Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5688 Staff AnalysisFILE Np • Z-5688 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John and Greg Lamb John Lamb 7604 Eagle Drive Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Commercial 0.18 acres Commercial North - Office, zoned C-3 South - Office, zoned C-3 East - Office, zoned C-3 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 7604 Eagle Drive is to rezone the property from R-2 to C-3. The location has 0-3 nonconforming status, and the site has been used as an office for a number of years. In 1973, an amendment to the Bill of Assurance for the Chicot Manor Subdivision was approved to allow Lot 2 (7604 Eagle Drive) to "be used for any purpose or purposes set forth in Little Rock Code Section 43-6 "E-111 Quiet Business and Institutional District." E-1 converted to 0-3 with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance of 1980. The amendment was endorsed prior to this part of Southwest Little Rock being annexed to the city. A C-3 reclassification is being requested to allow a portion of existing the building to be utilized for a small eating establishment. The principal building has 1,346 square feet and an accessory structure has 345 square feet. The lot has 85 feet of frontage on Eagle Drive and is approximately 100 feet west of Chicot Road. zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-5, 0-3 and C-3. The lot in question abuts C-3 on two sides and R-2 on the west. Directly across Eagle Drive, the zoning is C-3. The majority of a nonresidential zoning found along this segment of Chicot was accomplished through the "South Central Island" Plan, which was adopted in 1982. Land use includes single family, multifamily, a church, office, commercial and AP&L substation. There are still nonconforming uses in the area, and several parcels are undeveloped. FILE N Z-5688(Contj The proposed commercial reclassification of 7604 Eagle Drive is in conflict with the Geyer Springs District Plan, which reflects the existing zoning and shows the site as single family. Staff is concerned with the potential impact on the subdivision from the rezoning and not providing a good zoning buffer from the C-3 on Chicot to the single family lots along Eagle Drive. Since the property has been used as an office and has a nonconforming status, a possible option for the lot is an office reclassification. Because of the location and the relationship to the neighborhood, 0-1 would probably be the logical district. An office rezoning would create an acceptable zoning pattern and provide the normal transition from C-3 to the residential area. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The commercial request is in conflict with the plan. ENQINEERING CQMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning and suggest 0-1 as being more appropriate for the location. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 15, 1993) The applicant, John Lamb, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Lamb spoke and said he wanted C-3 zoning and stated that there was C-3 on three sides. He went on to describe the area and the existing uses. There was some discussion about the existing zoning pattern and land use. John Lamb said that his building was occupied by an office, barber shop and a small snack shop. Mr. Lamb said that he would have problems if the lot was not zoned C-3. There was some discussion about the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, said that the Bill of Assurance could not control the Commission's action on a particular rezoning request. Mr. Giles also said that the Commission should not try to totally offend the Bill of Assurance. E FILE Z- n Additional comments were made by various individuals, including John Lamb and several commissioners. A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: This item was heard by the Board of Directors at its August 3, 1993 meeting. The Board of Directors recommended that the applicant reconsider his request for rezoning, and instead apply for consideration of a POD designation for his property. The applicant agreed to pursue this course. BDIVI IQ OMMITTEE MMENT: (AUGUST 5, 1993) This item was presented to the Committee for consideration as an add-on item to the agenda. The situation regarding the Board's recommendation was outlined by staff. It was requested that this item be heard by the Planning Commission at its September 7, 1993 hearing in lien of requiring the applicant wait until the normal October 5 Subdivision meeting. The Committee agreed and forwarded the application to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO : (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993) The applicant, Mr. John Lamb, was present. The staff presented the request and outlined the background of the matter. Chairman Walker asked Mr. Lamb to present his request. Realizing that there were a number of persons at the hearing who were opposed to his application, Mr. Lamb asked that these persons be allowed to present their objections, and that he would then respond to them. Mr. Ed Tucker, who indicated that he owned a business on Chicot Road which backed up to Mr. Lamb's property, spoke. He asked how Mr. Lamb could operate a barber shop, restaurant, and insurance agency in an R-2 zone in a 1300 square foot building that was built as a house. He added that these uses are already in existance, and that Mr. Lamb was not asking for permission, but for forgiveness. He complained that the parking situation was a real problem. Mr. Lamb's customers overflow onto Buckholts' and his parking areas and across Eagle Drive in the parking area for the businesses which have frontage on Eagle Drive. He said FILE NO.: Z-5688 (Con that Mr. Lamb has 5 or 6 usable parking spaces for the three businesses, and that Mr. Lamb's customers are always using other business' parking. He strongly opposed the zoning change, he concluded. Ms. Modean Moore said that she lived next door to Mr. Lamb's business location, on Eagle Drive, to the west. She indicated that she opposed the re -zoning because Mr. Lamb's patrons are noisy, cause a lot of "racket", squeal their tires, and because of "everything that goes on...." Mr. Olin Wahrmund identified himself as the owner of the building at the south-west corner of Eagle Drive and Chicot Road. He confirmed that Mr. Lamb's customers park on his property in parking areas which he has provided for his customers. He said that Mr. Lamb has three businesses, plus has a "For Rent" sign on a fourth suite. He indicated that there is not enough parking for the customers which Mr.. Lamb has. He reported that on the previous Saturday morning at 8:00, there were 3 cars parked on property which adjoins Mr. Lamb's business, that only Mr. Lamb's barber shop was open at that time. He also inquired about how Mr. Lamb could operate his business in an R-2 zone. Mr. Lamb stated that his building was build as a business, not as a residential structure. He said that Buckholts customers also park on his property, or that mutual customers park on one lot then do business with both. He pleaded that the property owners in the vicinity of the Chicot Road -Eagle Drive intersection need to get along. He said that "18 -wheelers" which stop in front of his business and parking area, but which are not delivering to or for him, block his parking, but that he tries to get along and does not complain. Mr. Lamb continued that all the other businesses in the vicinity are zoned C-3. All he wants to do, he said, is operate his existing businesses. Commissioner Oleson related that when the issue was heard perviously by the Commission, when a C-3 zoning had been requested, she had realized after the Commission had voted to recommend approval of the rezoning that the other businesses at the Chicot Road -Eagle Drive intersection all face Chicot Road; that only Mr. Lamb's businesses faces Eagle Drive. At that hearing, she continued, the staff recommendation had been for denial of the rezoning, but that the Board of Directors had referred the issue back to the Commission for consideration of a POD as a means of assisting Mr. Lamb achieve his request without rezoning the property to C-3. The Planning staff explained that the buildings immediately east of Mr. Lamb's property face Chicot Road, including Mr. Tucker's business and Buckholts. Across Eagle Drive to the south, the building site on the 4 FILE NO.: Z-5688 (Con corner, with frontage on both Chicot Road and Eagle Drive. Commissioner Oleson then asked for clarification of the number of parking spaces on Mr. Lamb's site, and what the required number would be for the POD. Staff replied that the spaces which were provided were "head -in" spaces off the street, so none comply with the Ordinance for legitimate "off-street" parking. Staff reported that parking along Eagle Drive for other businesses - Buckholts next door and the building across the street - also have "head in" parking off Eagle Drive without the off-street parking maneuvering room, making these parking spaces for the other businesses illegal as well. Chairman Walker brought up the topic of the concession use in the proposed Planned Office Development District. Mr. Walker pointed out that in a POD, there is no restriction on the square footage of permitted accessory uses, so the snack shop use could be an accessory use to the other office uses in the building. When the item was heard by the Board of Directors, Mr. Lamb had indicated that the concession use was limited to a 100 square foot area of the building, so the Commission needed to consider establishing a limit on the amount of area for this use. Staff clarified the situation of the non -conforming status of the Lamb property. As was presented in the agenda write-up, Mr. Lamb's property was an office use prior to its annexation, and is a legal non -conforming use for its office uses. The problem arose when Mr. Lamb added the snack shop to the building, and that is why the matter is being heard. Mr. Lamb responded that all the other businesses in the vicinity of his property are zoned C-3, and these businesses can do just about anything they want to as far as commercial uses are concerned. He alone is restricted. That, he said, is discrimination. He should be allowed to be free to use his building as his neighbors use theirs. He reiterated that parking is shared among all the buildings in the immediate vicinity; that his customers