Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0448 Staff AnalysisSeptember 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 448 NAME: Tropical Galleries - Short Form PCD (Z-4052-A) LOCATION: SE Corner of 12th and Spring Streets REQUEST: Rezone from "HR" High Density Residential to "PCD" Planned Commercial District. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/SURVEYOR: Al Davenport Brooks and Curry 1023 E. 3rd Street P.O. Box 897 Little Rock, AR North Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 374-6985 AREA: .792 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREETS: 0 ZONING: "HR" PROPOSED USES: Tropical Plant Storage I. Site History This site was recently considered by the Little Rock Planning Commission for rezoning from "HR" High Density Residential to "GB." It was originally considered by the Executive Committee of the Mansion Area Advisory Committee (CZD) and deferred to the City, since the Committee was afraid of the long-term implications of "GB" zoning, which is the least restrictive within the Central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. At the public hearing on July 26th, staff recommended denial due to a desire to preserve portions of the downtown area for residential use. Opposition to the rezoning was voiced by members of the St. Paul AME Zion Church and Ron Newman, Capitol Zoning District Administrator. The Commission discussed with the applicant and the opposers, the possibility of converting the application to a request for a Planned Unit Development. The Commission finally voted to approve the application as filed. The motion failed by 0 ayes, 8 noes, 1 absent and 2 abstentions. September 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued II. Development_Objectives A. The expansion of warehouse and office space at an existing business that leases live plant material. B. The construction of a distribution center for servicing the accounts in Arkansas and the surrounding states. C. Elimination of an existing eyesore, resulting in the upgrading of the property in the surrounding neighborhood. III. Development Proposal A. The use of six lots on .792 acres in conjunction with the tropical plant storage business. B. The use of an existing metal frame and metal -covered building (140' x 72.21) for tropical plant storage. C. The rebuilding of only a portion of an existing fire -damaged, frame and brick building for office space (30' x 651). D. The provision of 14 parking spaces shielded by a 14' brick wall and landscaping. Eo No plans for vacant 2 1/2 lots on the south, except perimeter landscaping and possible employee parking. F. The installation or a large metal door on the Spring Street side, which will enable trucks to pull completely inside the building for loading and unloading. G. Engineering Comments 1. Add and repair curb along W. 12th Street where curb and gutter is missing or damaged. 2. Replace broken section of sidewalks on Spring and W. 13th Streets. _ ..��. . _ ..�. _.. .ia. � ��. -- - �.n L: �.... ..u�yaincm...a-�s. �.� .,._ .,. � i.. .� ,.r .., atr +.rvr......a.�.,�.�n ��•,..rt.� :..,,.•.. .. - September 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued Staff Analysis Staff remains loyal to its original position when this proposal was considered for rezoning. We do not support this application due to a long-term goal regarding the revitalization of the downtown area with infill residential uses. It is reasonable to project that the downtown area can be developed with more high density residential. To approve this plan would necessitate straying from that commitment. Futhermore, the short form PUD process was not designed to incorporate industrial proposals. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He reported that he had spoken with the members of the neighboring church. The Committee passed this to the Commission, subject to assurances that trucks will pull completely inside the building for loading and unloading. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and addressed the issue. There were several objectors present. Mr. Mercer, the attorney for the adjacent church, spoke to the concerns of the church membership and results of the meeting held with the applicant's representative. A lengthy discussion then followed. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent.