Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4404 Staff AnalysisK�s May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - File No. 382 ) NAME: Gary Flynn "PRD" (Z-4400) LOCATION: 100 Feet north of Lee on the west side of Oak Street nPXTVT_nnWD. 0T7T3V7 VnD. Oliver and Gary Flynn Chester B. Phillips 17 Nob View Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 224-0226 AREA: 116 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-3" to "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Tri-Plex VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History This item was recently by the Commission as a rezoning request. It was decided that a PUD approach would provide --a_ better means of review. B. Development Objectives 1. To add on to an existing triplex, so that additional space will be provided for the applicant's family. C. Proposal 1. To-add—two rooms (26 1/2=x 14 1/2) to an existing triplex. 2. Parking will be available for four cars. 3. Construction will begin as soon as approval is received and should be completed by the end of the summer. y 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No.4 - Continued Engineering Comments None. E . Anal _Si s The PUD approach was recommended for this project since the Commission was reluctant to allow a rezoning in this area. Staff has received several calls from property owners in the area that are concerned about parking. Staff supports providing parking in the rear. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He agreed to meet with staff regarding technical requirements for the plan and to provide three parking spaces in the back. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was -present. Staff reported that a letter in opposition to the parking pad in the front yard was received from a Mrs. Young. However, the concrete was in place before the application was filed. A revised plan was submitted showing room for three parking spaces in the rear. A motion for voteapproval of the 10 ayesre01sed noes'pand laabsent.mae and passed by February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-4404 Owner: O.C. Flynn Applicant: Same Location: 512 North Oak Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to ."R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily/3 Units Size: 7,000 square feet Existing Use: Multifamily (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Duplex, Zoned "R-5" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a single lot to "R-5" to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. The structure currently has three units, and the owner wishes to place a 14 1/2 x 26 1/2 foot addition at the rear of the building to enlarge one of the existing units. Expanding a nonconforming use cannot be done without first gaining proper zoning. The lot is located in a block that has a very mixed zoning pattern, including "C-3" and "I-2", and the land use is somewhat similar. A majority of the properties are residential, With the exception of one lot on Kavanaugh that has a commercial use. The property in question abuts an "R-5" lot to the south that was rezoned in the mid -60's and, from the field check■ it appears to be used for a duplex. Across North Oak, there are two "R-4" lots, but the entire half block is only single family residences. In this block, the primary use is single family or duplex with "MF" multifamily to the south on Lee. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 3. There ate no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Engineering has suggested that improved parking should be required on the property. There have been no other comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has received some informational calls, and a few of the residents have expressed concerns with parking. 7. Staff's position is one of nonsupport for the "R-5" request. The staff recognizes the existing three units, but is,concerned with additional "R-5" encroachment in the mid -block and the potential for increasing the number of units if the zoning is granted. The three units seem to have had minimal impact on the neighborhood, but rezoning the lot could change that. Staff realizes that the lot at 512 North Oak abuts an "R-5" property to the south, but that appears to be misplaced, and staff would not have supported the rezoning at that location. The continued zoning disruption of the block is inappropriate and should not be advocated by approving this request. The Heights Hillcrest Plan recommends an area along Kavanaugh for multifamily use where "R-5" is in place and staff agrees with that. The plan shows the multifamily to include the first three lots south of Kavanaugh along North Oak and not beyond that point. One final item is the parking. Several residents have said that it is currently a problem, and "R-5" zoning could aggravate that situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, O.C. Flynn, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Flynn addressed the Commission and stated that the structure had been used as a triplex for approximately 15 years. He went on to say that the building needed to be enlarged and that the three units would be maintained. Ron Newman, a resident of the area, expressed concerns with the "R-5" zoning because of the possibility of increasing the number of units. Mr. Newman also pointed out that there was a parking problem on the street. At this point, there was a long discussion about utilizing a PRD for the location. Mr. Flynn indicated that he had no plans for February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued adding additional units and was receptive to the PRD concept. A motion was made to recommend that the request for 512 North Oak be converted to a PRD, that additional filing fees be waived and no further notification be required with the exception of those property owners that submitted written objections to the staff. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. r r February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-4404 Owner: O.C. Flynn Applicant: Same Location: 512 North Oak Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily/3 Units Size: 7,000 square feet Existing Use: Multifamily (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Duplex, Zoned "R-5" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a single lot to "R-5" to allow the expansidn of a nonconforming use. The structure currently has three units, and the owner wishes to place a 14 1/2 x 26 1/2 foot addition at the rear of the building to enlarge one of the existing units. Expanding a nonconforming use cannot be done without first gaining proper zoning. The lot is located in a block that has a very mixed zoning pattern, including "C-3" and "I-2", and the land use is somewhat similar. A majority of the properties are residential, with the exception of one lot on Kavanaugh that has a commercial use. The property in question abuts an "R-5" lot to the south that was rezoned in the mid -60's and, from the field check, it appears to be used for a duplex. Across North Oak, there are two "R-4" lots, but the entire half block is only single family residences. In this block, the primary use is single family or duplex with "MF" multifamily to the south on Lee. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. February 26, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Engineering has suggested that improved parking should be required on the property. There have been no other comments received from the reviewing agencies this writing. as of 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site ff has ' received some informational calls, and a few ofathe residents have expressed concerns with parking. i 7. Staff's position is one of nonsupport for the "R-5" - request. The staff recognizes the existing three units, but is f concerned with additional "R-5" encroachment in the mid --block and the potential for increasing the number of units if the zoning is granted. The three units seem to have had minimal impact on the neighborhood, but rezoning the lot could change that. Staff ' realizes that the lot at 512 North Oak abuts an "R--5" property to the south■ but that appears to be misplaced, and staff would not have supported the rezoning at that location. The continued zoning disruption of the block is inappropriate and should not be advocated by approving this request. The Heights Hillcrest Plan recommends an area along Kavanaugh for multifamily use where "R-5" is" in place and staff = agrees with that. The plan shows the multifamily to include the first three lots south of Kavanaugh along North Oak and not beyond that point. One final item is the parking. Several residents have said that it is currently a problem, and "R-5" zoning could aggravate that situation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, D.C. Flynn, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Flynn addressed the Commission and Stated that the structure had been used as a triplex for approximately 15 years. He went on to say that the building needed to be enlarged and that the three units would be maintained, Ron Newman# a resident of the area, expressed concerns with the "R-5" zoning because of the possibility of increasing the number of units. Mr. Newman also pointed out that there was a parking problem on the street. At this Point, there was a long discussion about utilizing a PRD for the location. Mr. Flynn indicated that he had no plans for February 26, 1985, Item No. 5 - Continued adding additional units and was receptive to the PRD concept. A motion was made to recommend that the request for 512 North Oak be converted to a PRD, that additional filing fees be waived and no further notification be required with the exception of those property owners that submitted written objections to the staff. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.