Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4135-A Staff AnalysisILE NO.: Z-41 NAME: GAINES STREET AND W. 24TH. STREET -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of S. Gaines St. and W. 24th. St. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: GAINES STREET REDEVELOPMENT CORP. WILLIAM WIEDOWER 200 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1650 1012 W. 2nd. St. Little Rock, AR 72 Little Rock, AR 72 372-5659 375-8252 AREA: 0.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-5 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 6 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PRD in order to develop an existing home and outbuilding for multi -family residential use. The applicant proposes to remodel an existing 2 -story residence to create two apartments, one up stairs and one down, and to remodel the existing outbuilding, which has served as a garage, as a separate apartment unit. The applicant states that the organization has purchased two other homes in the same block, and is remodeling these homes to provide two apartments in each structure. The subject property contains the garage structure which is proposed to be remodeled as an apartment, providing three residential uses on the property. The applicant states that the primary residential structure on the site has been used as a multi -family residence for most of its life, and that the developer proposes to convert what is now a number of small units into one unit on each floor. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Hoard of Directors for the establishment of a PRD is requested. No variances or waivers are requested. FILE N Z -4135-A Continued B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently developed. It contains a single primary residential structure, plus an outbuilding which has been used for a garage. The garage structure encroaches approximately 0.6 feet into the alley right-of-way. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the owner must correct the encroachment of the garage onto the alley right-of-way; 2) alley improvements, involving construction of one-half of a 17 foot pavement width, with a proper apron, will be required; and, 3) the existing sidewalks will be required to be improved and repaired, and handicap access ramps must be installed at the intersection. Water Works has no comment on the item. Wastewater comments that a 6" sewer main is located in the alley. Arkansas Power and Light Co. had no comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that, with the exception of allowing some flexibility for traffic visibilitk, a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the entire northern property line. After parking and vehicular use areas are defined, some perimeter and building landscaping will be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that the site plan must be more than a survey of the existing site; it must deal with the proposal for improving the alley and for making the repairs to the existing sidewalks; with parking for residents' vehicles; with landscaping and buffering; etc. Provision for abating the problem of the encroachment of the garage into the alley right-of-way must be made. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4135-A (Continued) The Planning staff comments that the request is in the Central City Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single -Family" uses. The Planning staff questions the desirability of having a multi -family use north of 24th. St. along Gaines. It is noted that the property is zoned R-5. According to Section 36-259, the requirements for R-5 are: for lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 1 acre, the lot area shall provide a minimum of 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. The proposed PRD site is 10,500 square feet, and, with 3 dwellings on the site, the lot area per dwelling unit is 3,500 square feet. E_ ANALYSIS• The problem with this proposal is that of the encroachment of the garage building into the alley right-of-way, and the required setback from the rear property line not being met. The use does not appear to be in conflict with the existing zoning, and staff questions the need to proceed with a PRD application. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) No one representing the applicant was present, and there was no discussion of the item, except for a brief description of the request. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. ` PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that it has been confirmed that the zoning of the site is R-4, not R-5, as shown on the zoning map included with the agenda and reflected in the write-up. Three dwelling units on the site, then, are not permitted by right in the R-4 zoning district, staff reported, and the applicant has chosen a PRD to get the approval needed. Staff reported that the City Attorney has noted that the issue of the encroachment into the alley by the existing garage building, which is to be remodeled as the third dwelling unit, must be remedied, and that at least a portion of the alley needs to be abandoned. An adequate site plan must be submitted, staff related, which addresses all staff concerns. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4135-A (Continued) No one was present to represent the applicant. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995) Staff reported that a revised site plan has been submitted, and, except for the 8" encroachment into the alley, all issues are resolved. Staff recommended approval of the PD -R, with the condition that the encroachment into the alley be remedied, either by the applicant petitioning for abandonment of a portion of the alley, or by obtaining a franchise for use of the portion of the alley. The PD -R was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: 2-43.35-A NAME: GAINES STREET AND W. 24TH. STREET -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of S. Gaines St. and W. 24th. St. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: GAINES STREET REDEVELOPMENT CORP. WILLIAM WIEDOWER 200 W. Capitol Ave'., Suite 1650 1012 W. 2nd. St. Little Rock, AR 72 Little Rock, AR 72 372-5659 375-8252 AREA: 0.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-5 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 6 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PRD in order to develop an existing home and outbuilding for multi -family residential use. The applicant proposes to remodel an existing 2 -story residence to create two apartments, one up stairs and one down, and to remodel the existing outbuilding, which has served as a garage, as a separate apartment unit. The applicant states that the organization has purchased two other homes in the same block, and is remodeling these homes to provide two apartments in each structure. The subject property contains the garage structure which is proposed to be remodeled as an apartment, providing three residential uses on.the property. The applicant states that the primary residential structure on the site has been used as a multi -family residence for most of its life, and that the developer proposes to convert what is now a number of small units into one unit on each floor. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for the establishment of a PRD is requested. No variances or waivers are requested. November 29, 1994 . . SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Continued FILE NO.: Z --4135-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently developed. It contains a single primary residential structure, plus an outbuilding which has been used for a garage. The garage structure encroaches approximately 0.6 feet into the alley right-of-way. C. ENGINEERII+NGIUTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works'comments that: 1) the owner must correct the encroachment of the garage onto the alley right-of-way; 2) alley improvements, involving construction of one-half of a 17 foot pavement width, with a proper apron, will be required; and, 3) the existing sidewalks will be required to be improved and repaired, and handicap access ramps must be installed at the intersection. Water Works has no comment on the item. Wastewater comments that a 6" sewer main is located in the alley. Arkansas Power and Light Co. had no comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that, with the exception of allowing some flexibility for traffic visibility, a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the entire northern property line. After parking and vehicular use areas are defined, some perimeter and building landscaping will be required. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that the site plan must be more than a survey of the existing site; it must deal with the proposal for improving the alley and for making the repairs to the existing sidewalks; with parking for residents' vehicles; with landscaping and buffering; etc. Provision for abating the problem of the encroachment of the garage into the alley right-of-way must be made. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: S (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4135-A The Planning staff comments that the request is in the Central City Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single -Family" uses. The Planning staff questions the desirability of having a multi -family use north of 24th. St. along Gaines. It is noted that the property is zoned R-5. According to Section 36-259, the requirements for R-5 are: for lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 1 acre, the lot area shall provide a minimum of 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. The proposed PRD'site is 10,500 square feet, and, with 3 dwellings on the site, the lot area per dwelling unit is 3,500 square feet. E. ANALYSIS• The problem with this proposal is that of the encroachment of the garage building into the alley right-of-way, and the required setback from the rear property line not being met. The use does not appear to be in conflict with the existing zoning, and staff questions the need to proceed with a PRD application. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn. QBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: No one representing the applicant discussion of the item, except for request. The Committee forwarded Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) was present, and there was no a brief description of the the request to the full (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that it has been confirmed that the zoning of the site is R-4, not R-5, as shown on the zoning map included with the agenda and reflected in the write-up. Three dwelling units on the site, then, are not permitted by right in the R-4 zoning district, staff reported, and the applicant has chosen a PRD to get the approval needed. Staff reported that the City Attorney has noted that the issue of the encroachment into the alley by the existing garage building, which is to be remodeled as the third dwelling unit, must be remedied, and that at least a portion of the alley needs to be abandoned. An adequate site plan must be submitted, staff related, which addresses all staff concerns. 3 November 29,- 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4135-A No one was present to represent the applicant. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z --4422-B NAME: MARKHAM PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of W. Markham St., approximately 300 feet west of Meadowbrook Dr. DEVELOPER: Donald Kirk KIRK PROPERTIES 9821A W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72205 221-0303 AREA: 2.28 ACRES ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES FT. NEW STREET: 0 Shopping Center A request for a rezoning from C-3 and R-2 was heard by the Planning Commission on April 9, 1985, and a recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors established the PCD on May 7, 1985 in Ordinance No. 14,876. The approved site plan required a fence along the entire length of the west property line, and landscaping along the south and southeast property lines and at the southeast corner of the building. Since the PCD was approved the zoning and use of the property abutting the west property line has changed, and there is C-3 zoning along the north 200 feet ± of the west property line. Over the years, the landscaping has deteriorated along the south property line, and has been removed at the southeast property line and at the southeast corner of the building. The Zoning Enforcement staff notified the applicant that the site is not in conformance with the approved site plan, and the applicant proposes that, in lieu of reinstalling the fence and landscaping according to the approved site plan, he would seek approval: 1) to omit the fence where the site abuts C-3 zoning; 2) to omit the landscaping at the southeast property line and at the southeast corner of the building; and, 3) to leave the existing landscaping along the south property line "as is". November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4422-B The applicant states that owners of property to the west use his property for access to the rear of their buildings; that the telephone company would, if the fence were reinstalled, loose access to their junction box which is immediately west of the property line; and that access to his property to the fire hydrant, which is immediately west of the property line, would be lost. The applicant states that there are large oak trees and pine trees along the south property line which have hampered the growth of the required plantings; that the required plantings have been installed twice, and that they have died both times. The applicant states that due to a drainage problem, the landscape buffer at the southeast property line must be eliminated, and that trucks turning have encroached into this area. The area has, consequently, been paved. The applicant states that, due to trucks turning, the landscape area at the southeast corner of the rear building, has been eliminated. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amendment to the approved PCD for approval of a revised site plan which eliminates a portion of the fence located along the west property line and eliminates certain landscaping requirements which were required as part of the originally approved site plan. B. EXIST2NG CONDITIONS: The site is fully developed. The zoning to the west is C-3. The remainder of the area, to the east, south, and across W. Markham St. to the north, is R-2. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that there are apparently no Public Works issues to resolve. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and no adverse effect is anticipated. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the west boundary of the site, along the property north -south line at the southeast corner of the tract, and extending northward from this line between the two buildings out to Markham St. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: 11 (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z -4422-B Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that all interior driveways must be maintained with a minimum width of 201. Landscape review comments that an 8 foot high wall or wooden fence must be provided around 3 sides of both dumpsters. At the time this site was developed the Landscape Ordinance required a 4' wide landscape strip along the western and eastern site perimeters. Unless a platted access easement is provided along the western driveway area, the western landscape strip will be required by the Landscape Ordinance. Five trees are required in the landscape islands within the parking area, and additional evergreen screening shrubs within the landscape strip along Markham St. are required by the Landscape Ordinance. City Beautiful Commission approval would be required to delete the Landscape Ordinance requirements. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The area to the west has developed as a commercial use area, and the fence in the area which abuts the C-3 zoned land is not required at this time. There are landscaping issues to be resolved, as cited above. E. ANALYSIS• The requirements of the current Landscape Ordinance will require installation of landscaping in certain areas, as noted above. The proximity of residential uses to the south and east make proper buffering important. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deleting the fence requirement property abuts C-3 land, but recommends denial request to leave the site landscaping "as is". recommends that the landscaping be installed as the Landscape Ordinance. 3 where the of the Staff required by November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4422-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Other than a brief review of the proposal by staff, there was no discussion, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request; however, the applicant nor anyone to represent him was present. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4