HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0819 Staff AnalysisM
Al'.
June 29, 1982
Item No. 5 -- Z-3302-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing 'Use:
Jyothi McMinn
Ben McMinn
5419 Kavanaugh
Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "O-l" Quiet Office
Montessori School
13,500 square feet +
Montessori School
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - U.S. Post Office, Zoned "0-3"
South - Duplex, Zoned "R-4"
East - Residential, Zoned "R-2"
West - Residential, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
-\D
`0 - ' �
i
This property has a traceable zoning history of over 10 V
years dating back to July 1, 1971- Subsequent to the
initial effort in 1971 to zone this property "F" Commercial,
there have been two efforts to rezone the property and one
effort to gain a variance to use the property for a
Montessori School. The first application was denied, and
all subsequent applications have likewise been rejected.
The last zoning effort and the use variance were both
attempted by the present applicant. Briefly the history
goes as follows:
Z-2476 (7-1-71)
Z-2476A (9-26-78)
Z-3302 (1-29-79)
"F" Commercial
"E-1" Quiet Business
Zoning Variance for
Montessori School
Z-3318 (2-27-79) "D" Apartment
Denied
Denied
Denied
Denied
V
June 29, 1982
Item No. 5 - Continued
In March 1979, the applicant filed suit in Chancery Court
(79-1215) asking the court to find that the Montessori
School proposed by the applicant be permitted under the
definition of a school in the Zoning Ordinance in the
"A" One Family District, which permitted "public schools,
elementary and high, other educational institutions with
curriculum equivalent to a public elementary school or
public high school."
In May 1979, the applicant filed suit in Chancery Court
(79-2477) asking the court.to find that the City of Little
Rock was arbitrary and capricious in its action denying
"D" Apartment zoning on the same property.
In 1980, the City of Little Rock won a declaratory judgment
in Case 79-1215, which prevented the Montessori School from
being allowed "by right" in the "A" One Family District. In
March 1981, the City was found not to have been arbitrary
and capricious in denying D -Apartment zoning in Case
79-2477. This decision was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme
Court on April 12, 1982. The Montessori School has operated
at this location since 1977 and is in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance at this time.
Several years ago, a plan, never formalized, was done for
the area surrounding this property. Known as the Forest
Heights Plan, this plan called for the containment of
nonresidential developmen arwe
ea st of Polk Street
pry marl y sou o avanau
m
s a as a Way a wi proposals to encroach into this
block with nonresidential, uses is that a domino effect is
likely to occur. The property is occupied by a single
family structure virtually surrounded by other residential
structures. It faces the U.S. Post Office adross Kavanaugh
Boulevard. All of the single family homes in the block have
been restored to like new condition over the last few years,
so little probability of neighborhood decline is present.
Staff remains consistent in its belief that this property
should remain residential.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant requested deferral. The Commission
moved to
defer the matter to the June 29 meeting.motion
- 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 29, 1982
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were 13 objectors. The
applicant presented a history of the ownership of the
property and previous applications for zoning on it. The
petitions presented in Z-3848 for both sides were applicable
to this case as well. All of the discussion in the previoua
case also applied. There was considerable discussion of
this case, and finally, the applicant agreed to amend his
application to a request for a conditional use permit for a
day-care center in the "R-2" District. The planning
and thc�
Commission moved to defer the matter to August
motion was passed - 7 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, 2 abstaining.
May 31, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME: Polk and Kavanaugh "Short -Form"
PCD (Z-5004)
LOCATION: 5419 and 5421 Kavanaugh
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Ben McMinn Dan Stowers, Architect
P.O. Box 2438 1516 West 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372-5007 Phone: 376-3271
AREA: 21,000 sq.ft. NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 11R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Office
A. Proposal/Request
1. To develop a 5,000 square foot, two-story
building on 21,000 square feet for use as a
financial institution.
2. Parking will consist of 14 spaces.
3. Landscaping will be heavy on the southern and
eastern portions of the property. The northern
and western sides will also have landscaping.
B. Existing Conditions
This property is located on the corner of Kavanaugh
and Polk. The surrounding uses includes a U.S. Post
Office to the north, residential to the south and
east, and a Safeway Emporium Grocery to the west. An
alley borders the property on the east. On -site are
an existing brick and frame building and a two-story
abandoned apartment building.
J
May 31, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
�F
Item No. D - Continued
C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design
1. Use not in conformance with plans for the area.
2. Meet with Engineering regarding their comments.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Left turn on Polk may conflict with exit at Post
Office.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial, based on potential adverse effects to
residential area to the east, and departure from Land
Use Plan.
There have been several efforts on the last 15 years
to rezone a portion of this site to several uses, such
as quiet business, a Montessorri School, and apartment
building. The request for use as a school was denied
by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Staff has been
consistent in its efforts to contain nonresidential
development to the area west of Polk Street and south
of Kavanaugh Boulevard. Staff fears that encroachment
into the residential area would create an adverse
domino effect.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The main issue was identified
as the proposed use of the property. The site plan was
observed as technical issues that could be worked out.
May 31, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were several persons present objecting. Three
persons spoke against the request, and one petition was
filed with over 60 signatures. The application was
represented by Mr. Ben McMinn, one of the owners.
The staff recommendation was read as written in the agenda.