may park next door or across the street, but customers of those businesses park on his property, as well. Commissioner McDaniel commented that the problem with Mr. Lamb's situation is that there is apparently inadequate parking. Again, Mr. Lamb responded that the businesses share parking and customers. Mr. Lamb again said that the other area businesses can do anything they want and he has limitations. Chairman Walker indicated that parking in the area is, to a great extent, head -in off the street, and that if the POD is approved, the parking for Mr. Lamb's business would be designated by the approved site plan. 5 There was discussion on limiting Mr. Lamb's POD to the three current uses: the barber shop, the snack shop, and the insurance office. Commissioner McDaniel commented that the requirement for parking at a commercial use is one space for each 400 square feet of building area; therefore, for the 1300 square foot building, the required number of spaces should be four. With the seven spaces provided, there is, therefore, enough parking. Mr. Tucker responded, though, that there are always 5 to 10 cars parking on the available parking area which are attributable to Mr. Lamb's businesses. They park on the Buckholts lot, primarily. Eight people, he indicated, are in the snack shop at a time. That accounts for 8 cars alone. He pointed out that Mr. Lamb's building has 4 suites. With employees and customers, there is not enough parking on Mr. Lamb's property. Mr. Lawson related that the Board of Directors had referred the item back to the Commission to consider giving Mr. Lamb authorization to continue operating his three current businesses, and that, pursuant to Mr. Lamb's statement that the snack shop only occupied 100 square feet of the building, limiting that use to the current 100 square feet. Mr. Lamb was told that, if the motion passed and was approved by the Board, the "For Rent" sign on the remaining lease space would have to be removed. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD to the Board of Directors with the requirement that the snack shop be limited to 100 square feet and the building be used for the three current uses, the snack shop, the barber shop, and the insurance office. The motion passed with 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent. 6 September 7, 1993 ITEM 6 Z - Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John and Greg Lamb John Lamb 7604 Eagle Drive Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Commercial 0.18 acres Commercial North - Office, zoned C-3 South - Office, zoned C-3 East - Office, zoned C-3 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 7604 Eagle Drive is to rezone the property from R-2 to C-3. The location has 0-3 nonconforming status, and the site has been used as an office for a number of years. In 1973, an amendment to the Bill of Assurance for the Chicot Manor Subdivision was approved to allow Lot 2 (7604 Eagle Drive) to "be used for any purpose or purposes set forth in Little Rock Code Section 43-6 "E-111 Quiet Business and Institutional District." E-1 converted to 0-3 with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance of 1980. The amendment was endorsed prior to this part of Southwest Little Rock being annexed to the city. A C-3 reclassification is being requested to allow a portion of existing the building to be utilized for a small eating establishment. The principal building has 1,346 square feet and an accessory structure has 345 square feet. The lot has 85 feet of frontage on Eagle Drive and is approximately 100 feet west of Chicot Road. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-5, 0-3 and C-3. The lot in question abuts C-3 on two sides and R-2 on the west. Directly across Eagle Drive, the zoning is C-3. The majority of a nonresidential zoning found along this segment of Chicot was accomplished through the "South Central Island" Plan, which was adopted in 1982. Land use includes single family, multifamily, a church, office, commercial and AP&L substation. There are still nonconforming uses in the area, and several parcels are undeveloped. September 7, 1993 ITEM N9.: 6 Z-5683 (Cont.) The proposed commercial reclassification of 7604 Eagle Drive is in conflict with the Geyer Springs District Plan, which reflects the existing zoning and shows the site as single family. Staff is concerned with the potential impact on the subdivision from the rezoning and not providing a good zoning buffer from the C-3 on Chicot to the single family lots along Eagle Drive. Since the property has been used as an office and has a nonconforming status, a possible option for the lot is an office reclassification. Because of the location and the relationship to the neighborhood, 0-1 would probably be the logical district. An office rezoning would create an acceptable zoning pattern and provide the normal transition from C-3 to the residential area. LA" USE PLAN ELEMENT The commercial request is in conflict with the plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECQMMENDATIQN Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning and suggest 0-1 as being more appropriate for the location. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 15, 1993) The applicant, John Lamb, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Lamb spoke and said he wanted C-3 zoning and stated that there was C-3 on three sides. He went on to describe the area and the existing uses. There was some discussion about the existing zoning pattern and land use. John Lamb said that his building was occupied by an office, barber shop and a small snack shop. Mr. Lamb said that he would have problems if the lot was not zoned C-3. There was some discussion about the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, said that the Bill of Assurance could not control the Commission's action on a particular rezoning request. Mr. Giles also said that the Commission should not try to totally offend the Bill of Assurance. E September 7, 1993 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5688 (Cont.) Additional comments were made by various individuals, including John Lamb and several commissioners. A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: This item was heard by the Board of Directors at its August 3, 1993 meeting. The Board of Directors recommended that the applicant reconsider his request for rezoning, and instead apply for consideration of a POD designation for his property. The applicant agreed to pursue this course. SPEDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 1993) This item was presented to the Committee for consideration as an add-on item to the agenda. The situation regarding the Board's recommendation was outlined by staff. It was requested that this item be heard by the Planning Commission at its September 7, 1993 hearing in lien of requiring the applicant wait until the normal October 5 Subdivision meeting. The Committee agreed and forwarded the application to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 7, 1993) The applicant, Mr. John Lamb, was present. The staff presented the request and outlined the background of the matter. Chairman Walker asked Mr. Lamb to present his request. Realizing that there were a number of persons at the hearing who were opposed to his application, Mr. Lamb asked that these persons be allowed to present their objections, and that he would then respond to them. Mr. Ed Tucker, who indicated that he owned a business on Chicot Road which backed up to Mr. Lamb's property, spoke. He asked how Mr. Lamb could operate a barber shop, restaurant, and insurance agency in an R-2 zone in a 1300 square foot building that was built as a house. He added that these uses are already in existance, and that Mr. Lamb was not asking for permission, but for forgiveness. He complained that the parking situation was a real problem. Mr. Lamb's customers overflow onto Buckholts' and his parking areas and across Eagle Drive in the parking area for the businesses which have frontage on Eagle Drive. He said 3 FILE NO.: Z-5688 (Con that Mr. Lamb has 5 or 6 usable parking spaces for the three businesses, and that Mr. Lamb's customers are always using other business' parking. He strongly opposed the zoning change, he concluded. Ms. Modean Moore said that she lived next door to Mr. Lamb's business location, on Eagle Drive, to the west. She indicated that she opposed the re -zoning because Mr. Lamb's patrons are noisy, cause a lot of "racket", squeal their tires, and because of "everything that goes on...." Mr. Olin wahrmund identified himself as the owner of the building at the south-west corner of Eagle Drive and Chicot Road. He confirmed that Mr. Lamb's customers park on his property in parking areas which he has provided for his customers. He said that Mr. Lamb has three businesses, plus has a "For Rent" sign on a fourth suite. He indicated that there is not enough parking for the customers which Mr. Lamb has. He reported that on the previous Saturday morning at 8:00, there were 3 cars parked on property which adjoins Mr. Lamb's business, that only Mr. Lamb's barber shop was open at that time. He also inquired about how Mr. Lamb could operate his business in an R-2 zone. Mr. Lamb stated that his building was build as a business, not as a residential structure. He said that Buckholts customers also park on his property, or that mutual customers park on one lot then do business with both. He pleaded that the property owners in the vicinity of the Chicot Road -Eagle Drive intersection need to get along. He said that 1118 -wheelers" which stop in front of his business and parking area, but which are not delivering to or for him, block his parking, but that he tries to get along and does not complain. Mr. Lamb continued that all the other businesses in the vicinity are zoned C-3. All he wants to do, he said, is operate his existing businesses. Commissioner Oleson related that when the issue was heard perviously by the Commission, when a C-3 zoning had been requested, she had realized after the Commission had voted to recommend approval of the rezoning that the other businesses at the Chicot Road -Eagle Drive intersection all face Chicot Road; that only Mr. Lamb's businesses faces Eagle Drive. At that hearing, she continued, the staff recommendation had been for denial of the rezoning, but that the Board of Directors had referred the issue back to the Commission for consideration of a POD as