Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLU00-04-01_Emails to applicantMinyard, Brian From: Minyard, Brian Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 4:26 PM To: 'klynch@familylife.com' Subject: Gill rezoning Mr. Lynch, Following are copies of the staff reports and minutes of the items in question. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Brian Minyard Planner II ITEM NO.: 3 NAME: Gill - Short -Form PRD 5209/5215 "J" Street DEVELOPER: John P. Gill 3801 TCBY Tower Capitol and Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.5 acre FILE NO.: Z-6883 SURVEYOR: Donald W. Brooks 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R -2/R-4 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: VARTANrRR/WATVF.RR RF.r)TTF.CTFiI- Single Family Residential and Two Family Residential Multifamily Waiver of right-of-way dedication and street improvements for "J" and "I" Streets n n r'Wn_n /17n m . The property at 5209 "J" Street contains a six -unit apartment building (40 foot height), with an access drive from "J" Street and a small area of gravel parking in the rear yard. There are four (4) garages within this structure, which are accessed from "J" Street. The property at 5215 "J" Street contains a single family residential structure and the property at 5212 "I" Street contains a duplex (33 foot height). These structures are served by on -street parking. 1 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 5209/5215 "J" Street and 5212 "I" Street from R -2/R-4 to PRD. The applicant proposes to remove the single family residential structure at 5215 "J" Street and construct a two-story (30 feet in height), four -unit townhouse structure with associated parking along the proposed building's east side. The applicant also proposes to upgrade the parking for the existing six -unit apartment and duplex structures. The applicant proposes to construct a new parking area behind the six -unit apartment building, with a second access point (from "I" Street). A total of 20 parking spaces is shown on the proposed site plan. There are four (4) existing garage parking spaces on the "J" Street side of the six -unit apartment building. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication and street improvements for "J" and "I" Streets. The applicant has noted that a section of sidewalk will be constructed along "J" Street adjacent to where the new townhouse building is proposed. The proposed and existing buildings, access drives and parking plan are noted on the attached site plan. The applicant has submitted an east (front) elevation for Planning Commission review. The applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment for this property (Item 3.1 on this agenda). B, EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are three (3) existing residential structures on this site as explained in the previous "Background" paragraph. There are single family residential style structures to the east, west, south across "I" Street and north across "J" Street. A number of the residential structures in this area contain more than one dwelling unit. Mount St. Mary's School is located further east across Kavanaugh Blvd. Holy Souls church and school are located further west across Harrison Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two (2) calls from persons expressing concerns with the proposed development. The Hillcrest, Heights and Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: E PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. 1. Right-of-way dedication required on "I" and "J" Streets per the "MSP" (60 feet required.). 2. 2. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage is required. 3. 3. Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP" is required. 4. 4. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP".(Buffered) 5. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. (One way exit to I Street with parking as shown) 6. 6. Prepare a letter for streetlights as required by Sec. 31-403. 7. 7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 8. 8. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 9. 9. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186( c) and (d) is required. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: 3 F. G Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. AP&L: No Comment received. ARKLA: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: V" is the largest meter size available off the existing 2" water main. Fire Department: Check with Water Works regarding the nearest fire hydrant. County Planning: No Comment received. CATA: No effect; Near routes 1, 21 and 22. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The applicant's property is shown as Single Family and Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan. The request is for a zone change from R-2 Single Family and R-4 Two -Family to a Planned Residential Development. The applicant wishes to add four townhouses on the property in addition to the existing 8 units. This change will require a Land Use Plan Amendment for a change from Single Family and Low Density Residential to Multi -Family. