodeling permit for $5,000 for the abandoned building on the site, which was used for commercial at one time. The land is currently zoned for "R-2" Single Family. The existing building was constructed in the early 1930's and was always used as some type of commercial structure. Past uses include a doctor's office, beer joint, barbecue and beer, drug store and medical laboratory. The building was condemned in 1982. The current owner bought the structure in 1984. B. Proposal 1. The use+of an existing, one-story rock and frame structure of approximately 1,650 square feet for a barbecue restaurant. 2. The provision of 16 parking spaces. C. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way on Highway 10 to arterial standards; 50' of right-of-way is required. Z-4475 - Continued 2. Clarify encroachment into right-of-way of Highway 10 and parking encroachment into street right-of-way. 3. Roadway improvements to be discussed at Committee meeting. 4. Parking plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. D. Analysis From a land use point of view, staff has no choice but to recommend denial of the plan due to its conflict with the Suburban Plan, which recommends single family zoning in this area; however, staff defers consideration of the usual policy on hardship cases to the Planning Commission or City Board. This may possibly be considered a hardship since the applicant received a $5,000 remodeling permit by the City. Staff has other concerns/requests, which include: (1) Removal of the porch from the right-of-way. (2) Expansion of parking lot into City right-of-way and 5' over into neighboring property owner's land. (3) In -lieu contribution in front of site. (4) Closing of Wells Street. (5) Replatting of various lots and ownerships. (6) Indication of additional area designed for restaurant on site plan. (7) Withhold requirements to plat Josephine and Arnold until further development occurs. E. Staff Recommendation (1) Denial of land use based on Surburban Plan; (2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission or Board. Z-4475 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and his attorney were present. The applicant agreed to remove the porch from the right-of-way, provide in -lieu contribution for the area in front of the site and to close Wells Street if the abutting property owner agrees. He explained that his tenants mistakenly expanded the parking lot over into the City's right-of-way and he would try to clear the issue up. Some discussion concerned whether or not to replat the entire ownership or just a portion with the restaurant. Some committee members expressed concern over allowing commercial on all the property. Others felt that the PUD process required specifics on all the property. A suggestion was made to phase the application. Nothing was resolved. Some members felt that the site plan couldn't be approved without the closing of the streets, others felt that it could be a condition of the approval. It was pointed out that if they weren't closed, the streets would have to be improved. Engineering indicated that the encroachment of the building into the right-of-way could possibly be granted nonconforming status. The applicant was asked to provide a revised plan showing the addition to the building and the removal of the parking spaces and porch in the right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Prior to the discussion of this matter, a general discussion was held between Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, the Planning Commission members, staff and the City Attorney. This discussion centered on the merits of hearing the case simply on the basis of a land use issue or on hearing all of the details of the history of the case. This discussion resulted in a decision to hear all of the information which could be offered. Mr. Roy Beard of the Public Works Department made a presentation at the request of the Commission offering the full details of the building permit history. He also discussed the involvement of various staff members in the review process. Z-4475 - Continued A determination was then made by polling the audience as to the number of persons present in support of Mr. Fields' application. There were 10 persons identified in support. In addition, three persons identified themselves as being opposed to the issue. Mr. Fields then offered a survey of Highway 10 businesses for a substantial length of Highway 10 in support of his proposal. Mr. Walker, his attorney, offered four pages of signatures of support and offered objection to the land use plan approaches to establishment of zoning lines. Mr. Jim Threet, an abutting owner representative, stated his support of Mr. Fields' application. Mr. Harold Flowers, an attorney and minister and resident of the area, stated his objections to the use and conversion, especially with respect to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Saugey, an owner and business operator in the area, spoke on the issue of spot and strip zoning of Highway 10 and the need for maintaining the land use plan. She opposed the application. Bob Lane of the Public Works Department offered, at the request of the Commission, an update on the Highway 10 widening project especially with respect to the subject site. Mr. Lloyd Vaught, an owner and President of the Highway 10 Association, commented on the application from the view of his Association. He offered a description of the