HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5135 Staff AnalysisFebruary 27, 1989
Item No. 4 - Other Matters
File No. Z -5135-A
2 er:
Address:
Zoned:
!La rkgDges_Re,gyeste j:
STAFF_ANALYS151
i
.Vi
Ilk
� D
Roger Horton
12412 Sardis Road
"R-2" Single Family
1. Waiver of the filing fee
per the recommendation
from the Little Rock
Planning Commission.
2. Interpretative issue as
to the expansion of a
non -conforming use.
This request was transferred to the Board of Adjustment from
the Planning Commission at the January 24, 1989 rezoning -
hearing. The applicant was before the Planning Commission
seeking a commercial zoning to -the property at 12421 Sardis
Road.
Presently, the property is zoned residential with the
operation of a commercial use being a printing company which
makes the use non -conforming. The transfer of this case was
recommended because of the reservations expressed by several
Commissioners to rezone the property. The Planning
Commission felt a clarification from the Board of Adjustment
was needed due to the issues involved with the request to
rezone.
The two issues associated with this request are:
A. The applicant has been instructed by the Little Rock
Fire Marshall that a separate area is needed at the
business for the storage of cleaning fluids used in
the operation of the business. It is the applicant's
intent to build the addition adjacent to the principal
structure along with a security fence around the site.
B. In place but constructed since the property came into
the City is a parking apron 32' x 30' with a 5' x 38'
covered walkway which was sited by the Zoning
Enforcement Office as an expansion of the use.
February 27, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued) Other Matters
By recommending to the Board of Adjustment a waiver of the
filing fee, it was the intent of the Planning Commission to
defray any more expense to the applicant than what had
already been incurred.
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a determination
as to whether the construction of the new addition as
directed by the Litlte Rock Fire Marshall and the
maintaining of the parking apron/covered walkway constitute
an expansion of the non -conforming use that is presently in
existance.
`o& pre, w
March 7, 1989
Item No. D Z-5135
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Roger & Winston Horton
Roger Horton
12412 Sardis Road
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3"
Purpose: Print shop
Size: 3.29 acres
Existing Use: Print shop (nonconforming)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, zoned "R-2"
South - Auto repair garage, zoned "R-2"
East - Single family, zoned "R-2"
West - Single family and air conditioning company,
zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 3.3 acres on Sardis Road from
"R-2" to "C-3" and was filed after a building permit
was denied. The property is currently occupied by a
print shop, a nonconforming use, and the building
permit was rejected because the Zoning Ordinance does
not allow expansion of nonconforming uses. Some
construction has been completed but the owner is
considering additional expansion in the future and
would like to have the necessary rezoning accomplished
at this time. The parcel is located south of Alexander
Road and just north of the proposed alignment for the
South Loop which is the tract of land identified by Z-
4609. Zoning is primarily "R-2" with the exception of
a small "C-3" parcel at the southwest corner of Sardis
and Alexander Roads. North of Alexander Road and west
of Sardis Road the zoning is more varied and includes
"0-3,11 "C-2," "1-1" and "1-2." Land use is single
family, commercial, auto repair garage, an air
conditioning company and some parcels are vacant.
2. The site has one structure on it and some of the
property is paved for parking, drives and loading
areas.
March 7, 1989
Item No. D - Z-5135 (Continued)
3. Sardis Road is classified as a minor arterial which has
a standard right -of --way of 90 feet.
4. Engineering reports that the existing right-of-way for
Sardis Road is deficient and dedication of additional
right -•of -way will be required.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position
on the site.
7. The property at 12412 Sardis Road is in the Otter Creek
District Plan area and the adopted land use shows the
site as single family. Most of the area south of
Alexander Road is shown on the plan to remain single
family. Staff's position is that the plan should be
maintained at this time and does not support the "C-3"
reclassification. The plan identifies the intersection
of Alexander and Sardis, the northwest and southwest
corners, for commercial development and that is where
the commercial zoning should be -restricted. Some of
the land at the intersection is zoned either "C-2" or
11C-3" at this time with the majority still undeveloped.
A commercial rezoning at the location in question could
have an adverse impact on the surrounding single family
uses and set precedent for a strip zoning pattern along
Sardis Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the 11C-3" rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 24, 1989)
The applicant, Roger Horton, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Horton said he was unaware of the "R-2"
zoning when the site was annexed into the City and has been
in operation for seven years. He went on to describe the
area and the other non-residential uses in the immediate
vicinity. Mr. Horton said he was planning to do some
additional construction and discussed the parking area that
created the need for the rezoning request. Additional
comments were made about various issues, including the
possibility of having the Board of Adjustment review the
construction and the issue of expanding a non -conforming
use.
March 7, 1989
Item No. D -- Z-5135 (Continued) _
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 7, 1989
Planning Commission meeting and to refer the expansion
question to the Board of Adjustment. The motion also
included waiving any additional filing fees. The motion was
approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 7, 1989)
The Staff reported that the Board of Adjustment determined
that the new construction was not an expansion of a
nonconforming use and the owner submitted a request for
withdrawal without prejudice. A motion was made to withdraw
the rezoning request without prejudice. The motion was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.