In what was his second time appearing before the Magnolia Planning Commission in a month, property owner Russell Warren on Monday night was again denied a variance request to operate an auto body shop and repair shop at the former Hampton Auto Maintenance Shop and tax service building at 605 N. Dudney Street. The vote failed the commission by a 4-2 mark.
The property on Feb. 18 was denied a similar request by the commission but the meeting was held under false assumptions that 605 N. Dudney sat in a residential zone and needed commercial re-zoning to operate the body shop. In actuality, the property — legally described as Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, of the city’s Barden Subdivision — in 2003 was re-zoned to C3 commercial after a 5-1 planning commission approval vote. On Monday, Planning Commission Chairman Joe Pieratt apologized directly to Warren for the confusion and the mishap.
“Unfortunately, we had incorrect information in front of us,” he said, “I’m glad we were able to get it cleared up and give you another chance to be heard.”
Instead of a re-zoning request, Warren on Monday appeared to ask for a variance to operate the body shop in the C3 zone, which, according to Magnolia zoning, is the most restrictive commercial zoning category, largely intended only for offices and small shops, not allowing for an automotive or body shop.
Formerly, the property did, in fact, operate for decades as an auto body and repair shop, an auto dealership, and a tax service, but, according to Planning Commission Chairman Joe Pieratt, those allowances were grandfathered in before city zoning existed. The privileges, though, were lost when the property ceased operation, last being issued a city business license in 2015.
Warren, who for the past eight years has rented a building on Vine Street where his Diamond Designs Body Shop operates, along with Magnolia resident Billy Penick, in December purchased the 8,400 square-foot N. Dudney building in hopes of moving his body shop to a more central location. He did so, though, without first appearing before the planning commission for, what was thought at the time, for re-zoning.
The primary issues the commission gave for denying the rezoning request in February were concerns over noise from the body shop’s air compressor and the somewhat limited parking at the lot. But on Monday, Warren and Penick came armed with noise test results and better information on parking.
“I downloaded an app on my phone to check the loudness, and it was about 80 decibels — which is about the same as loud traffic,” Warren said. “… We’re going to put the compressor inside in an insulated room. I don’t think that’s going to be a problem.”
Penick later stated that the measured noise level at 10 feet from the compressor was 78 decibels and that passing-by traffic on N. Dudney, which included a tractor at one point, was louder than the compressor.
For parking, Warren said there was room for four vehicles to be parked inside the southern, two-bay shop area of the property, while the northern side could hold seven vehicles. If a wall is removed, two more spaces could also be added.
“That’s plenty of room for what I want to use it for,” he said.
At the shop’s 104-foot-wide exterior, when accounting for nine-foot parking places, there is enough room for a total of 11 parking lanes, with five of them in front of the bay that will be open to allow for deliveries, according to the owner.
“I believe that’s plenty of room for new customers to come in for new estimates and in-and-out office activities,” Warren said. “… I don’t think parking is a big issue.”
Aside from the parking and noise issues being addressed, the business owner also said he was planning to take a longtime eyesore of a building and refurbish it to include all new facings and awnings to bring a professional look to the sagging lot. Warren said he and Penick had already invested $2,000 for limb and debris clearing as well as cleaning and hoped to do much more.
“We plan on spending another $10,000 on this building — for the moment,” Warren said. “Seventy-five hundred of which would reface the building — new metal on the outside, new windows, new doors, new awnings. We’ll make it beautiful. It will look like a new business to anybody that didn’t know any better.”
Warren ended his presentation by saying that he was stressed with the entire three-month ordeal and that his finances “were a little strained.”
“I don’t want this place to be ugly,” he added. “We want to add to the community.”
The property owners also came Monday with approximately 25 character witnesses, multiple surrounding property, business, and home owners, zero opposing parties, and a signed petition by neighbors, all in favor of the variance request.
The petition included 23 neighbors’ and 14 surrounding landowners’ signatures in favor of the variance.
“I just think it would be the best thing for this neighborhood because I don’t know who else is going to do it,” Warren said. “I own it now. If I get a ‘no’ here [by the commission], I won’t have time to put that $10,000 in the building. I’m going to have to find another building, more than likely in another city, to spend my time on. I’d also like to add that Magnolia sold me a business license to work out of that location for a year.”
Included speakers in favor of the variance on Monday were Dr. Rob Butler, who operates his chiropractic center just yards away on N. Dudney and owns adjoining Smith Street rent houses, as well as local business and rent house owner Kevin Barker — also a Smith Street property owner.
Butler reaffirmed Warren’s position and stated that the area needs “prettying up” and anything that can help is desired. He also said that Smith Street, which adjoins N. Dudney, is a tough area to rent.
“It’s a pretty busy thoroughfare,” he said. “If we’re worried about traffic, then we need to address the kids blowing their music out. That’s nothing for what the real issue is here.”
Butler claimed he was offered to purchase 605 N. Dudney before Warren and Penick and that he did not feel he could put in the time and money needed to refurbish the shop.
“These two young men are trying to make this happen and trying to make an honest go of it,” he added. “Businesses are leaving. That [building] is not a doctor’s office. It’s been there forever [ as an auto shop]. It shouldn’t be a problem.”
Barker said he felt the same as Butler regarding the business and its installation, and that anything that could be done to improve the area is desperately needed.
“For the time being, I think this is the best thing that can happen for that building and for that area,” he said.
A nearby resident also spoke on behalf of Warren and Penick.
