Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3501 Staff AnalysisJuly 29, 1980 Item No. 9 - Z-3501 Owner: Don Kirk Applicant: David Henry Request: Rezone to "MF -12" Multifamily District (Amended from "R-5" Urban Residence 7-21-80) Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Multifamily Development (70 Units) "R-2" Single Family West Markham Street just East of Plantation House Apts. Steep Slopes 5.9 Acres + Existing Land Use: Vacant Abutting Land Use North - Single Family and Zoning: Zoned "R-2" South - Apartments Zoned "R-5" East - Single Family Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family and Apartments Zoned "R-2" and "R-5" Zoning History: Several previous applications have been denied or withdrawn. Applicable Regulations: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FACTUAL INFORMATION Item 9 July 29, 1.980 NEED OR DEMAND The applicant states the desire to construct 60 to 70 multifamily units on the 5.9 acres producing a density of just under 12 units per acre. The development is intended as expansion of Plantation House Apartments. EFFECT ON MUNICIPAL PLANS No specified plan exists for the area; however, land use patterns have been reasonably stable for years. This property is a leftover from previous developments which has been considered for higher density development in the past and denied the necessary zoning, including one application for duplex zoning in 1970. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS The property has significant terrain constraints with severe slopes downward from the northwest corner and downward from the southeast corner towards the drainage ditch which bisects the property north and south. Siting of the proposed development would be critical. Neighbors both to east and west have cited their perception of adverse impacts on neighboring single family developments with regard to property values. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Neighbors have in the past shown very strong opposition to proposals for zoning this property other than single family, and staff already has numerous indications that signficant opposition will be forthcoming this time. PUBLIC SERVICES No adverse comments have been received. 6. UTILITIES No adverse comments have been received; however, the Water Department states that looping of mains and on-site fire protection will be required for the project. This requirement is normal for multifamily developments. ,July 29, 1980 Item 9 - Continued 7. PUBLIC FINANCES While no significant fiscal impact is expected, it is assumed that tax revenues would increase as a result of the development of the property. No additional public costs are anticipated. 8. LEGAL/REASONABLE The property abuts "R-5" zoning to the southwest, but because of its peculiar shape, there is an even more significant relationship with "R-2" zoning to the east, west and north. Street frontage is minimal along Markham Street, and the potential for access to the property from other points does exist; however, all of these are seen as problematical. Development of this property from multifamily would produce a significant intrusion into the single family area; however, the relationship between the single and multifamily developments would be along rear property boundaries. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed. 10. TRAFFIC AND RIGHT-OF-WAY No right-of-way issues exist, but traffic consideratoins are important. A major access point appears to be of f Markham Street directly across from Brady School. Traffic in the area during peak periods, morning and afternoon, is heavy because of the location of several major commercial developments to the west, the school and the post office next-door to the school. Also, the access point is about 1100 feet east of the intersection of two major arterials (Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road). ANALYSIS: Staff views this property almost as though it were two separate and distinct pieces, each being separated from the other by the drainage ditch. There are two existing stub streets which could provide access to the northern and steeply sloping portion of the property. The lower portion would almost surely have to be accessed from either Markham Street or the existing multifamily development to the southwest. ,July 29, 1980 Item 9 - Continued Staff recognizes the difficulty of developing a plan of development which could successfully retain all of the property for single family development; however, staff considers the proposed higher density development of the northern portion to be untenable. .STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the southern portion could be developed as an extension of the Plantation House Apartments and the northern portion as separated by the ditch should remain "R-2." This recommendation should be conditioned upon the provision of adequate buffers along the eastern property line and the platting of the northern portion of the property for single family development. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were many objectors. The applicant presented his arguments for the case citing that 60 units were being proposed, agreed to provide a 40 foot building line on the east side of the property from Markham Street northward to a point where it would then be replaced by a 40 foot buffer around the remaining perimeter of the property back down to where the property abuts the existing apartment development to the west. He stated further that no access would be taken from any of the surrounding developments other than the apartment complex which is owned by the same property owner and discussed reasons why the owner felt that single family development of the property would not be possible. He cited prior Board action in zoning the property to the west "MF -18" as precedent for zoning this property as well. Susan Martin, representing the opponents and a neighboring property owner, described the Wingate and Leawood developments and the relationship of this property with the entrance to Brady_ School. She presented a petition containing 186 signatures of individuals who object to the zoning. In addition, William L. Terry, attorney for the Little Rock School District, cited the school's concerns about traffic generation from the proposed project. He stated specifically that the School District was not opposed to rezoning of property per se, but there was concern about the traffic and safety hazards that might be generated and the adverse impact on the school. He cited that "No Left Turn" signs along Markham were in place and his feeling that the prohibition of left turns in the area indicates that a severe traffic hazard does exist. He introduced the principal July 29, 1980 Item 9 - Continued of Brady School, who also discussed the traffic as well as pedestrian hazards that exist at that school site. Several other neighbors spoke in opposition to the request citing prior actions wherein the property had been denied zoning, and the fact of their perception that their property values would be diminished by the use of this property in this manner. The applicant, in rebuttal to statements made by objectors, attacked the traffic issue stating that he felt it ridiculous or in his words "asinine" to believe that the projected 180 to 200 vehicle trips per day generated from the proposed development could have an appreciable impact on Markham Street traffic density which is estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,0000 vehicles per day. He, once again, cited the buffering and other. facts that had been given in his original presentation relative to the relationship with single family developments both to the east, north and west. A lengthy discussion ensued where a number of prior statements were discussed at length both from opponents and the applicant, and finally, the Commission moved to approve the application as amended to "MF -12" zoning rather than "R-5." The motion failed on a vote 1 ayes, 7 noes and 3 absent. , Zoning History: Several previous applications have been denied or withdrawn. Applicable Regulations: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance I, HEREBY, CERTIFY THIS TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE COPY OF THE MINUTE RECORD PERTAINING TO CASE Z-3501 FROM THE MEETING OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 29, 19,90. Na hanie7 4. OriffiO, Secretary Little Rock Planning Commission � fl !� July 29, 1980 Item No. 9 - Z-3501 Owner: Don Kirk Applicant: David Henry Request: Rezone to "MF -12" Multifamily District (Amended from "R-5" Urban Residence 7-21-80) Purpose: Multifamily Development (70 Units) Existing Zoning: "R-2" Single Family Location: West Markham Street just East of Plantation House Apts. Site Characteristics: Steep Slopes Size: 5.9 Acres + Existing Land Use: Vacant Abutting.Land Use North - Single Family and Zoning: Zoned "R-2" v South - Apartments Zoned "R-5" East - Single Family Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family and Apartments Zoned "R-2" and "R-5" Zoning History: Several previous applications have been denied or withdrawn. Applicable Regulations: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance I, HEREBY, CERTIFY THIS TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE COPY OF THE MINUTE RECORD PERTAINING TO CASE Z-3501 FROM THE MEETING OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 29, 19,90. Na hanie7 4. OriffiO, Secretary Little Rock Planning Commission FACTUAL INFORMATTON I Lein 9 July 29, 1980 1. NEED OR DEMAND The applicant states the desire to construct 60 to 70 multifamily units on the 5.9 acres producing a density of just under 12 units per acre. The development is intended as expansion of Plantation House Apartments. 2. EFFECT ON MUNICIPAL PLANS No specified plan exists for the area; however, land use patterns have been reasonably stable for years. This property is a leftover from previous developments which has been considered for higher density development in the past and denied the necessary zoning, including one application for duplex zoning in 1970. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS The property has significant terrain constraints with severe slopes downward from the northwest corner and downward from the southeast corner towards the drainage ditch which bisects the property north and south. Siting of the proposed development would be critical. Neighbors both to east and west have cited their perception of adverse impacts on neighboring single family developments with regard to property values. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION Neighbors have in the past shown very strong opposition to proposals for zoning this property other than single family, and staff already has numerous indications that signficant opposition will be forthcoming this time. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES No adverse comments have been received. 6. UTILITIES No adverse comments have been received; however, the Water Department states that looping of mains and on-site fire protection will be required for the project`. This requirement is normal for multifamily developments. July 29, 1980 Item 9 - Continued 04 7. PUBLIC FINANCES While no significant fiscal impact is expected, it is assumed that tax revenues would increase as a result of the development of the property. No additional public costs are anticipated. 