Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4731 Staff AnalysisOctober 28, 1986 Item No. D - Z-4731 Owner: Capitol dill Properties, Inc. Applicant: Same Location: West Markham and Battery Streets Request: Rezone from "I-3" to "MF -24" Purpose: Multifamily Size: 4.5 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I-3" South - Vacant, Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3," "R-5" and "I-3" East - Vacant and Railroad Tracks, Zoned "I-3" West - Single Family and Multifamily, Zoned "R-3" "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 4.5 acre tract from "I-3" to "MF -24" for a multifamily project. The property is located in a small residential pocket between Cantrell Road and West 3rd Street and to the northwest of the State Capitol Complex. The land use includes single family, multifamily, office, commercial and some industrial to the north of the site in question. The zoning pattern is just as diverse with "R-3." "R-4," "R-5," 110-3," "I-2," and "I-3." There are several multifamily projects in the immediate vicinity including the "R-5" directly to the west, adjacent to West Markham, and tt appears that those uses have not had an impact on the area. Provided that some issues such as access can be resolved, a multifamily use of the land is reasonable. This will create new housing units close to the central core of the City which is very desirable and needed. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. October 28, 1986 Item No. D - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. This location is part of the Heights/Hillcrest District Plan area which identifies the site for industrial use. Staff feels that the "I-3" zoning is misplaced and supports the "MF -24" reclassification. A majority of the uses permitted in the "I-3" District could have a greater impact on the neighborhood than the proposed use. Every effort should be made to rezone the existing 11I-3," especially west of the railroad track to a district that is more compatible with the neighborhood such as a residential use. The one issue of concern associated with this rezoning is the access to the property because circulation and the street system is somewhat inadequate in the immediate area. It is the staff's understanding that the owners are looking into several alternatives because they have other properties in the neighborhood. Access will be critical to making this a viable project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "MF -24" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-23-86) The applicant requested that the item be deferred for 30 days. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to defer the request to the October 28, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-28-86) The applicant was represented by Randy Fraizer, an attorney. There were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Fraizer addressed the Commission and said that there would be a total of 102 units and that there was a need for apartment units in this section of Little Rock. He went on to discuss the traffic concerns and said that the owner had agreed to making the necessary street improvements as recommended by the City's Engineering staff. The streets would include both West Markham and Summit. Mr. Fraizer then reviewed the area which he described as being very diverse and the zoning. October 28, 1986 Item No. D - Continued Eddie Branton, architect for the project, then spoke and said that West Markham would be the primary access point. Lucy Towbin, 110 South Schiller, then addressed the Commission. She said that the neighborhood was not concerned so much with the use but rather with access and traffic circulation. She said that the streets were very narrow with no sidewalks and there was a high percentage of on -street parking so the safety of the residents was a factor. Ms. Towbin also asked whether access could be provided to the north, towards Cantrell, instead of to West Markham. Mr. Fraizer then reviewed the recommended improvements for West Markham and Summit. Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, addressed the access issue and said that boundary street improvements would be required for West Markham. He also said that the streets could handle the increased traffic (higher density) with the improvements. Another resident expressed concerns with the proposed pavement width, 25 feet, and suggested that other access points were needed. Ms. Towbin said there would be problems with using Summit because of the traffic at West 3rd. Additional comments were offered by both Mr. Fraizer and Mr. Branton. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the "MF -24" request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent.