The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-7880 Staff AnalysisJanuary 19, 2006 ITEM NO.: E.1 FILE NO.: Z-7880 Owner: Paul and Mary Debusk, William and Ruth Eldridge, Mark and Kimberly Allen, David and Sonya McFatrich Applicant: Troy D. Laha Location: 6, 12, 14 and 17 Norton Road Area: 11.7 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose: Future Commercial Development Existing Use: Single Family Residential (4 residences) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North — Mixed uses and undeveloped property; zoned 0-1, 0-3, PCD and R-2 South — Single family residences; zoned R-2 East — Single family residences and mixed commercial uses along Cantrell Road, zoned R-2, PD -O and PCD West — Single family residences; zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 3. A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. January 19, 2006 ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7880 B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is located on a CATA Bus Route #25 (Highway 10 Express Route). C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Maywood Manor and Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from R-2 (Single Family District) to C-3 (General Commercial District) for speculative zoning. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda (LU05-19-02). Master Street Plan: Norton Road is shown as a Local Street on the Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and is built as a five -lane road adjacent to the property. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exists should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Additional commercial and office uses at this site could result in added congestion on this section of Cantrell Road. Cantrell Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown on Cantrell Road from Chenonceau Boulevard to the Chenal Parkway. A Class II bikeway is a route designated for the sole use of bicycles but is physically connected to the roadway. Additional paving and right-of-way may be required. 2 January 19, 2006 ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7880 City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Debusk, Eldridge, Allen and McFatrich families, owners of the 11.7 Acres of property located at 6, 12, 14 and 17 Norton Road, are requesting to rezone the property from "R-2" Single Family Residential to "C-3" General Commercial District. The rezoning is proposed for future commercial development of the property. There are currently four (4) single family residences located within the boundary of the 11.7 Acre property. A portion of the property at the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Norton Road is undeveloped. There are existing single family residential neighborhoods located immediately west and south of the property. There are single family residences on large lots located to the east. A day care center and restaurant are located to the east, along the south side of Cantrell Road. There is a mixture of commercial uses and undeveloped office zoned property to the north and northeast, along the north side of Cantrell Road. The City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Single Family. A proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-19-02) for a change to commercial is a separate item on this agenda (Item 8). Staff is not supportive of the requested C-3 zoning nor the Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial. Staff believes the rezoning of this property to C-3 is inappropriate. Staff has concerns with locating C-3 zoned property over 1,000 feet back from Cantrell Road and adjacent to single family residences on three (3) sides (east, west and south). The property is currently divided into four (4) tracts. The rear three (3) tracts (12, 14 and 17 Norton Road) are located over 300 feet back from Cantrell Road, and therefore would not have to conform to the Highway 10 Design Overlay Standards, including increased buffers and building setbacks, if developed separately. There are existing major commercial nodes to the east and west of this site, at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway, and in the Ranch development. There are large areas of commercial zoning within these commercial nodes which are currently undeveloped. Therefore, staff views the addition of commercial zoning to the overall area as premature. Staff believes the requested C-3 zoning would have a K January 19, 2006 ITEM NO.: EA [Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7880 negative impact on and not be compatible with the existing single family neighborhoods to the east, west and south. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 21, 2005) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the September 1, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request being less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred. The vote was 11 ayes and 0 nays. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 1, 2005) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the October 13, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred. The vote was 11 ayes and 0 nays. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 13, 2005) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the January 19, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred. The vote was 11 ayes and 0 nays. With a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the request for a third deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 19, 2006) The applicant was not present. There were numerous persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. 4 January 19, 2006 ITEM NO.: E.1 1914:8019] 1rW-*1( Alicia Finch addressed the Commission in opposition. She explained that there is no need for additional commercial zoning in the area. She described the area and the property proposed for rezoning. There was a brief discussion regarding deferring the application based on the fact the applicant was not present. It was decided to continue with the public hearing. Mary Dornhoffer also addressed the Commission in opposition. She explained that the proposed rezoning deviated from the Highway 10 Overlay Plan. Wil Rauch also spoke in opposition. He expressed opposition to the C-3 rezoning adjacent to single-family residential property. Edward Oglesby also spoke in opposition. He explained that the rezoning request represented bad planning. He stated that the proposal did not conform to the Highway 10 Overlay District. He also expressed concerns with drainage issues associated with the property. Robert Wilimzig also spoke in opposition. He expressed the same concerns as previous speakers. He noted that there was available undeveloped office and commercial zoned property in the area. Paul Wood also spoke in opposition. He requested denial of the application and expressed the same concerns as previous speakers. Kevin Heifner also spoke in opposition. He stated that the future plan for the area should be followed. Ruth Bell, League of Women's Voters, also addressed the Commission in opposition, expressing similar concerns as previous speakers. There was a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays and 1 recusal (Laha). The application was denied. 5