premises before Mr. Fields purchased the lots and the improvements which have been made. Mr. Jeffries, a nearby neighbor, offered objection to the sale of beer on the premises and traffic concerns within the area. Mr. Orange Brady, representing the Sims Brothers, the prospective operators of the restaurant, spoke on the position of the Sims. Ms. Saugey then offered rebuttal to information that had been offered relative to the permits issued. She stated that additional work had been accomplished since the City Attorney's notice to Mr. Fields. Barbara Dutton, a resident of the area, opposed commercialization of the Pankey area. Kramer Story, a resident, opposed commercialization of the site. Z-4475 - Continued Mark Stodola, the City Attorney, then offered comments concerning his involvement and contacts with Mr. Fields with respect to the nonconforming status of the property and activities which have occurred on these premises in the past. Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, then presented the application offering arguments in support of Mr. Fields' position on hardships. Mr. Walker responded to questions. from the Planning Commission on the status of the property as a nonconforming use. Mr. Fields then offered comments concerning his approach to obtaining the permit. He also gave a site history indicating names and dates as well as products sold. He discussed the removal of prior commercial product contents from the building shortly before he purchased the land. He' offered comments concerning his discussions with the various inspectors about repairs to the building. He stated that he had on no occasion requested a privilege license from Mr. Scott's office. When asked by a commissioner, Mr. Fields stated that he did not check the zoning of this property prior to his purchase. He thought that it was zoned commercial. A general discussion then followed involving issues attached to the permit records, the various permits that were allegedly issued and the ability of the Commission to determine whether the nonconformity was revived through the actions of the City by issuance of permits. Mr. Roy Beard responded to this by stating that only one building permit was issued beyond the initial permit and this was for a bathroom containing eight fixtures and a water heater. Brad Walker presented further comments about the history of the Pankey community and the nonconforming status of many uses along this section of Highway 10. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff offered a response to several questions concerning the area land use plan and relationships of that plan to the Pankey community. A general discussion was held concerning relationships of the subject site and existing zoned commercial within the area as well as the potential for rezoning existing nonconformities scattered along Highway 10. Z-4475 - Continued Brad Walker, the attorney for Mr. Fields, offered a rebuttal statement to those comments offered by neighbors and opponents of the project. A procedural motion was then made to vote on calling the issue for a vote. The Commission voted 5 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent to reject the call. The matter remained on the floor for action due to absence of an affirmative vote. Additional discussion occurred during which the Commission requested that they provide additional information on plan detail included in the staff write-up. Staff members of Planning and Public Works updated the matter for the Commission giving specifics on right-of-way, in -lieu street contribution, platting and street abandonment. A general discussion of these requirements followed. A question was then raised as to the vote on the procedural matter placed before the Commission. The City Attorney clarified the bylaws on the procedure to indicate that the motion had indeed passed by a simple majority of those present. The Chairman stated that the motion had been called and asked if additional discussion was needed. None being evidenced, the motion was voted upon to approve the PUD as placed before the Planning Commission on the revised plan. The application failed to receive an affirmative 6 votes; therefore, the bylaw rule for automatic deferral applies. The issue will be reheard August 13, 1985. The issue will be listed first on that agenda. SUBDIVISION COMMItTEE REVIEW: (7-25-85) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85) The applicant and his attorney were in attendance. Both supporters and objectors from the neighborhood were in attendance. Staff reported that its recommendation remained the same and that a revised plan had been submitted, correcting some technicalities, but not the removal of the porch from the right-of-way. Staff requested that this be removed. The applicant agreed. Z-4475 - Continued An attorney for Sim's Barbecue was present. He explained that his clients had already spent a considerable sum of money on the project and that it would create a hardship for them if the item was denied. Other spokespersons included: (1) Mr. George Wimberly - who spoke of his familiarity with the use of the property as a retail pharmacy; (2) Dr. Al Flowers - a lawyer and preacher residing in the community who requested that the item be deferred until a neighborhood plan is agreed upon; (3) Ms. Saugey - a property owner in the neighborhood who spoke again commercial zoning and stated "if there was any hardship, it was between