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This request is located in an area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan. The chapter on housing issues contains objectives of regulating construction and redevelopment. The objective also contains an action statement of creating a Design Overlay.District that would require Planned Unit Development (PUD) for reclassification of land use, density, or other infrastructure improvements. Implementation mechanisms included review by the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission as well as revision of Building Codes, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Environmental Codes. Factors to be considered in reviewing Planned Unit Developments for Hillcrest are listed as construction/property maintenance, density, and character. Landscape: The site plan submitted does not provide for the minimum six foot wide land use zoning buffer nor the minimum four foot wide landscape strip required along the eastern and a portion of the southern perimeters. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 13, 2000) John Gill was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the PRD. The landscaping and screening requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. Gill noted that he also owned the property immediately east of this site and could replat a portion of that property into this property to satisfy the landscape and buffer 4 requirements. The Public Works requirements were also discussed. The required dedication of right-of-way was briefly discussed. It was noted that Mr. Gill could request a waiver of the dedication if desired. Commissioner Berry asked Mr. Gill if he had met with the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association. Mr. Gill responded that he had not yet met with the association. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PRD to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on July 19, 2000. The building heights have been noted on the site plan. The applicant also shows a dumpster location behind the existing duplex structure. The dumpster area must be screened on 3 sides with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall. The revised plan also shows a revised parking plan which provides for a four (4) foot landscape strip along a portion of the east property line. The three (3) parking spaces nearest to "I" Street should be removed from the plan based on the fact that the required landscape strip and maneuvering area cannot be provided. A four (4) foot landscape strip is also required along the west side of the parking space behind the existing duplex unit. The City's Zoning Ordinance would typically require 18 parking spaces for a multifamily development of this size. The revised site plan also shows a six foot high screening fence along the property lines west and south of the proposed townhouse building. The applicant has noted that there will be no signage on the site. As noted in paragraph A., the applicant is requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication and street improvements to "J" and "I" Streets. Public Works recommends denial of the requested waiver. Also noted in paragraph A, the applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for this property. Staff believes that the land use plan amendment and the proposed PRD development are not appropriate -for this property. Staff feels that the proposed development will result in an increase in use intensity in this area and is in conflict with the scale and character of the neighborhood. In addition, several large mature trees would have to be removed due to the proposed construction. 5 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the proposed PRD rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 3, 2000) John Gill was present, representing the application. There were several persons present with concerns. Staff briefly described the proposed PRD, with a recommendation of denial. The PRD and associated Land Use Plan Amendment were discussed simultaneously. John Gill addressed the Commission in support of the applications. He described the general area and explained the proposed development plan for the property. In response to a letter submitted by the Hillcrest Residents Association, Mr. Gill stated that he had no problem eliminating the driveway onto "I" Street and decreasing the amount of parking. He noted that the exterior of the structure would look like other structures in the neighborhood. Vice -Chair Berry suggested accessing the property from "J" Street only, with only a residential drive from "I" Street to serve the duplex. Mr. Gill indicated no problem with that suggestion. Keith Thompson addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed PRD and presented a petition to that effect. He noted concern with the maintenance of the property. He stated that the property is often overgrown with trash on the site. He objected to the removal of the large oak tree next to the existing single family structure. Doug Greenwood also addressed the Commission with concerns. He noted concerns with the drive onto "I" Street and traffic. He was also concerned with the maintenance of the property and property values in the area. Keith Lynch also addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated that the development was not in character with the neighborhood. He also noted concern with the driveway onto "I" Street. 6 W. M. Robertson also addressed the Commission with concerns. He noted concerns with the driveway onto "I" Street and the removal of trees. Jim Linsky also noted concern with the proposed development. He noted traffic concerns. Neil Dobbins noted concern with the maintenance of rental property in this area. Patricia Thompson presented photos of the property to the Commission. She was also concerned with the maintenance of the property. She also noted concerns with traffic and on -street parking in the immediate area. She noted that the applicant was proposing to overbuild the site and was concerned with the rear and side building facades. Dewitts Shotts expressed concern with parking in this area. Commissioner Faust asked how many curb cuts there were along this block of "I" Street. Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that there were curb cuts, but did not know how many. Commissioner Faust commented on the orientation of the proposed four -unit building (facing the side yard). She noted that the orientation was uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. She stated that she did not agree with the density objection and noted concern with the driveway onto "I" Street. Commissioner Lowry stated that the proposed development would not create a traffic problem. He noted that the complaints were primarily with the maintenance of the property and he discussed this issue. He noted that he supported the application. Mr. Gill noted that the existing six -unit structure housed one -bedroom units. He noted that one of his goals was to have more off-street parking. He discussed the maintenance of the property and noted that some of the responsibility for maintenance is placed on the tenants. Chair Adcock asked Mr. Gill what he would do with the property if this application were not approved. Mr. Gill noted that he would look into building a duplex on each lot and explained. He noted that the four units in one building would be a better solution. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the property would have to be rezoned for duplex structures. Commissioner Lowry asked if Mr. Gill would amend the application to have the driveway from "J" Street only serve the 6 -unit and 4 -unit buildings, with the drive from "I" Street only serving the duplex structure. Mr. Gill stated that he would amend the application. Commissioner Berry offered additional comments regarding access and parking. The density for multifamily land use and this property was briefly discussed. Commissioner Muse noted concern with the size of the property and the proposed density. Commissioner Rector questioned having the drive from "I" Street at all. Commissioner Berry responded that it would provide off-street parking to the duplex structure. This issue was briefly discussed. Commissioner Rector asked if the existing parking area would be improved with adding more parking. Mr. Gill noted that the existing parking would be upgraded. The issue of having more off-street parking was briefly discussed. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Gill why a four-plex was proposed instead of a duplex. Mr. Gill noted that two units would not be cost effective. He noted that trees would have to be removed regardless of what was constructed on the property. He also noted that he would eliminate the drive onto "I" Street. Commissioner Rector noted that there should be no driveway onto "I" Street. Mr. Gill noted that he would amend the application to remove the driveway onto "I" Street and the three southernmost parking spaces. 7 Mr. Lawson discussed other options that were available to Mr. Gill and discussed the staff concerns with the proposed development (density, building orientation, etc.). The design issues associated with the parking area were briefly discussed. Commissioner Faust asked the City Attorney if the land use plan amendment was necessary for the PRD rezoning. Stephen Giles, City Attorney, noted that the land use plan would not have to be changed in order to approve the PRD. This issue was briefly discussed. Commissioner Rector noted that Mr. Gill needed to eliminate the "I" Street driveway and the three southernmost parking spaces from the site plan and work out a turnaround with staff. Mr. Gill agreed to the changes. Mr. Robertson expressed additional concerns with the "I" Street driveway. Mr. Thompson asked what the parking requirements were. Staff noted that the typical parking requirement was 18 spaces and eliminating the three spaces would leave 17 spaces. A motion was made to approve the PRD, with the site plan amendments as agreed to by Mr. Gill. The motion included a waiver of the street improvements to "I" and "J" Streets. Staff noted that Public Works supported the waiver of street Improvements and that no additional right-of-way dedication was required. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent. ITEM NO.: 3.1 FILE NO.: LU00-04-03 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Heights/Hillcrest Planning District Location: 5209 & 5215 J Street Request: Single Family and Low Density Residential to Multi -Family Source: John P. Gill PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District from Single Family and Low Density Residential to Multi -Family. The Multi - Family category accommodates residential development of ten (10) to thirty- six (36) dwelling units per acre. The applicant wishes to build apartments. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The approximately 0.5+ acres is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and R-4 Two Family and is occupied by a duplex, a single family house and a six -unit apartment building. The property on the north and east sides of the applicant's property is zoned R-2 Single Family and R-4 Two Family and is occupied by single family houses and duplexes respectively. The properties to the south and west are zoned R-2 Single Family and R-4 Two Family and are occupied by single-family houses. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On March 16, 1999, multiple changes took place about a mile to the southwest of the applicant's property on the east side of University Avenue between Markham and Lee Streets. 