Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4223 Staff Analysisr l May 29, 1984 Item_No. 7 - Z-4223 Owner: William Ernest Sullivan Applicant: Nancy Ernestine Vines Location: Pinnacle Valley and Back Road Northeast Corner Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial Purpose: Food Store Size: 1.0 acre + Existing Use: Farm SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the site for a food store with other supplies, such as fishing tackle. The property is located outside the City, but in an area where the City has land use control through the State Rivers Zoning Statute. This permits the City to exercise its zoning power in areas within two miles of the Arkansas River, even though the area is beyond the City limits. The location in question, the intersection of two streets with one being classified as a minor arterial appears to be appropriate for the proposed use. There are no similar facilities in the immediate area so the use is needed and will provide a service for the residents of the neighborhood. The land use pattern is single family residences on large lots with some mobile homes. The area can be best described as being rural in nature. There was a small convenience store north of this site on Pinnacle Valley Road, but it is no longer in operation. 2. The site is vacant and flat with no unusual physical characteristics. 7. The staff is in support of the request and views the rezoning as providing a needed service for the area. The nearest convenience store is approximately two miles away, and that does create a hardship for some of the residents. Approval of this rezoning would establish a spot zoning but that would be the zoning pattern created by any change in this area. It appears that the lot is part of a larger tract and if that is the case, a one -lot replat will be required. The replat will provide the needed right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Nancy Vines was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the case at length because there was some concern on the part of several Commissioners as to what this approval will do the area. The Commission encouraged the staff to try to get a handle on the area by possibly developing a plan. Some Commissioners expressed reservations about approving this request because the recommendation was being made without the benefit of any guidelines for the area. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 29, 1984 a Item No. 7 -- Continued `v ` 3. Pinnacle Valley is classified as a minor arterial which requires 80 feet of right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be necessary. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The area in question was zoned "R-2" some years back through the powers given to the City of Little Rock in the River Zoning Statute. The applicant has submitted to the Planning staff a petition with approximately 100 signatures in support of the proposed use and asking the City to approve the request. These signatures are reported to be residents of what is known as the Maumelle Valley. 7. The staff is in support of the request and views the rezoning as providing a needed service for the area. The nearest convenience store is approximately two miles away, and that does create a hardship for some of the residents. Approval of this rezoning would establish a spot zoning but that would be the zoning pattern created by any change in this area. It appears that the lot is part of a larger tract and if that is the case, a one -lot replat will be required. The replat will provide the needed right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Nancy Vines was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the case at length because there was some concern on the part of several Commissioners as to what this approval will do the area. The Commission encouraged the staff to try to get a handle on the area by possibly developing a plan. Some Commissioners expressed reservations about approving this request because the recommendation was being made without the benefit of any guidelines for the area. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.