Mr. Fields and Sim's Barbecue and not between Mr. Fields and the City;" (4) Ms. Barbara Douglas - President of the Pankey Neighborhood Improvement Association/CDBG Committee who gave an account of various meetings and stated the consensus of the groups was for maintaining the area as residential with some modifications to the Land Use Plan; and (5) Mrs. Zilie Wilkins. There was discussion of an upcoming meeting on August 19th with City officials to discuss the specifics of the Pankey Land Use Plan. Some Commissioners felt that the meeting could be important to the resolution of the issues. Other Commissioners argued against delaying the item and some expressed confusion as to how to vote. Another minister recently assigned to the area, requested a deferral since it was obvious that the neighborhood was divided in their position. A show of hands revealed that 21 ware present in support of the item and 10 in opposition. Finally, a motion for approval was made. The motion failed to pass. The vote was 3 ayes, 4 noes and 2 abstentions. The reasons for denial were: (1) nonconformance with the City's Suburban Land Use Plan; (2) a feeling among Commissioners that the hardship issue was self-imposed; and (3) potential negative effects of strip zoning along Highway 10. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Fields "Short -Form PCD" (Z-4475) LOCATION: 13,830 Cantrell Road nEVEMPER- RNaTNEER! Leon T. Fields Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. 7324 Rockwood Road 2nd at Izard Streets - Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR Phone: 663-5314 Phone: 375-5331 AREA: 1.73 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Commercial/Restaurant A. Site Histor This site is located in an older subdivision to the west of the City entitled Pankey Addition. Recently, the owner was mistakenly issued a remodeling permit for $5,000 for the abandoned building on the site, which was used for commercial at one time. The land is currently zoned for "R-2" Single Family. The existing building was constructed in the early 1930's and was always used as some type of commercial structure. Past uses include a doctor's office, beer joint, barbecue and beer, drug store and medical laboratory. The building was condemned in 1982. The current owner bought the structure in 1984. B. Proposal 1. The use of an existing, one-story rock and frame structure of approximately 1,650 square feet for a barbecue restaurant. 2. The provision of 16 parking spaces. C. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way on Highway 10 to arterial standards; 50' of right-of-way is required. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 2. Clarify encroachment into right-of-way of Highway 10 and parking encroachment into street right-of-way. 3. Roadway improvements to be discussed at Committee meeting. 4. Parking plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. D. Analvsis From a land use point of view, staff has no choice but to recommend denial of the plan due to its conflict with the Suburban Plan, which recommends single family zoning in this area; however, staff defers consideration of the usual policy on hardship cases to the Planning Commission or City Board. This may possibly be considered a hardship since the applicant received a $5,000 remodeling permit by the City. Staff has other concerns/requests, which include: (1) Removal of the porch from the right-of-way. (2) Expansion of parking lot into City right-of-way and 5' over into neighboring property owner's land. (3) In -lieu contribution in front of site. (4) Closing of Wells Street. (5) Replatting of various lots and ownerships. (6) Indication of additional area designed for restaurant on site plan. (7) Withhold requirements to plat Josephine and Arnold until further development occurs. E. Staff Recommendation (1) Denial of land use based on Surburban Plan; (2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission or Board. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and his attorney were present. The applicant agreed to remove the porch from the right-of-way, provide in -lieu contribution for the area in front of the site and to close Wells Street if the abutting property owner agrees. He explained that his tenants mistakenly expanded the parking lot over into the City's right-of-way and he would try to clear the issue up. Some discussion concerned whether or not to replat the entire ownership or just a portion with the restaurant. Some committee members expressed concern over allowing commercial on all the property. Others felt that the PUD process required specifics on all the property. A suggestion was made to phase the application. Nothing was resolved. Some members felt that the site plan couldn't be approved without the closing of the streets, others felt that it could be a condition of the approval. It was pointed out that if they weren't closed, the streets would have to be improved. Engineering indicated that the encroachment of the building into the right-of-way could possibly be granted nonconforming status. The applicant was asked to provide a revised plan showing the addition to the building and the removal of the parking spaces and porch in the right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Prior to the discussion of this matter, a general discussion was held between Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, the Planning Commission members, staff and the City Attorney. This discussion centered on the merits of hearing the case simply on the basis of a land use issue or on hearing all of the details of the history of the case. This discussion resulted in a decision to hear all of the information which could be offered.` Mr. Roy Beard of the Public Works Department made a presentation at the request of the Commission offering the full details of the building permit history. He also discussed the involvement of various staff members in the review process. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mark Stodola, the City Attorney, then offered comments concerning his involvement and contacts with Mr. Fields with respect to the nonconforming status of the property and activities which have occurred on these premises in the past. Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, then presented the application offering arguments in support of Mr. Fields' position on hardships. Mr. Walker responded to questions from the Planning Commission on the status of the property as a nonconforming use. Mr. Fields then offered comments concerning his approach to obtaining the permit. He also gave a site history indicating names and dates as well as products sold. He discussed the removal of prior commercial product contents from the building shortly before he purchased the land. He offered comments concerning his discussions with the various inspectors about repairs to the building. He stated that he had on no occasion requested a privilege license from Mr. Scott's office. When asked by a commissioner, Mr. Fields stated that he did not check the zoning of this property prior to his purchase. 'He thought that it was zoned commercial. A general discussion then followed involving issues attached to the permit records, the various permits that were allegedly issued and the ability of the Commission to determine whether the nonconformity was revived through the -actions of the City by issuance of permits. Mr. Roy Beard responded to this by stating that only one building permit was issued beyond the initial permit and this was for a bathroom containing eight fixtures and a water heater. Brad Walker presented further comments about the history of the Pankey community and the nonconforming status of many uses along this section of Highway 10. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff offered a response to several questions concerning the area land use plan and relationships of that plan to the Pankey community. A general discussion was held concerning relationships of the subject site and existing zoned commercial within the area as well as the potential for rezoning existing nonconformities scattered along Highway 10. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued A determination was then made by polling the audience as to the number of persons present in support of Mr. Fields' application. There were 10 persons identified in support. In addition, three persons identified themselves as being opposed to the issue. Mr. Fields then offered a survey of Highway 10 businesses for a*substantial length of Highway 10 in support of his proposal. Mr. Walker, his attorney, offered four pages of signatures of support and offered objection to the land use plan approaches to establishment of zoning lines. Mr. Jim Threet, an abutting owner representative, stated his support of Mr. Fields' application. Mr. Harold Flowers, an attorney and minister and resident of the area, stated his objections to the use and conversion, especially with respect to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Saugey, an owner and business operator in the area, spoke on the issue of spot and strip zoning of Highway 10 and the need for maintaining the land use plan. She opposed the application. Bob Lane of the Public Works Department offered, at the request of the Commission, an update on the Highway 10 widening project especially with respect to the subject site. Mr. Lloyd Vaught, an owner and President of the Highway 10 Association, commented on the application from the view of his Association. He offered a description of the premises before Mr. Fields purchased the lots and the improvements which have been made. Mr. Jeffries, a nearby neighbor, offered objection to the sale of beer on the premises and traffic concerns within the area. Mr. Orange Brady, representing the Sims Brothers, the prospective operators of the restaurant, spoke on the position of the Sims. Ms. Saugey then offered rebuttal to information that had been offered relative to the permits issued. She stated that additional work had been accomplished since the City Attorney's notice to Mr. Fields. Barbara Dutton, a resident of the area, opposed commercialization of the Pankey area. Kramer Story, a resident, opposed commercialization of the site. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Brad Walker, the attorney for Mr. Fields, offered a rebuttal statement to those comments offered by neighbors and opponents of the project. A procedural motion was then made to vote on calling the issue for a vote. The Commission voted 5 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent to reject the call. The matter remained on the floor for action due to absence of an affirmative vote. Additional discussion occurred during which the Commission requested that they provide additional information on plan detail included in the staff write-up. Staff members of Planning and Public Works updated the matter for the Commission giving specifics on right-of-way, in -lieu street contribution, platting and street abandonment. A general discussion of these requirements followed. A question was then raised as to the vote on the procedural matter placed before the Commission. The City Attorney clarified the bylaws on the procedure to indicate that the motion had indeed passed by a simple majority of those present. The Chairman stated that the motion had been called and asked if additional discussion was needed. None being evidenced, the motion was voted upon to approve the PUD as placed before the Planning Commission on the revised plan. The application failed to receive an affirmative 6 votes; therefore, the bylaw rule for automatic deferral applies. The issue will be reheard August 13, 1985. The issue will be listed first on that agenda. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-25-85) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85) The applicant and his attorney were in attendance. Both supporters and objectors from the neighborhood were in attendance. Staff reported that its recommendation remained the same and that a revised plan had been submitted, correcting some technicalities, but not the removal of the porch from the right-of-way. Staff requested that this be removed. The applicant agreed. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued An attorney for Sim's Barbecue was present. He explained that his clients had already spent a considerable sum of money on the project and that it would create a hardship for them if the item was denied. Other spokespersons included: (1) Mr. George Wimberly - who spoke of his familiarity with the use of the property as a retail pharmacy; (2) Dr. Al Flowers - a lawyer and preacher residing in the community who requested that the item be deferred until a neighborhood plan is agreed upon; (3) Ms. Saugey - a property owner in the neighborhood who spoke again commercial zoning and stated "if there was any hardship, it was between Mr. Fields and Sim's Barbecue and not between Mr. Fields and the City;" (4) Ms. Barbara Douglas - President of the Pankey Neighborhood Improvement Association/CDBG Committee who gave an account of various meetings and stated the consensus of the groups was for maintaining the area as residential with some modifications to the Land Use Plan; and (5) Mrs. Zilie Wilkins. There was discussion of an upcoming meeting on August 19th with City officials to discuss the specifics of the Pankey Land Use Plan. Some Commissioners felt that the meeting could be important to the resolution of the issues. Other Commissioners argued against delaying the item and some expressed confusion as to how to vote. Another minister recently assigned to the area, requested a deferral since it was obvious that the neighborhood was divided in their position. A show of hands revealed that 21 ware present in support of the item and 10 in opposition. Finally, a motion for approval was made. The motion failed to pass. The vote was 3 ayes, 4 noes and 2 abstentions. The reasons for denial were: (1) nonconformance with the City's Suburban Land Use Plan; (2) a feeling among Commissioners that the hardship issue was self-imposed; and (3) potential negative effects of strip zoning along Highway 10. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Leon T. Fields 7324 Rockwood Road Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 663-5314 Fields "Short -Form PCD" (Z-4475) 13,830 Cantrell Road RMaTNEER: Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. 2nd at Izard Streets Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-5331 AREA: 1.73 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 ZONING: 11R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Commercial/Restaurant A. Site History FT. NEW ST.: 0 This site is located in an older subdivision to the west of the City entitled Pankey Addition. Recently, the owner was mistakenly issued a remodeling permit for $5,000 for the abandoned building on the site, which was.used for commercial at one time. The land is currently zoned for "R-2" Single Family. The existing building was constructed in the early 1930's and was always used as some type of commercial structure. Past uses include a doctor's office, beer - joint, barbecue and beer, drug store and medical laboratory. The building was condemned in 1982. The current owner bought the structure in 1984. B. Proposal 1. The use of an existing, one-story rock and frame structure of approximately 1,650 square feet for a barbecue restaurant. 2. The provision of 16 parking spaces. C. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way on Highway 10 to arterial standards; 50' of right-of-way is required. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 2. Clarify encroachment into right-of-way of Highway 10 and parking encroachment into street right-of-way. 3. Roadway improvements to be discussed at Committee meeting. 