a means of assisting Mr. Lamb achieve his request without rezoning the property to C-3. The Planning staff explained that the buildings immediately east of Mr. Lamb's property face Chicot Road, including Mr. Tucker's business and Buckholts. Across Eagle Drive to the south, the building site on the 4 September 7, 1993 ITEM NO.: 6 Z-56$$ (Con corner, with frontage on both Chicot Road and Eagle Drive. Commissioner Oleson then asked for clarification of the number of parking spaces on Mr. Lamb's site, and what the required number would be for the POD. Staff replied that the spaces which were provided were "head -in" spaces off the street, so none comply with the Ordinance for legitimate "off-street" parking. Staff reported that parking along Eagle Drive for other businesses - Buckholts next door and the building across the street - also have "head in" parking off Eagle Drive without the off-street parking maneuvering room, making these parking spaces for the other businesses illegal as well. Chairman Walker brought up the topic of the concession use in the proposed Planned Office Development District. Mr. Walker pointed out that in a POD, there is no restriction on the square footage of permitted accessory uses, so the snack shop use could be an accessory use to the other office uses in the building. When the item was heard by the Board of Directors, Mr. Lamb had indicated that the concession use was limited to a 100 square foot area of the building, so the Commission needed to consider establishing a limit on the amount of area for this use. Staff clarified the situation of the non -conforming status of the Lamb property. As was presented in the agenda write-up, Mr. Lamb's property was an office use prior to its annexation, and is a legal non -conforming use for its office uses. The problem arose when Mr. Lamb added the snack shop to the building, and that is why the matter is being heard. Mr. Lamb responded that all the other businesses in the vicinity of his property are zoned C-3, and these businesses can do just about anything they want to as far as commercial uses are concerned. He alone is restricted. That, he said, is discrimination. He should be allowed to be free to use his building as his neighbors use theirs. He reiterated that parking is shared among all the buildings in the immediate vicinity; that his customers may park next door or across the street, but customers of those businesses park on his property, as well. Commissioner McDaniel commented that the problem with Mr. Lamb's situation is that there is apparently inadequate parking. Again, Mr. Lamb responded that the businesses share parking and customers. Mr. Lamb again said that the other area businesses can do anything they want and he has limitations. Chairman Walker indicated that parking in the area is, to a great extent, head -in off the street, and that if the POD is approved, the parking for Mr. Lamb's business would be designated by the approved site plan. 5 September 7, 1993 ITEM N 6 Z-56$ (Cont.) There was discussion on limiting Mr. Lamb's POD to the three current uses: the barber shop, the snack shop, and the insurance office. Commissioner McDaniel commented that the requirement for parking at a commercial use is one space for each 400 square feet of building area; therefore, for the 1300 square foot building, the required number of spaces should be four. With the seven spaces provided, there is, therefore, enough parking. Mr. Tucker responded, though, that there are always 5 to 10 cars parking on the available parking area which are attributable to Mr. Lamb's businesses. They park on the Buckholts lot, primarily. Eight people, he indicated, are in the snack shop at a time. That accounts for 8 cars alone. He pointed out that Mr. Lamb's building has 4 suites. With employees and customers, there,is not enough parking on Mr. Lamb's property. Mr. Lawson related that the Board of Directors had referred the item back to the Commission to consider giving Mr. Lamb authorization to continue operating his three current businesses, and that, pursuant to Mr. Lamb's statement that the snack shop only occupied 100 square feet of the building, limiting that use to the current 100 square feet. Mr. Lamb was told that, if the motion passed and was approved by the Board, the "For Rent" sign on the remaining lease space would have to be removed. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD to the Board of Directors with the requirement that the snack shop be limited to 100 square feet and the building be used for the three current uses, the snack shop, the barber shop, and the insurance office. The motion passed with 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent. 6 1. Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 2. Case No.: Z-5688 3. Re(juest: Establishment of Lamb Short -Form POD 4. Location: 7604 Eagle Drive 5. Owner/At)T)licant: John Lamb 6. Existing Status: Existing zoning is R-2, with an existing legal nonconforming 0-3 use. 7. Proposed Use: Two offices plus one snack shop limited to 100 square foot. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. 13. Obiectors: Mr. Ed Tucker, Ms. Modean Moore, Mr. Olin Wahrmund 14. Neighborhood Plan: Geyer Springs West (15)