Mr. McMinn made a presentation of his case, history of the
site, and corrections of history stated in the staff
recommendation. The Commission and Mr. McMinn discussed
the development, the design, and possible alternate uses.
The opponents made a presentation. Mr. Steve Nipper stated
his concerns as being: (1) zoning of any kind except
"R-2," (2 ) traffic, ( 3 ) strip zoning to the east.
Mr. Don Barnes, an opponent, stated basically the same
concerns plus the effect on parking which is now deficient.
Mr. Maury Mitchell echoed the previous concerns and gave
the history of former Planning Director's plans for
condominiums that he would have supported.
Mr. Jim Lawson of the staff presented the Heights-Hillcrest
Plan and offered his opinion on the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Plan differences.
Mr. McMinn then offered history of the 1981 attempt at
rezoning to multifamily.
The Commission asked the applicant and neighbors if use was
acceptable instead of a bank or savings and loan office.
Mr. McMinn indicated he would like the bank but might
consider another use.
Mr. Nipper said he didn't speak for the neighborhood as he
was new to the area and couldn't commit. A discussion of
deferral, in which Commissioners expressed concerns about
traffic, access, and the area land use plan.
A motion was made to defer the PUD application until
May 31.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent.
-May 31, 1.9 8.8
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5-19-88)
No additional information was discussed.
May 31, 1988
Item No. D - Continued.._
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
Staff recommended denial based potential adverse effects to
the residential area to the east and departure from the Land
Use Plan. The Applicant was asked to report on the
neighborhood meeting.
The Applicant was present in support of the Application. He
offered the neighborhood a Bill of Assurance restricting his
other properties. No final conclusion was reached. They
said they would not object to low -density apartments, but he
did not agree that use was feasible because of the existing
heavy commercial across the street on three sides. He
stated that he had a petition indicating some neighborhood
support. He was unable to reach an agreement with those
present at the meeting.
Mr. Don Barnes and Mr. Steve Nipper of 1906 North Taylor
represented neighbors within a two -block area who were in
opposition. They stated that the group would not oppose
apartment zoning. They felt that a residential use was
better and they were not sure whether the Bill of Assurance
would adequately assure against a future rezoning of the
property.
Mr. George Wells, resident at 5009 East Crescent,
represented property -owners to the west, across from the
Safeway store. He agreed that the property was an eyesore.
His main concern was with parking, however, he was not
opposed to the project. He felt that many persons currently
thought of Safeway as a "community parking lot" and some
businesses to the north did not have parking.
Chairman Jones felt that a quiet office without the drive-in
facilities generates less traffic than one with the
drive-in, and was preferable to multifamily usage. He
thought that traffic would have been a major concern of the
neighborhood, and thought this would be important in
reaching a compromise. He asked the neighborhood
representatives to respond to their desire. They stated a
preference for residential as shown on the Heights-Hillcrest
Plan. They felt that a density of eight to ten units of
multifamily was also preferable. Other Commission members
explained to them that many neighborhoods preferred quiet
office developments to multifamily.
Mr. McMinn stated that he had met with Mr. Leland Gunn, the
other owner of property in this proposal, and said that both
did not want apartments, and it was not feasible at this
time to build residential on this site.
m
May 31, 1988
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988)
He was asked if he would be willing to revise the plan and
submit it as quiet office without the drive -through
facility. He stated that he would be willing to.
Finally a vote was called on this item. A motion for
approval of the proposal as filed was made but failed to
pass by a vote of: 1 aye, 7 noes, 1 abstention, and
2 absent.
SUBDIVISION AGENDA FORMS
MEETING DATE:
ITEM # fo lj,� VN
A. PROPOSRLJRF_��JEST:
T� C�� ve �o b D s ,-F4� +wa - 5� r�� bN; rd i
r 4-1 �L �t lr✓n le? Ore
1
w,
t
` eaS"Yet11/,oQr7r�n3
r f, ., s- ; dQs w►1� � Ism � � � �
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: �, Po `� f :.
C� 01'r a ��r u`J h ii
r / ,TA
Po 5
GtPydR �fi pfiu•. ������ �,F lit cL-
�� C. ISSUE5 DISCUSSION/LEGAL/TECHNICAL DESIGN n Q ! �r�er5 e r�� -i'f
�(.5e n a+ I to kwrN 1,cP w � ^ C P�tn
�` M� (' 6 r �0 rnm
o °:,1•►12E� w;`� � �rc�i�nef r�n� �� �r., r c��s�� Ce n �
D.-- ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
�-�7 c4 r YJ. , d
17 P
e�jlPw�(rcCkct",n�cr
j fa r K
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Pen C( o ti �+e--rrb!c, � r LPr se eft e r-� -�z f P S rat � ^4 7kq�
G S 4- Q'PpQr'%r e
MeV4-, ka �e, b ee h Se ve Y
V �.� G S C �'r►= mPr � I} �ti�"f �u�' inP � S� MD+'C�'PSSGr� SCti bo � Q �'
f e ,-,.-t4zr CO-OP" ►�� #� r�o►� � � � �� ; � � ; cP b
iS 4eA
rep
ff W,05�, C)4 PO It Sit" ee� 4 %
F
i d. C air �"+@'i C.� �®✓h r r� b ��C�v