Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4625-A Staff AnalysisOctober 19, 1993 ITEM NO.: C Z -4625-A Owner: Mark Weedman and the Estate of Jim Goad Applicant: Everett O. Martindale Location: 1202 and 1206 North University Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-1 Purpose: Office Size: 0.49 acres Existing Use: ` Vacant and Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Office, zoned 0-3 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The Northwest corner of Evergreen and North University is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the property to 0-1 for an office use. On the northern portion of the site, there is a single family residence and the remaining land area, the south 96 feet, is vacant. The area that is undeveloped has never been used for anything. The property has 134 feet of frontage on Evergreen and 160 feet on the North University side. Zoning is made up of R-2, R-4, R-5, MF -6, MF -12, 0-2, 0-3, PCD, and OS. To the east of North University and to the south of Evergreen, the zoning pattern is somewhat fragmented and includes single family, multifamily and office zoned properties. The northeast, southeast and southwest corners of the Evergreen/North University intersection are all zoned either 0-2 or 0-3. The office zoning at the northeast corner does not abut Evergreen or North University because there is a R-2 buffer between the streets and the 0-3 land. On the Evergreen side, the buffer is 50 feet and along North University it is at least 100 feet wide. The property in question borders R-2 lots on the north and west sides. Land use includes single family, multifamily, office and a junior high school. The existing land use is very similar to the zoning and there are no nonresidential uses to the northwest of the North University/Evergreen intersection. October 19, 1993 ITEM NO.: C Z -4625-A Cont. There have been two other attempts to rezone all or part of the property under consideration. In 1985, a PCD request was filed for the south 48 feet of the site to permit a real estate office. The reclassification was denied by the Planning Commission and their action was never appealed to the City Board of Directors. The following year, 1986, an 0-3 application was filed for the entire site. There was strong neighborhood opposition and the office rezoning was disapproved by the Planning Commission. There was no appeal to the City Board of Directors. Staff did not support the 0-3 rezoning in 1986 and had some reservations about the PCD proposal. Staff's position`is that nothing has changed in the neighborhood to justify a nonresidential rezoning at the northwest corner of the Evergreen/North University intersection and recommends that the 0-1 request not be endorsed. By placing the R-2 buffer on the east side of North University, it is apparent that a conscious effort was made to protect the well-established neighborhood west of North University from nonresidential encroachment. Another factor that is critical to this request is the district plan for the area. The West Little Rock Land Use Plan shows the northwest corner of Evergreen and North University for continued single family use. Therefore, the proposed office reclassification is in conflict with the adopted plan. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The adopted land use plan in the West Little Rock District recommends single family for this location. Any nonresidential use would have to be carefully and thoroughly reviewed to address impacts on surrounding development. Conditions to warrant a plan amendment have not been met. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Evergreen is classified as a collector and the existing right-of-way is deficient. The Master Street Plan standard for a collector is 30 feet from the center line and dedication of additional right-of-way is required. TAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-1 rezoning request. 2 October 19, 1993 ITEM NO.: C Z -4625-A SCont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because of a notice problem. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the October 19, 1993 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 19, 1993) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the 0-1 be amended to a POD for a professional office. Staff indicated that there were several problems with the proposed site plan, and that they were still opposed to any nonresidential reclassifi- cation of the site. Staff also reminded the Commission of the petition opposed to any rezoning. (Copies were provided to the commissioners.) The applicant, Everett Martindale, was present. There were approximately 15 objectors in attendance. Mr. Martindale said that he has made an offer to purchase both lots for his office. He went on to say that he would make improvements to the property, but there would be no physical changes to the existing structure. Mr. Martindale also said that he would like to leave as many trees as possible on the site. Mr. Martindale said that the best use of the property was not residential, and he would do whatever was necessary to accommodate the neighbors and was willing to work with them. George Campbell asked that the opposition be allowed to speak first. Craig Douglas objected to the proposed rezoning and then described the area and the existing zoning. Mr. Douglas said the northwest corner of Evergreen and North University was part of several neighborhoods and the rezoning would impact property values. He asked the Commission to deny the request. David Nelson, a resident on Garfield, said he mailed letters to all of the commissioners and was concerned with traffic. Mr. Nelson said there was no need for more office zoning in the area. Bobbie Buchman, #3 Gay Place, addressed the Commission presented a graphic. Ms. Buchman said she was speaking the neighborhood and described the area as being very stable. Ms. Buchman used the graphic to show the area 3 and for and October 19, 1993 ITEM NO.: C Z -4625-A (Cont.) said the home owners would like the neighborhood to remain residential. She said the rezoning was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Ms. Buchman said there were problems with the proposed POD site plan and expressed concerns with the parking design and the sign. She went on to discuss traffic issues and submitted some photos. Ms. Buchman said it would be a traffic hazard to have a nonresidential use on the corner. Ms. Buchman concluded by saying that the area was a single family neighborhood and there were better locations for a professional office. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, asked the Commission to support the land use plan. Ms. Bell said that the corner has always been shown for residential use and no clear need for additional office zoning has been demonstrated. George Campbell spoke and said he has been marking the property since 1987 and there has been no interest shown for residential use. Mr. Campbell then discussed the area. He said the residence was currently rented to the Center for Youth and Families. Mr. Campbell told the Commission that the real estate sign on the property has "nonresidential potential" on it. Everett Martindale spoke again and said he would like to buy the property. Mr. Martindale said he was uncertain about the landscaping and the sign would not be distasteful. Mr. Martindale went on to say that he would like to be a good neighbor. There was a long discussion about the POD and comments were offered by George Campbell and Bobbie Buchman. Comments were made by various commissioners about the neighborhood and the corner was important to the residential integrity of the area. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, made comments about zoning, and said that one rezoning does not establish precedence for an area to rezone other properties. Everett Martindale spoke and said he was willing to develop a better plan and to talk to the neighbors. Bobbie Buchman said the rezoning would have a domino effect, and the location was inappropriate for office use. She said the neighborhood was opposed to any nonresidential reclassification. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, responded to some legal questions and said there was a rational basis to deny the rezoning. 4 October 19, 1993 ITEM NO.: C Z -4625-A Cont. There was some discussion about deferring the item. Bobby Buchman spoke again and asked that the Commission vote on the request. Everett Martindale asked the Commission to defer the rezoning request to November 30, 1993. A motion was made to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 7 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. A second motion was made to recommend approval of the POD request as amended. The vote was 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The POD request was denied because the motion failed. 5