Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3406 Staff AnalysisOctober 23, 1979 Item No. 5 - Z-3406 Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: Troy Braswell Troy Braswell Rezone to "F" Commercial Commercial Development Unspecified "A" One Family 4900 Block Mabelvale Pike Sloping Downward North to South 1.71 Acres + Vacant North - Vacant Zoned "D" South - Commerical and Multifamily Zoned "F" and "A" East - Single Family Zoned "A" West - Single Family Zoned "A" None of Significance The Zoning Ordinance January 29, 1980 Item No. 9D - Z-3406 - REFERRED Owner: Troy Braswell Applicant: Don Venhaus Request: Rezone to 110-3" General Office Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: District Office Development "R-2" Single Family 4900 Block Mabelvale Pike Sloping, Open 1.71 Acres + Vacant North - Vacant - Zoned "R-5" South - Commercial and Multifamily Zoned "C-3" and "R-2" East - Single Family Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family Zoned "R-2" None Zoning Ordinance /0 -- P �-' �),! � A / 0 October 23, 1979 Item No. 5 - Z-3406 Owner: Troy Braswell Applicant: Troy Braswell Request: Rezone to "F" Commercial Purpose: Commercial Development Unspecified Existing Zoning: "A" One Family Location: 4900 Block Mabelvale Pike Site Characteristics: Sloping Downward North to South Size: 1.71 Acres + Existing Land Use: Vacant Abutting Land Use North - Vacant and Zoning: Zoned "D" South - Commerical and Multifamily Zoned "F" and "A" East - Single Family Zoned "A" West - Single Family Zoned "A" Zoning History: None of Significance Applicable Regulations: The Zoning Ordinance FACTUAL INFORMATION October 23, 1979 Item 5 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant has stated no particular intention to develop this property at this time. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS Though no particular City plan covers the area, there is a predominant land use in mixed residential development. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS No particular adverse effects are anticipated. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION None expressed. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any departmental reviewer. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No particular fiscal impacts should accrue from the requested zoning change. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS The property abuts an "F" use and an "F" District to the south. Light industrial zoning is located about 300' to the north. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed by the applicant. October 23, 1979 Item 5 - Continued 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Additional right-of-way along Mabelvale Pike will be required. The applicant has agreed to dedicate. ANALYSIS The sole commercial use in this block is a nonconforming use and has been refused "F" zoning in the past. The existing "F" District is developed with apartments. Immediately to the east is developed as single family. Staff believes that approval of this request would signal the beginning of the eventual strip zoning of Mabelvale Pike through this area for commercial use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this property be rezoned to either "MF -18" or "MF -24" Multifamily. October 23, 1979 Item 3 - Continued 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY No traffic or right-of-way issues attend this case. ANALYSIS The purpose of this zoning change is to clarify the record regarding this property. The property has been platted for several light industrial business uses. Part of the requirements established for the platting of this property was the rezoning of the land for industrial use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. January 29, 1980 Item 9D - Continued STAFF COMMENTS: In October, 1979, the Planning Commission denied a request for rezoning to "F" Commercial. The decision was, subsequently, appealed to the Little Rock Board of Directors which has now referred the case back to the Planning Commission. Of note is that the appeal requested consideration of "E-1" Quiet Business District rather than the original "F" Commercial District. The Board has asked that this matter be considered in light of 110-3" General Office zoning. At the meeting in October, a number of neighboring property owners came to the meeting to express their opposition to the request. Staff had recommended the rezoning of the property to either "MF -18" or "MF -24" Multifamily. Our recollection of the meeting is that those same neighbors were in opposition to apartment use of the property, but they had given a favorable indication regarding some Quiet Office use. Normally, a more restrictive office district might seem appropriate such as 110-1" Quiet Office, but this district does permit apartment development at the 11R-5" density; whereas 110-3" General Office District permits apartments only as a conditional use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 110-3" General Office District. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. After a brief discussion, the Commission moved to approve 110-3" General Office. The motion passed: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. FACTUAL INFORMATION October 23, 1979 Item 5 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant has stated no particular intention to develop this property at this time. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS Though no particular City plan covers the area, there is a predominant land use in mixed residential development. 3e EFFECT ON ENVIRONS No particular adverse effects are anticipated. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION None expressed. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any departmental reviewer. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No particular fiscal impacts should accrue from the requested zoning change. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS The property abuts an "F" use and an "F" District to the south. Light industrial zoning is located about 300' to the north. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed by the applicant. October 23, 1979 Item 5 - Continued 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Additional right-of-way along Mabelvale Pike will be required. The applicant has agreed to dedicate. ANALYSIS The sole commercial use in this block is a nonconforming use and has been refused "F" zoning in the past. The existing "F" District is developed with apartments. Immediately to the east is developed as single family. Staff believes that approval of this request would signal the beginning of the eventual strip zoning of Mabelvale Pike through this area for commercial use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this property be rezoned to either "MF -18" or "MF -24" Multifamily. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and stated his reasons for wanting the "F" Commercial zoning. He admitted that the application was to some degree speculative in that he had no intention of developing the property himself but had had several inquiries from other persons who were interested in developing the pwopei ^ -�-Ue a was significant opposition represented by;'Betty Greene,a ighboring resident, who presented a pe't~ition from the neighborhood on the east side of Mabelvale Pik6--with 82gr�aures expressing opposition to the requested commercial zoning. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion failed -- 0 ayes, 7 noes and 4 absent. In the absence of an alternative motion by a member of the Planning Commission, the application was declared to have been denied. Mr. Braswell, the applicant, did ask that the Planning Commission consider the staff's recommendation for the multifamily zoning. The Commission failed to take specific action on that request.