4. Parking plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. D. Analysis From a land use point of view, staff has no choice but to recommend denial of the plan due to its conflict with the Suburban Plan, which recommends single family zoning in this area; however, staff defers consideration of the usual policy on hardship cases to the Planning Commission or City Board. This may possibly be considered a hardship since the applicant received a $5,000 remodeling permit by the City. Staff has other concerns/requests, which include: (1) Removal of the porch from the right-of-way. (2) Expansion of parking lot into City right-of-way and 5' over into neighboring property owner's land. (3) In -lieu contribution in front of site. (4) Closing of Wells S,treet. (5) Replatting of various lots and ownerships. (6) Indication of additional area designed for restaurant on site plan. (7) Withhold requirements to plat Josephine and Arnold until further development occurs. E. Staff Recommendation (1) Denial of land use based on Surburban Plan; (2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission or Board. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and his attorney were present. The applicant agreed to remove the porch from the right-of-way, provide in -lieu contribution for the area in front of the site and to close Wells Street if the abutting property owner agrees. He explained that his tenants mistakenly expanded the parking lot over into the City's right-of-way and he would try to clear the issue up. Some discussion concerned whether or not to replat the entire ownership or just a portion with the restaurant. Some committee members expressed concern over allowing commercial on all the property. Others felt that the PUD process required specifics on all the property. A suggestion was made to phase the application. Nothing was resolved. Some members felt that the site plan couldn't be approved without the closing of the streets, others felt that it could be a condition of the approval. It was pointed out that if they weren't closed, the streets would have to be improved. Engineering indicated that the encroachment of the building into the right-of-way could possibly be granted nonconforming status. The applicant was asked to provide a revised plan showing.the addition to the building and the removal of the parking spaces and porch in the right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Prior to the discussion of this matter, a general discussion was held between Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, the Planning Commission members, staff and the City Attorney. This discussion centered on the merits of hearing the case simply on the basis of a land use issue or on hearing all of the details of the history of the case. This discussion resulted in a decision to hear all of the information which could be offered. Mr. Roy Beard of the Public Works Department made a presentation at the request of the Commission offering the full details of the building permit history. He also discussed the involvement of various staff members in the review process. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mark Stodola, the City Attorney, then offered comments concerning his involvement and contacts with Mr. Fields with respect to the nonconforming status of the property and activities which have occurred on these premises in the past. Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, then presented the application offering arguments in support of Mr. Fields' position on hardships. Mr. Walker responded to questions from the Planning Commission on the status of the property as a nonconforming use. Mr. Fields then offered comments concerning his approach to obtaining the permit. He also gave a site history indicating names and dates as well as products sold. He discussed the removal of prior commercial product contents from the building shortly before he purchased the land. He offered comments concerning his discussions with the various inspectors about repairs to the building. He stated that he had on no occasion requested a privilege license from Mr. Scott's office. When asked by a commissioner, Mr. Fields stated that he did not check the zoning of this property prior to his purchase. 'He thought that it was zoned commercial. A general discussion then followed involving issues attached to the permit records, the various permits that were allegedly issued and the ability of the Commission to determine whether the nonconformity was revived through the actions of the City by issuance of permits. Mr. Roy Beard responded to this by stating that only one building permit was issued beyond the initial permit and this was for a bathroom containing eight fixtures and a water heater. Brad Walker presented further comments about the history of the Pankey community and the nonconforming status of many uses along this section of Highway 10. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff offered a response to several questions concerning the area land use plan and relationships of that plan to the Pankey community. A general discussion was held concerning relationships of the subject site and existing zoned commercial within the area as well as the potential for rezoning existing nonconformities scattered along Highway 10. