Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4409 Staff AnalysisMarch 26, 1985 Item No. A - Z-4409 Owner: Lenon Bradford Applicant: Same Location: East 9th and Picron Street, southwest corner Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating place Size: 5290 Square Feet+ Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "C-3" for a restaurant. The site is located in an area that is primarily occupied by residential uses. The predominant zoning classification is "R-3" with some nonresidential zoning to the northeast "I-2" and to the south along East 10th. Lots that are on East 10th with "C-3" or "I-2" zoning are across the street from the Airport's property, a major nonresidential use in the area. A use such as the airport with related facilities could provide some justification for the commercial/industrial zoning on the north side of East 10th. Those lots are confined to just a three -block area along this portion of East 10th. The land use on East 10th is still mixed with some "C-3" and "I-2" lots occupied by residential uses. North of East 10th, the land use in the immediate vicinity is residential with the exception of one block north of East 9th, and that site was rezoned a number of years ago to "I-2." It appears that a commercial reclassification for this property is inappropriate and could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential uses. There are also some questions as to whether the property could accommodate a quality commercial use with the necessary parking and other requirements. March 26, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 2. The site is a vacant lot with street frontage on three sides. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. (Access shall be coordinated with the City Engineer 'before any permit is approved.) 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. Staff's position is that this rezoning, if granted, would create a commercial spot zoning at an inappropriate location along East 9th, and is opposed to the request. The potential for this proposed rezoning to adversely impact the residential character of the immediate neighborhood is too great and outweighs any benefits from the project. The long-term goal of the East Little Rock community is to concentrate and establish a quality neighborhood commercial center on East 6th Street in close proximity to the East Little Rock Community Complex. This proposal is counter to that objective and should not be granted. Every effort should be made to strengthen and preserve this residential neighborhood, and this rezoning could disrupt that. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the owner/applicant had not notified the required property owners and the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 26, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1986 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-26-85) The applicant, Lenon Bradford, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Bradford described the property and said the residents were in support of the request because there was a need for an eating place in the neighborhood. He spoke at length about the proposal and identified some residents in the audience who supported the request. Ms. Eunice then spoke in support of the rezoning. She said that the eating place would be good for the neighborhood. Mitchell Harvell, a resident across the street, spoke against the proposal. He said that it would cause too many problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Bradford spoke again and there was a long discussion about various issues including when the previous building had been removed. At this point, Mr. Bradford indicated that seven persons were present in support of the rezoning and four of them lived in the east Little Rock neighborhood. Mr. Harvell said parking would be a major problem and described some other concerns. The Planning Commission then voted on the request as filed. The vote: 2 ayes, 6 noes and 3 absent. The request was denied. February 26, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z-4409- Owner: -4409 Owner: Lenon Bradford Applicant: Same Location: East 9th and Picron Street, southwest corner Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating place Size: 5290 Square Feet+ Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "C-3" for a restaurant. The site is located in an area that is primarily occupied by residential uses. The predominant zoning classification is "R-3" with some nonresidential zoning to the northeast "I-2" and to the south along East 10th. Lots that are on East 10th with "C-3" or "I-2" zoning are across the street from the Airport's property, a major nonresidential use in the area. A use such as the airport with related facilities could provide some justification for the commercial/industrial zoning on the north side of East 10th. Those lots are confined to just a three -block area along this portion of East 10th. The land use on East 10th is still mixed with some "C-3" and "I-2" lots occupied by residential uses. North of East 10th, the land use in the immediate vicinity is residential with the exception of one block north of East 9th, and that site was rezoned a number of years ago to "I-2." It appears that a commercial reclassification for this property is inappropriate and could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential uses. There are also some questions as to whether the property could accommodate a quality commercial use with the necessary parking and other requirements. February 26, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued 2. The site is a vacant lot with street frontage on three sides. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. (Access shall be coordinated with the City Engineer before any permit is approved.) 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. Staff's position is that this rezoning, if granted, would create a commercial spot zoning at an inappropriate location along East 9th, and is opposed to the request. The potential for this proposed rezoning to'adversely impact the residential character of the immediate neighborhood is too great and outweighs any benefits from the project. The long-term goal of the East Little Rock community is to concentrate and establish a quality neighborhood commercial center on East 6th Street in close proximity to the East Little Rock Community Complex. This proposal is counter to that objective and should not be granted. Every effort should be made to strengthen and preserve this residential neighborhood, and this rezoning could disrupt that. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the owner/applicant had not notified the required property owners and the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 26, 1985 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1985 Item No. A - Z-4409 Owner: Lenon Bradford Applicant: Same Location: East 9th and Picron Street, southwest corner Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating place Size: 5290 Square Feet+ Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned 11R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned 11R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "C-3" for a restaurant. The site is located in an area that is primarily occupied by residential uses. The predominant zoning classification is "R-3" with some nonresidential zoning to the northeast "I-2" and to the south along East 10th. Lots that are on East 10th with "C-3" or "I-2" zoning are across the street from the Airport's property, a major nonresidential use in the area. A use such as the airport with related facilities could provide some justification for the commercial/industrial zoning on the north side of East 10th. Those lots are confined to just a three -block area along this portion of East 10th. The land use on East 10th is still mixed with some "C-3" and "I-2" lots occupied by residential uses. North of East 10th, the land use in the immediate vicinity is residential with the exception of one block north of East 9th, and that site was rezoned a number of years ago to "I-2." It appears that a commercial reclassification for this property is inappropriate and could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential uses. There are also some questions as to whether the property could accommodate a quality commercial use with the necessary parking and other requirements. March 26, 1986 Item No. A - Continued 2. The site is a vacant lot with street frontage on three sides. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. (Access shall be coordinated with the City Engineer before any permit is approved.) 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. Staff's position is that this rezoning, if granted, would create a commercial spot zoning at an inappropriate location along East 9th, and is opposed to the request. The potential for this proposed rezoning to adversely impact the residential character of the immediate neighborhood is too great and outweighs any benefits from the project. The long-term goal of the East Little Rock community is to concentrate and establish a quality neighborhood commercial center on East 6th Street in close proximity to the East Little Rock Community Complex. This proposal is counter to that objective and should not be granted. Every effort should be made to strengthen and preserve this residential neighborhood, and this rezoning could disrupt that. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff informed the Commission that the owner/applicant had not notified the required property owners and the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 26, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 26, 1986 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-26-85) The applicant, Lenon Bradford, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Bradford described the property and said the residents were in support of the request because there was a need for an eating place in the neighborhood. He spoke at length about the proposal and identified some residents in the audience who supported the request. Ms. Eunice then spoke in support of the rezoning. She said that the eating place would be good for the neighborhood. Mitchell Harvell, a resident across the street, spoke against the proposal. He said that it would cause too many problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Bradford spoke again and there was a long discussion about various issues including when the previous building had been removed. At this point, Mr. Bradford indicated that seven persons were present in support of the rezoning and four of them lived in the east Little Rock neighborhood. Mr. Harvell said parking would be a major problem and described some other concerns. The Planning Commission then voted on the request asNfiled. The vote: 2 ayes, 6 noes and 3 absent. The request was denied.