HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4604 Staff AnalysisFebruary 25, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4604
Owner: Thomas and Barbara Taylor
Applicant: Thomas Taylor
Location: East 25th between Main and Scott
Request: Rezone from "C-3" to "C-4"
Purpose: Auto Sales
Size: 0.44 acres
Existing Use: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-5"
South - Quasipublic, Zoned "C-3"
East - Vacant, Zoned 11R-5"
West - Commercial, Zoned 11C-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The issue before the Planning Commission is to rezone
four lots to "C-4" to permit expansion of the used car
operation in the existing "C-4" location to the east.
It should be pointed out that the south 28 feet of each
lot is not involved in this request because that strip
is owned by the City of Little Rock. It is the staff's
understanding that the applicant has proposed a land
use agreement with the City to utilize the 28 feet for
some parking and landscaping. The agreement is still
being reviewed and has not been finalized. The
property in question is located in close proximity to
the intersection of Main and Roosevelt with all four
corners zoned for commercial uses. The zoning pattern
is very mixed in the general area and includes "R-3,"
"R-4," "R-5," "R-6," 110-1," "0-3," "C-3" and "C-4."
The land use is somewhat similar except for the "R-4,"
"R-5" and "R-6" locations which have single family uses
on them for the most part. The "R-5" tract to the east
is vacant and the "C-3" site across Roosevelt is
occupied by public and quasipublic uses.
2. The site is four residential lots and all four are
occupied by single family residences. The structures
are all in substandard condition and it appears that
only one is occupied at this time. The proposal is to
remove 3 of the 4 houses and utilize only the one on
February 25, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
the easternmost lot for an office. There is a grade
difference from north to south with the Roosevelt side
being the low point.
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.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on the site.
7. Staff is concerned with expanding the "C-4" at this
location and cannot support the rezoning at this time.
The rezoning to "C-4" could have an adverse impact on
the residential area to the north and also there is a
question of adequate access to the site. With
uncertainty associated with the Roosevelt frontage,
some type of access would probably have to be from
either West 25th or Scott and that could create an
undesirable situation. Staff feels that "C-3" should
be the most intensive zoning in this area and has -not
supported "C-4" at other locations, specifically the
southwest corner of Louisiana and Roosevelt. This
neighborhood has been impacted by previous zoning
actions and this should not be encouraged by
recommending approval of this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Thomas Taylor, was represented by R.E. Combs.
There was one objector in attendance. Staff reminded the
Commission of a letter in opposition from Jim Lynch of the
Downtown Neighborhood Association. Mr. Combs then discussed
Mr. Lynch's letter briefly and presented a petition with 155
signatures in support of the rezoning. He then described
the reasons for support and how the rezoning could present
potential progress for the neighborhood. Mr. Combs outlined
the proposal and said that it would have to be a terraced
type development. There was a long discussion about the
various issues including the south 28 feet of each lot
currently zoned by the City. There were also some comments
February 25, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
about utilizing a PUD for the project. Mr. Combs said that
the existing operation on the corner needed some expansion
and access would be from Scott and Roosevelt. Cheryl
Nichols of the Quapaw Quarter spoke against the rezoning.
She described the downtown area and previous rezoning
actions. She went on to say that there were too many
problems with the rezoning and it could an impact on the
neighborhood to the north. There were a number of comments
including the suggestion to refile the request as a PCD and
include all the property owned by Mr. Taylor. There was
more discussion about a PCD and withdrawing the "C-4"
proposal. Mr. Combs then agreed to utilizing a "PCD" for
the development and withdrawing "C-4" rezoning requests. A
motion was made to withdraw the "C-4" application without
prejudice and to waive any additional fees and
renotification should a PCD be filed. The motion was
approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
C
i
September 27, 1983
Item No. 4 - Continued
6. There is no recorded history on this site of
neighborhood participation in rezoning and no comment
from the neighborhood has been received.
7. The staff feels that a corner on two arterial streets
is appropriate to the -type of use and zoning
classification proposed. We would like to see a more
4 comprehensive approach at this location, but realize
that it is not always possible with a broken ownership
with relationships as exist in this block.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the application as filed.