HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6159 Staff AnalysisAugust 29, 1996
ITEM NO.• J Z-615
Owner: Earl and Barbara Brisendine
Applicant: Barbara Brisendine
Location: 14902 Alexander Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-1
Purpose: Use existing structure as
offices for food service
broker
Size: 2.0± acres
Existing Use: One story brick residential
structure which is occupied by
Brisco Food Service, Inc.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
lot and
Single Family homes; zoned R-2
South
- Vacant,
wooded;
zoned R-2
East
- Vacant,
wooded;
zoned R-2
West
- Vacant,
wooded
and Single Family homes; zoned
R=7A (also City of Alexander)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Alexander Road is classified as a minor arterial, 90 feet of
right-of-way and 60 feet of pavement with sidewalk.
Dedicate right-of-way to bring property line to 45 feet from
centerline. Driveway must be improved for structure to be
used as office. Any planned construction will involve
widening of one-half the road to minor arterial standards
and the construction of a sidewalk. At the time of permit
other development related issues will be discussed. AHTD
approval will be required for construction within right-of-
way, after City approval. Current construction is a 22 foot
pavement with open ditches and no sidewalk. 1992 traffic
count for Alexander Road is 1560.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Otter Creek District. The
adopted Plan recommends Single Family. There have not been
any changes in the area to justify a plan amendment to
Office. Staff cannot support the introduction of
nonresidential use at this time.
August 29, 1996
S[]BDZVISION
ITEM N Z-6159 n .
STAFF ANALYSIS_
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2± acre
tract from "R-2" Single Family to "O-1" Quiet Office. The
property contains a one-story, brick and frame residential
structure which has been converted into offices by Briscoe
Food Service, Inc. The applicant states she was not aware
that the property was in the City of Little Rock until a
representative of the City's Code Enforcement Staff issued
her a notice for violating the zoning Ordinance.
The property is located at the extreme southwest corner of
the City, adjacent to the City of Alexander. The area is
rural in nature, comprised primarily of single family homes
on larger lots. Large areas are undeveloped and wooded. A
partially developed manufactured home subdivision is
adjacent to the west.
The primary zoning in the area is R-2, with the manufactured
home subdivision being zoned R -7A. Both of these
designations are single family residential. within the city
limits, there is no nonresidential zoning within the
vicinity of this site.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan is reflective of the
existing zoning by indicating single family for this entire
area with the exception of the manufactured home subdivision
which is shown as MH on the Plan. The nearest
nonresidential on the Plan is well north of this site, at
I-30 and County Line Road.
The adopted Plan recommends Single Family for this site.
There are no other nonresidentially zoned properties within
the vicinity of this site. All surrounding uses are single
family. Staff cannot support the requested 0-1 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-1 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had submitted a letter on May 13, 1996 asking that the item
be deferred to the August 1, 1996 commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the August 1, 1996 meeting by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniel).
E
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVI ION
ITEM NO.: J Z-6159_(Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIOAI: AUGUST 1, 1996)
The Chairman identified for those present for today's
meeting that there was a potential vote problem with the
Commission since there were only eight of the eleven members
present and six votes are required for final action.
The Chairman asked if the applicant wished to address this
circumstance and perhaps request a deferral. The applicant
came forward and identified herself as Barbara Brisending, a
resident at 14902 Alexander Road which is the subject
property. She stated for the record that because of the
attendance circumstance she desired that her application be
deferred. The Chairman requested that staff provide the
appropriate deferral date. Richard Wood, of the Staff,
stated that the August 29, 1996 Subdivision Hearing is the
next scheduled meeting for items of this nature.
A brief discussion then followed involving Commissioner
Daniel, the Chairman and Staff members as to the appropriate
meeting for the placement of this item for deferral. Wood
stated that the deferral needs to go to at least the
subdivision agenda since the staff does not normally place
public hearing items of this nature on the Planning Hearing.
A question was posed by a gentleman in the audience as what
position the item would hold on the new agenda. The
Chairman and Staff identified that it would be a deferred
item and would be one of the first items introduced. The
Chairman asked for a motion from the Commission. A motion
to defer the application to August 29, 1996 was made. The
motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent, 1 open position and 1 abstention
(McCarthy).
The Chairman then stated for the record that the item has
been deferred.
PLANNING COMMIS ION AC'T'ION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The applicant, Barbara Brisendine, was present. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial.
Ms. Brisendine handed out a letter in support of her
application and a map showing other non-residential uses in
the area. She also presented photographs of those non-
residential uses. She stated that the area was clearly not
a residential area but had several other uses.
3
August 29, 1996
SUBD'1Y SION
ITEM NO.: L z-6159 ont.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Ms.
Brisendine described the food brokerage business being
conducted at 14902 Alexander Road. She stated that there
were no trucks or deliveries other than UPS trucks bringing
literature to the site. She stated that the business
employed approximately 6 people, several of which traveled
and were only rarely at the office. Ms. Brisendine stated
that there was no inventory kept at the site. She stated
that the business had been operating at the site since
December, 1995. Ms. Brisendine concluded by stating that it
had been suggested to her that she might amend her
application to a PUD and that she was willing to do so.
Commissioner Putnam commented that there would still be a
land use issue.
Commissioner Daniel commented that he had visited the site
and had noticed many non-residential uses in the area.
In response to questions from Commissioners Brandon and
Putnam, Ms. Brisendine stated that the house was occupied as
a residence when she bought the property but that it was
used solely as an office now.
There was then a further discussion of the uses in the area.
Commissioner Hawn suggested that a PUD might be appropriate;
one that allows the existing use and retains the residential
character of the house.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated
that a Planned Development might be an appropriate
compromise. He suggested that the application might be
amended to a Planned Development - Office for this specific
use, retaining the residential character of the property and
restricting signage on the site. Such an application, he
stated, would not be in conflict with the Plan and would not
require a plan change.
Ms. Brisendine stated that she wanted to have a sign on the
property to identify the site for customers and delivery
persons.
Commissioner Adcock asked why the Plan showed the area to be
single family when there were so many nonresidential uses in
the area. Mr. Lawson responded that those uses were
nonconforming. He stated that staff was agreeable to a
deferral if the Commission wanted staff to do a review of
the Land Use Plan for the whole area.
In response to a question, Ms. Brisendine stated that there
was no ground -mounted sign on the property. She described
4
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J z-6159(Cont.)
the only signage as an 18 inch by 8 foot sign, mounted below
the eave of the house.
Commissioner McCarthy asked if a Planned Development would
require a plan change. Mr. Lawson responded that a PD -0 for
this specific use, with conditions assuring that the
residential character was maintained, would not require a
plan change. Anything beyond that, he stated, would require
a review of the Plan for the larger area.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Lawson
stated that the survey submitted with the application would
be sufficient for the Planned Development, if the applicant
worked with staff to address issues such as landscaping and
parking.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County,
addressed the Commission. She stated that the League was
opposed to the original rezoning request because it opened
the possibility of expanding nonresidential zoning in the
area. She stated that the League was not opposed to a
Planned Development that allowed this specific use and
retained the property's residential character.
Ms. Brisendine stated for the record that she was amending
her application to a Planned Development - Office.
A motion was made to approve the Briscoe Food Service, Inc.
Planned Development - Office as described by the applicant
with the permitted use of the property to be limited to
Briscoe Food Service, Inc. and single family residential.
The single family residential was added to allow the
convertibility of the property back to residential should
Briscoe Food Service, Inc. ever vacate the site. The
approval allowed signage limited to the 18 inch by 8 foot
sign mounted on the building, beneath the eave, and did not
allow any additional wall or ground -mounted signs.
The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
6i