8 On July 16, 1996, multiple changes took place about a mile to the southeast of the applicant's property on Pine and Cedar Streets south of Markham Street. The applicant's property is shown as Low Density Residential. The property on the north and west is shown as Single Family and Low Density Residential is shown to the east. The neighboring property to the east of the applicant is shown as Low Density Residential. The property on the south side of "I" Street is shown as Single Family to the west and Multifamily to the east. The applicant's property is also between two nearby areas shown as Public Institutional. The Mount St. Mary Academy is located on the east side of Kavanaugh Blvd. Our Lady of the Holy Souls Church and School is located on the west side of Tyler Street. MASTER STREET PLAN: No adjacent streets are shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector or above. PARKS: Allsopp Park is shown on the Park System Master Plan about %a of a mile northeast of the applicant's property. The Park System Master Plan also shows Prospect Terrace Park about 1/8 of a mile northwest of the applicant's property. Allsopp Park and Prospect Terrace Park are not affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: This request is located in an ar Plan. The chapter on housing is construction and redevelopment t into the scale and style of the an action statement of creating require Planned Unit Development density, or other infrastructure ANALYSIS: ea covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood sues contains an objective of regulating o encourage new development, which fits neighborhood. The objective also contains a Design Overlay District that would (PUD) for reclassification of land use, improvements. The applicant's property is located in an urban area originally developed in the 19201s. A balance between houses, duplexes and apartments characterizes this section of Hillcrest. Small single-family houses near Harrison Street and small duplexes located near Kavanaugh Boulevard characterize the neighboring property. Small apartment buildings of varying size are located to the south along Kavanaugh Boulevard. Approval of this amendment will increase the density of dwelling units located on the property from 16 units per acre to 24 units per acre. An increase in density of dwelling units on the applicant's property will increase the amount of multifamily units available in this section of the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Heights N.A., Hillcrest Residents N.A., Prospect Terrace N.A. Inc., and Sherrill Heights Garden Club. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Approval of this amendment will result in an increase in intensity of use in this area that is in conflict with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 3, 2000) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Commissioner Craig Berry asked if there was a Single Family house facing south fronting "I" Street as well as the one in the plan amendment. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that the house in the plan amendment is a duplex and listed the properties in the amendment area and adjacent to it. John P. Gill the applicant stated his case before the commission with a description of the current condition of the property and presented his proposal for the property. Commissioner Craig Berry asked the applicant if there was any objection to keeping the access to the 4-plex only from J Street and constructing a new driveway to the duplex from "I" Street and eliminating access from both properties. The applicant stated that he would have no objections for doing so. Keith Thompson spoke in opposition to the application and presented a petition of homeowners opposed to the application. Mr. Thompson then listed neighboring properties owned by the applicant located in the neighborhood and described a history of poor maintenance of said properties. Mr. Thompson also objected to the potential removal of any trees located on the property in question. Doug Greenwood spoke in opposition to the application and opposed the new location for an entrance to the property. Mr. Greenwood described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties and expressed concerns about traffic. Keith Lynch spoke in opposition to the application and objected to the removal of trees. Mr. Lynch also stated concerns about altering the grade of the property to accommodate a new driveway as well as the effect of the proposal on traffic. W. M. Robertson spoke in opposition to the application and described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties. Mr. Robertson also stated objections to a new driveway and to the removal of trees. Jim Linsky spoke in opposition to the application and described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties. Mr. Linsky stated worries about introducing new multi -family units in an area surrounded by single-family housing in the area. The speaker also expressed concerns about traffic and stated that the closure of "I" Street for Holy Souls Church and School coupled with the traffic generated by Mount Saint Mary's Academy already caused traffic problems in the neighborhood. Neil Dobbins spoke in opposition to the application and stated concerns about traffic. Mr. Dobbins also described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties in the neighborhood. Patricia Thompson spoke in opposition to the application and presented pictures of the applicant's