The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-8101 Staff AnalysisMarch 15, 2007 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-8101 Owner: Applicant: Location: Area: Request: Purpose: Existing Use: William and Ron Woods Ron Woods 1311 and 1401 Bishop Street 0.48 Acre and 0.16 Acre Rezone from 0-3 to C-3 and R-3 to 0-2 Future Development Single family residential structures SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North — Arkansas Children's Hospital uses; zoned 0-3 and 0-2 South — Single family residences; zoned R-3 and R-4 East — Undeveloped property and commercial uses; zoned C-3 West — Undeveloped property and single family residential structures; zoned 0-2, POD and R-3 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of S. Bishop Street and West 14th Street. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way at the intersection of alley and 14th Street. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Bus Route #11 (M. L. King Route) runs along Martin Luther King Drive to the east. 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 Central High and Downtown Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. March 15, 2007 ITEM NO: A (Cont. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: FILE NO_: Z-8101 This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family and Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from 0-3 General Office District to C-3 General Commercial District and from R-3 Single Family District to 0-2 Office Institutional District. A land use plan amendment for a change to Office and Neighborhood Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. Master Street Plan - Bishop Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which area abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. Daisy Gaston Bates Drive is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: A Class II route is shown along Daisy Gaston Bates Drive. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5' shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right-of-way may be required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The area is not covered by a city recognized Neighborhood Action Plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: William and Ron Woods, owners of the 0.48 acre property at the northeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive and the 0.16 acre property at the southeast corner of the same intersection, are requesting to rezone the properties from 0-3 to C-3 and R-3 to 0-2 respectively. The rezoning is proposed for future development. The property at the northeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive is comprised of three (3) platted lots (Lots 4-6, Block 12, Centennial Addition). The property at the southeast corner of the intersection is one (1) platted lot. The property at the northeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive is occupied by three (3) single family residential structures. The lot at the 2 March 15, 2007 ITEM NO: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101 southeast corner is occupied by a brick and stucco single family residence. There are platted alley rights-of-way along the east side of both properties. There is a mixture of uses and zoning in this general area. Arkansas Children's Hospital property is located immediately north and west of the larger property. There is undeveloped C-3 zoned property and various commercial uses to the east. Single family residential structures and vacant lots are located to the south and southwest. The City's Future Land Use Plan designates the property at the northeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive as Mixed Use (MX). The lot at the southeast corner of the intersection is shown as Single Family (SF). A Land Use Plan amendment for changes from MX to Neighborhood Commercial and SF to Office is a separate item on this agenda (LU06-08- 04). Staff is not supportive of the requested C-3 and 0-2 rezoning. The property at the northeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive is shown on MX on the Future Land Use Plan. The MX designation requires a Planned Zoning Development (PZD) for any non-residential development of the property, which includes site plan review. Staff believes that site plan review for this property is very important. The property immediately to the west is zoned 0-2 and recently received site plan review approval for an Arkansas Children's Hospital facility. Additionally, this property is along the main entry drive to the Central High School area. Staff feels that building design, building setbacks, parking design and orientation and other various site plan criteria should be addressed by the Commission with development of this property. With respect to the lot at the southeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive, staff believes the zoning should remain single family residential. With the exception of the POD zoning immediately west, the properties south of Daisy Bates Drive and west of the C-3 zoned property at the southwest corner of M. L. King Drive and Daisy Bates Drive contain single family/two-family residences and are zoned R-3 and R-4. There are also a number of vacant lots in this area. Staff believes that new home construction could take place in this area in the near future, with renewed interest in the Central High area of Little Rock. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 and 0-2 rezonings. March 15, 2007 ITEM NO: A (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: F=1:804[61WA: )Ql (SEPTEMBER 28, 2006) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on September 26, 2006 requesting the application be deferred to the November 9, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request being less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the November 9, 2006 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 9, 2006) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant contacted staff on November 1, 2006 requesting the application be deferred to the December 21, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 21, 2006 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 21, 2006) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on December 12, 2006 requesting the application be deferred to the February 1, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 1, 2007 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 15, 2007) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the March 15, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 15, 2007 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 0 March 15, 2007 ITEM NO: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8101 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 15, 2007) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested withdrawal of the item. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. �i