“When I walk out of my front door every day, I look at this building,” said Jamey Keith, who resides at the corner of N. Dudney and Smith. “I want to say that anything that can be done to improve Smith Street, I am 100 percent for it.”
Keith, who works in the commercial field, also said the air compressor issue would be “nil” for what Warren is planning for it.
The most knowledgeable and one of the most vocal supporters of the property came Monday from Tim Hampton. The Magnolia resident is a former owner of 605 N. Dudney and the business was in his family since its existence around WWII. He was also a presenter, along with Butler, in 2003 when the planning commission rezoned the address from R3 residential to C3 commercial.
Hampton expressed his pleasure and gratitude for the efforts already made by Warren and Penick to clean and clear the property and that he was the last to paint the building around 15 years ago. His main points made Monday, though, harped on the fact that for decades, the property actually operated as an auto business similar to what Warren was proposing.
“That building has been an automotive dealership,” he said. “It was a Kaizer-Frazer dealer. It was a Cushman dealer from the 40s until 1957 or 1958. It’s been an automotive machine shop all of these years, and [my dad] rebuilt automotive engines, truck engines, tractor engines and marketed them is a five-state region.”
Hampton also said the property was once a parts house that had “full automotive service” and that a paint room is already in the building because it existed for the exact reason Warren purchased the building — auto body work.
“There had been body work done in the facility when it was an automotive dealership,” he added.
Hampton claimed no noise complaints for air compressors were ever stated and that he did not know of any traffic incidents or violations at 605 N. Dudney.
“I think the boys are doing a really good job and I think you will be pleased if you work with them,” he said in closing his remarks.
For the final speaker, in a bit of a departure from the others, Ed Nipper gave a more unique reason for granting the variance. Nipper, a lifelong Magnolia resident, is also classic car owner and enthusiast, claiming that Warren was one of only two body shop operators in the area that work on classic automobiles.
“If we lose this gentleman to another town, we have now reduced, by one, someone to work on classic cars,” he said. “… I’d hate to see a business move out of Magnolia, especially a person with these kinds of talents. I think it would be good for the city of Magnolia to keep those kinds of talents here.”
On Monday, after all the speakers had presented their case in favor of the variance and no one spoke against it, it was clear the only opposing parties in the room were multiple members of the planning commission itself. After lengthy discussions, the vote to grant the variance failed 4-2.
In their talks, Commissioner Nate Caldwell asked for clarification to the request presented before the commission. He at first expressed interest in rezoning the lot altogether, from C3 to C2, but was informed by other commissioners and Assistant City Attorney Jennifer McKendree that a new meeting would need to be held since the issue on the night was only to allow a variance request within a C3 zone to operate an auto body shop. Once the issues were clarified, he stated: “Well, that’s clear, you can’t do that.”
He also said he had an issue with Warren not going about the variance request “in the proper” route.
Pieratt then said the planning commission for 20 years had dealt with variances and variance requests that go against city zoning rules. By definition, a variance is just that: an amendment to the rule on a case-by-case basis.
“Generally, we consider [variances] on the merit of the requests,” Pieratt said.
Caldwell, along with Commissioners Julia Nipper, T.G. Connelly, and Calvin Daniel ultimately voted against the request.
Commissioner Nipper in her reasoning expressed concern over what the business would become should Warren ever leave the building and relocate to another address. The body shop owner in February had stated he would one day like to relocate to E. Main Street if it was ever feasible, but for the time being, the finances were not in place to purchase such prime real estate.
“My hesitation with everything is, I trust that he will do what he says, but if we allow it now, we don’t know if the next person that has this [building] — after we’ve made the variance — will have the same standards,” she said. “That’s my biggest holdup.”
Warren and Penick before the vote took place reminded the commission that they were the owners of the building, did not plan on selling anytime soon, and that anyone or anything that ever moved into 605 N. Dudney would be at their discretion. They also said that if the variance was not approved, the property would likely be left vacant and continue to be an eyesore.
Commissioner Leslie Kent, who in February was one of the most vocal against the R3 to C3 rezoning, actually flipped his vote in favor of Warren’s variance after lengthy discussions Monday with the co-owners over neighboring property owners’ concerns. Kent was also the bringer of the motion to vote that ultimately failed.
The only other “yes” vote on Monday came from Commissioner Mary Iverson. Commissioners, Connelly and Daniel, two of the four “no” voters, did not ask any questions during the meeting nor gave any reasoning for their decisions. Two commissioners that voted in favor of Warren’s re-zoning request in February — Natasha Coleman and Zachary Talley — were not present at Monday’s meeting. Pieratt informed the audience that he did not have a regular vote and could only cast a decision in the event of a tie.
The chairman was not without an opinion on the matter, though. During pre-vote discussions, he expressed that if the variance did not pass, he did not see how any business would ever occupy 605 N. Dudney in its current state.
“If we deny this, what else is going to go there,” he asked of the commission. “We’ve got an opportunity here to take what has clearly been an eyesore and potentially make it better. If we hardline this and deny it, who’s going to do anything better with it?”
The chairman added that the property was already an operational auto shop for decades.
After the vote came down denying variance request, a clearly frustrated Warren stated he did not know what his next move would be, but that relocating his business out of Magnolia to another region or state was a strong possibility after what he had just been through.
“I don’t know what to do,” he said. “I may move to California. I may move to north Arkansas. To say I’m disappointed is an understatement.”
Pieratt after the vote informed Penick that there is an appeals process available to contest planning commission decisions to the Magnolia City Council.
“I think that’s your best route at this point,” he said.