property to the commission. Ms. Thompson listed concerns regarding the lack of off street parking in the neighborhood, the density of neighborhood, the difficulties of garbage pick-up caused by traffic congestion. DeWitt Shotts spoke in opposition to the application and stated concerns about traffic. Mr. Shotts also stated concerns about the density of the neighborhood. Commissioner Judith Faust asked if there were curbs cuts currently on the north side of "I" Street. Bob Turner, Public Works, stated that this application did not have a curb cut but that there were curb cuts on this block of "I" Street. Commissioner Judith Faust asked a question about the eastward orientation of proposed 4- 10 plex that is not characteristic of the neighborhood. Jim Lawson City Staff stated that the proposed building could not be turned because of its size. She continued that she was not concerned about density of the proposed development but about traffic problems. Commissioner Bob Lowry stated that he did not think the application would add to traffic problems in the neighborhood because most of the traffic problems are caused by other uses in the area. Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked the applicant if he had any comments to make in response to the opposition. The applicant stated that the current apartment building on the property contains six units. The applicant described the parking as adequate and that he has a goal of providing off-street parking for his tenants. Mr. Gill also stated that the renters of single-family homes were responsible for the maintenance up keep of the property while the apartment building was under contract maintenance. Mr. Gill also addressed the alternative of duplexes but that duplexes would spread problems and that the problems would remain the same. Mr. Gill said that if not approved he could put either two single-family houses or duplexes on the property. Jim Lawson, city staff, stated that the applicant's only option without rezoning the property would be to construct two single-family homes on the two separate lots. Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the applicant if he would be willing to amend his application according the conversation between the applicant and Commissioner Berry regarding the driveway. The applicant said he would be willing to amend his application. Commissioner Craig Barry stated that the opposition was based on perceptions of the residents concerning the applicant's property. The real problems concerning traffic in the area are caused by nearby institutions that generate traffic. Commissioner Berry stated his support for off street parking with the parking placed in the interior of the applicant's property and added that a second access to the property was not necessary. Commissioner Berry closed by stating that the neighborhood association submitted a letter stating that it did not oppose the removal of the single family house as long as a 2nd access to the property was not permitted. Commissioner Rohn Muse asked staff how many units the applicant could have if the application was approved. Monte Moore, city staff, stated that the applicant could have more than 10 units but the specific request for the long form POD was for 12 units. The resulting density would be 24 units per acre. -Mr. Moore added that the planned residential development specifically committed the applicant to the proposed 12 units. Commissioner Rohn Muse asked the applicant how large the property was. The applicant replied that the property was considerably less than an acre. Commissioner Muse stated concerns about the size of the property. Commissioners Bill Rector and Commissioner Berry began a discussion about access to the property. Commissioners Bill Rector asked the applicant why he wanted to build a 4-plex on the property. The applicant stated that his reasons were economics and that any new single- family house would destroy trees on the property. Commissioners Bill Rector stated that he did not want to approve any new access to the property from "I" Street. Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the applicant if he would you be willing to amend application according to the discussions between the applicant and the commissioners. The applicant said he was willing to amend the application according to discussions held and not place a second entrance to the property on "I" Street. Planning Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked Mr. Lawson about the type of development allowed on the property according to the current zoning of the property. Mr. Lawson, city staff, stated that one small house would be allowed by right on each lot and added that the proposal before the commission requested a new use that is too intense for the neighborhood. Monte Moore, city staff, added that the applicant would have to change the 11 configuration of his parking lot. The applicant stated that he did not intend to mislead anyone at the meeting concerning his application. Commissioner Judith Faust asked if a land use plan amendment was necessary for a Planned Residential Development. Stephen Giles replied that a land use plan amendment was not legally required and added that the Planned Residential Development is a combination of a land use plan, zoning and subdivision review. Jim Lawson, city staff, stated that the current use of the applicant's property is non -conforming. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2 absent. The item failed because of a lack of 6 votes for the change per the commission's bylaws. 12