8. LEGAL/REASONABLE The property abuts "R-5" zoning to the southwest, but because of its peculiar shape, there is an even more significant relationship with "R-2" zoning to the east, west and north. Street frontage is minimal along Markham Street, and the potential for access to the property from other points does exist; however, all of these are seen as problematical. Development of this property from multifamily would produce a significant intrusion into the single family area; however, the relationship between the single and multifamily developments would be along rear property boundaries. 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed. 10. TRAFFIC AND RIGHT-OF-WAY No right-of-way issues exist, but traffic consideratoins are important. A major access point appears to be off Markham Street directly across from Brady School. Traffic in the area during peak periods, morning and afternoon, is heavy because of the location of several major commercial developments to the west, the school and the post office next-door to the school. Also, the access point is about 1100 feet east of the intersection of two major arterials (Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road). ANAT,YSTS Staff views this property almost as though it were two separate and distinct pieces, each being separated from the other by the drainage ditch. There are two existing stub streets which could provide access to the northern and steeply sloping portion of the property. The lower portion would almost surely have to be accessed from either Markham Street or the existing multifamily development to the southwest. a July 29, 1980 Item 9 -- Continued Staff recognizes the difficulty of developing a plan of development which could successfully retain all of the property for single family development; however, staff considers the proposed higher density development of the northern portion to be untenable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the southern portion could be developed as an extension of the Plantation House Apartments and the northern portion as separated by the ditch should remain "R-2." This recommendation should be conditioned upon the provision of adequate buffers along the eastern property line and the platting of the northern portion of the property for single family development. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were many objectors. The applicant presented his arguments for the case citing that 60 units were being proposed, agreed to provide a 40 foot building line on the east side of the property from Markham Street northward to a point where it would then be replaced by a 40 foot buffer around the remaining perimeter of the property back down to where the property abuts the existing apartment development to the west. He stated further that no access would be taken from any of the surrounding developments other than the apartment complex which is owned by the same property owner and discussed reasons why the owner felt that single family development of the property would not be possible. He cited prior Board action in zoning the property to the west 'ImF-18" as precedent for zoning this property as well. Susan Martin, representing the opponents and a neighboring property owner, described the Wingate and Leawood developments and the relationship of this property with the entrance to Brady School. She presented a petition containing 186 signatures of individuals who object to the zoning. In addition, William L. Terry, attorney for the Little Rock School District, cited the school's concerns about traffic generation from the proposed project. He stated specifically that the School District was not opposed to rezoning of property per se, but there was concern about the traffic and safety hazards that might be generated and the adverse impact on the school. He cited that "No Left Turn" signs along Markham were in place and his feeling that the prohibition of left turns in the area indicates that a severe traffic hazard does exist. He introduced the principal L-1 ' July 29, 1980 Item 9 - Continued of Brady School, who also discussed the traffic as well as pedestrian hazards that exist at that school site. Several other neighbors spoke in opposition to the request citing prior actions wherein the property had been denied zoning, and the fact of their perception that their property values would be diminished by the use of this property in this manner. The applicant, in rebuttal to statements made by objectors, attacked the traffic issue stating that he felt it ridiculous or in his words "asinine" to believe that the projected 180 to 200 vehicle trips per day generated from the proposed development could have an appreciable impact on Markham Street traffic density which is estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,0000 vehicles per day. He, once again, cited the buffering and other facts that had been given in his original presentation relative to the relationship with single family developments both to the east, north and west. A lengthy discussion ensued where a number of prior statements were discussed at length both from opponents and the applicant, and finally, the Commission moved to approve the application as amended to "MI -12" zoning rather than "R-5." The motion failed on a vote, 1 ayes, 7 noes and 3 absent . 0 1 hereby certify that the attached (5 items) are true copies of letters and petitions contained within zoning case file Z-3501. -} I Date %4� �. ►_-y �- -. Secre a'ry, L.R.Tanning Commission r,