HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3429 Staff AnalysisJanuary 29, 1980
Item No. 4 - Z-3429
Owner: Porter Briggs
Applicant: Porter Briggs
Request:. Rezone to "0-1" Quiet Office
District
Purpose:
Existing Zoning:
Location:
Site Characteristics:
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Abutting Land Use
and Zoning:
Zoning History:
Applicable Regulations:
Single Family
Dwelling/Professional Office
"R-5" Urban Residence
1523 Cumberland Street
Level, Urban Development
10,500 Square Feet +
Single Family Dwellings
North - Single Family
- Zoned "R-5"
South - Single Family
Zoned "R-5"
East - Single Family
Zoned "R-5"
West - Nursing Home
Within Capital Zoning
District
None of Significance
Zoning Ordinance
FACTUAL INFORMATION
January 29, 1980
Item 4
1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND
The applicant states the intention to use a portion of
this residence for a professional office. The intended
use is for magazine publishing. The requested zoning
is the most restrictive which will permit the intended
use.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS
The property misses only slightly from being included
in either the Central Little Rock Zoning District or
the Capital Zoning District. Within the jurisdiction
of these two districts, the proposed use can be
permitted as a conditional use in certain cases.
Current municipal plans call for the retention of as
much of this area as possible for mixed residential
use. The continuing spread of nonresidential uses
throughout the area can be seen as running counter to
the earlier intent.
3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS
Since the intention is to use a portion of the existing
structure, no adverse environmental impacts are
foreseen.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION
No adverse comments have been received from any
neighboring owner.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON
No,public service agency has responded in negative
fashion.
6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON
Utility companies have given no adverse
recommendations.
7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES
No particular fiscal effects are seen.
January 29, 1980
Item 4 -. Continued
8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS
Within the perspective of the City's zoning
jurisdiction, this case could exemplify "spot zoning."
9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY
No,standards of quality have been addressed.
10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
No particular traffic or right-of-way issues attend
this case.' The applicant has assured that adequate
parking could be provided to accommodate this proposal.
ANALYSIS
Although this property abuts an institutional use to the
west and is within an area wherein a great deal of mixed
residential and nonresidential use has been permitted, there
is concern that the rezoning of this property to office use
would trigger additional requests and eventually change the
complexion of the entire neighborhood. Additionally, there
is a nagging concerning regarding the issue of "spot
zoning."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
COMMISSION ACTION:
A spokesperson for the applicant cave a lengthy presentation
regarding the application. She stated that they would have
preferred to seek a conditional use permit rather than a
rezoning, citing that they did not wish to have a
detrimental impact on the neighborhood. A couple of
neighboring owners stated their sympathy with the
applicant's desires, but they voiced concern over the
proposed rezoning.
After a brief discussion, the Commission moved to approve
the application. The motion failed: O*ayes, 8 noes, a
absent and 1 abstention (Johnson abstained). The
application was declared to have been denied.