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued A determination was then made by polling the audience as to the number of persons present in support of Mr. Fields' application. There were 10 persons identified in support. In addition, three persons identified themselves as being opposed to the issue. Mr. Fields then offered a survey of Highway 10 businesses for a -substantial length of Highway 10 in support of his proposal. Mr. Walker, his attorney, offered four pages of signatures of support and offered objection to the land use plan approaches to establishment of zoning lines. Mr. Jim Threet, an abutting owner representative, stated his support of Mr. Fields' application. Mr. Harold Flowers, an attorney and minister and resident of the area, stated his objections to the use and conversion, especially with respect to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Saugey, an owner and business operator in the area, spoke on the issue of spot and strip zoning of Highway 10 and the need for maintaining the land use plan. She opposed the application. Bob Lane of the Public Works Department offered, at the request of the Commission, an update on the Highway 10 widening project especially with respect to the subject site. Mr. Lloyd Vaught, -an owner and President of the Highway 10 Association, commented on the application from the view of his Association. He offered a description of the premises before Mr. Fields purchased the lots and the improvements which have been made. Mr. Jeffries, a nearby neighbor, offered objection to the sale of beer on the premises and traffic concerns within the area. Mr. Orange Brady, representing the Sims Brothers, the prospective operators of the restaurant, spoke on the position of the Sims. Ms. Saugey then offered rebuttal to information that had been offered relative to the permits issued. She stated that additional work had been accomplished since the City Attorney's notice to Mr. Fields. Barbara Dutton, a resident of the area, opposed commercialization of the Pankey area. Kramer Story, a resident, opposed commercialization of the site. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Brad Walker, the attorney for Mr. Fields, offered a rebuttal statement to those comments offered by neighbors and opponents of the project. A procedural motion was then made to vote on calling the issue for a vote. The Commission voted 5 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent to reject the call. The matter remained on the floor for action due to absence of an affirmative vote. Additional discussion occurred during which the Commission requested that they provide additional information on plan detail included in the staff write-up. Staff members of Planning and Public Works updated the matter for the Commission giving specifics on right-of-way, in -lieu street contribution, platting and street abandonment. A general discussion of these requirements followed. A question was then raised as to the vote on the procedural matter placed before the Commission. The City Attorney clarified the bylaws on the procedure to indicate that the motion had indeed passed by a simple majority of those present. The Chairman stated that the motion had been called and asked if additional discussion was needed. None being evidenced, the motion was voted upon to approve the PUD as placed before the Planning Commission on the revised plan. The application failed to receive an affirmative 6 votes; therefore, the bylaw rule for automatic deferral applies. The issue will be reheard August 13, 1985. The issue will be listed first on that agenda. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-25-85) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85) The applicant and his attorney were in attendance. Both supporters and objectors from the neighborhood were in attendance. Staff reported that its recommendation remained the same and that a revised plan had been submitted, correcting some technicalities, but not the removal of the porch from the right-of-way. Staff requested that this be removed. The applicant agreed. August 13, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued An attorney for Sim's Barbecue was present. He explained that his clients had already spent a considerable sum of money on the project and that it would create a hardship for them if the item was denied. Other spokespersons included: (1) Mr. George Wimberly - who spoke of his familiarity with the use of the property as a retail pharmacy; (2) Dr. Al Flowers - a lawyer and preacher residing in the community who requested that the item be deferred until a.neighborhood plan is agreed upon; (3) Ms. Saugey - a property owner in the neighborhood who spoke again commercial zoning and stated "if there was any hardship, it was between Mr. Fields and Sim's Barbecue and not between Mr. Fields and the City;" (4) Ms. Barbara Douglas - President of the Pankey Neighborhood Improvement Association/CDBG Committee who gave an account of various meetings and stated the consensus of the groups was for maintaining the area as residential with some modifications to the Land Use Plan; and (5) Mrs. Zilie Wilkins. There was discussion of an upcoming meeting on August 19th with City officials to discuss the specifics of the Pankey Land Use Plan. Some Commissioners felt that the meeting could be important to the resolution of the issues. Other Commissioners argued against delaying the item and some expressed confusion as to how to vote. Another minister recently assigned to the area, requested a deferral since it was obvious that the neighborhood was divided in their position. A show of hands revealed that 21 ware present in support of the item and 10 in opposition. Finally, a'motion for approval was made. The motion failed to pass. The vote was 3 ayes, 4 noes and 2 abstentions. The reasons for denial were: (1) nonconformance with the City's Suburban Land Use Plan; (2) a feeling among Commissioners that the hardship issue was self-imposed; and (3) potential negative effects of strip zoning along Highway 10. 11