Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4329-A Staff AnalysisJune 25, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4329-A Owner: Watson and Taylor Co. Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: West Markham West of Shackleford Road Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Auto Dealership Size: 6.8 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North -- Multifamily, Zoned "MF-24" South - Utility Substation, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:' 1. The request is to rezone the property to "C-4" for an auto dealership. The site is located along a section of West Markham west of Shackleford that is zoned "C-3." The majority of the commercial land is either zoned "C-2" or "C-3" with the exception of a "C-4" tract at the northeast corner of West Markham and Shackleford. That use is a convenience store with gas pumps which is now permitted in "C-3" by right. The land use pattern in the area is very mixed with a significant portion that is still vacant. Land uses found in the immediate vicinity include single family, multifamily, office and utility substations. The vacant land is primarily found along both sides of West Markham to the west. This particular tract abuts multifamily units to the north and undeveloped land to the east and west. The commercial uses are primarily retail and service oriented with nothing similar to an auto dealership. The office use is primarily found to the east on West Markham and to the south on Shackleford. 2. The site is vacant. The most significant physical characteristic is the northernmost portion of the property which increases in elevation by approximately 70 feet from south to north. This creates some June 25, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued very steep slopes, and the survey has identified a 2.6-acre tract as "unuseable" area because of this. Some of the east side of the property is also experiencing this constraint. 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The conditional use permit for the property was approved in November 1984, and was an office, office/warehouse and self storage. 7. The I-630 Plan does identify the property for a commercial use "community shopping center." Because of this and the existing zoning pattern in the area, staff questions the desirability of rezoning the tract to "C-4." There are several uses permitted in "C-4" that would not be very compatible with the area and could possibly have an adverse impact on some of the adjacent properties. Staff 'believes that "C-2" or "C-3" are the more appropriate commercial classifications for the area and supports "C-2" for the site in question. An auto dealership is permitted in "C-2" as a conditional use. In this situation, the additional review of the proposed development required for conditional use would be beneficial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-2" and not "C-4" as filed for. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hathaway said he was representing the owners of the property and gave a brief history of the site. He said that the proposed use was a dealership for a national auto manufacturer and the planned development would be of the highest quality. He went on to discuss several items in the staff analysis and said the site plan would take into consideration the staff's concerns. Mr. Hathaway then June 25, 1985 Item No.-3 - Continued described the existing land use and zoning in the area and said a "C-4" reclassification would create no adverse impacts because of the location. He said that there was a specific user for the site and the "C-4" rezoning was needed. He also pointed out that there were not any ❑ther sites for dealership in this part of Little Rock. There were additional comments made about the various issues. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. - The "C-4" request was approved. The Planning Commission supported the rezoning because: (1) Appropriate use of the land and rezoning would not impact adjacent properties; (2) The proposed development would take into consideration the issues raised by staff; and (3) There are no suitable locations for auto dealerships in this part of Little Rock. 41 June 25, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4329-A Owner: Watson and Taylor Co. Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: West Markham West of Shackleford Road Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4" Purpose: Auto Dealership Size: 6.8 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-24" South - Utility Substation, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" West - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone the property to "C-4" for an auto dealership. The site is located along a section of West Markham west of Shackleford that is zoned "C-3." The majority of the commercial land is either zoned "C-2" or "C-3" with the exception of a "C-4" tract at the northeast corner of West Markham and Shackleford. That use is a convenience store with gas Pumps which is now permitted in "C-3" by right. The land use pattern in the area is very mixed with.a significant portion that is still vacant. Land uses found in the immediate vicinity include single family, multifamily, office and utility substations. The vacant land is primarily found along both sides of West Markham to the west. This particular tract abuts multifamily units to the north and undeveloped land to the east and west. The commercial uses are primarily retail and service oriented with nothing similar to an auto dealership. The office use is primarily found to the east on West Markham and to the south on Shackleford. 2. The site is vacant. The most significant physical characteristic is the northernmost portion of the property which increases in elevation by approximately 70 feet from south to north. This creates some June 25, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued very steep slopes, and the survey has identified a 2.6-acre tract as "unuseable" area because of this. Some of the east side of the property is also experiencing this constraint. 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The conditional use permit for the property was approved in November 1984, and was an office, office/warehouse and self storage. 7. The I-630 Plan does identify the property for a commercial use "community shopping center." Because of this and the existing zoning pattern in the area, staff questions the desirability of rezoning the tract to "C-4." There are several uses permitted in "C-4" that would not be very compatible with the area and could possibly have an adverse impact on some of the adjacent properties. Staff believes that "C-2" or "C-3" are the more appropriate commercial classifications for the area and supports "C-2" for the site in question. An auto dealership is permitted in "C-2" as a conditional use. In this situation, the additional review of the proposed development required for conditional use would be beneficial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-2" and not "C-4" as filed for. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hathaway said he was representing the owners of the property and gave a brief history of the site. He said that the proposed use was a dealership for a national auto manufacturer and the planned development would be of the highest quality. He went on to discuss several items in the staff analysis and said the site plan would take into consideration the staff's concerns. Mr. Hathaway then June 25, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued described the existing land use and zoning in the area and said a "C-4" reclassification would create no adverse impacts because of the location. He said that there was a specific user for the site and the "C-4" rezoning was needed. He also pointed out that there were not any other sites for dealership in this part of Little Rock. There were additional comments made about the various issues. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of the request as filed. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The "C-4" request was approved. The Planning Commission supported the rezoning because: (1) Appropriate use of the land and rezoning would not impact adjacent properties; (2) The proposed development would take into consideration the issues raised by staff; and (3) There are no suitable locations for auto dealerships in this part of Little Rock. 13