Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4860 Staff AnalysisNAME - LOCATION: DEVELOPER/ENGINEER: REQUEST: PROPOSED BY: Circlewood Apartments "Short -Form" PRD (Z-4860) 2517 Grove Circle Lee Gibson/Don Brooks "R-4" to "PRD" Multifamily STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the application, due to potential negative impact resulting from the introduction of this type of zoning activity in the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff revised its recommendation to concur wit t at of t e Commission. Commission's action was approval, subject to: (1) provide additional parking on -site the extent possible which includes possible removal of any additional accessory structure in the rear yard and provision of at least six stalls, (2) comply with the Fire Department's request regarding exterior doors and access, and (3) occupancy restrictions as agreed to. VOTE: 8 ayes,-0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. f .File -No. Z-4860 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Lee Gibson 6829 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72207 664-5500 Circlewood Apts. - Planned Residential District 2517 Grove Circle Don Brooks P.O. Box 897 North Little Rock, AR 72115 372-2131 AREA: 8,305 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Planned Residential District from "R-4" PROPOSED USE: Multifamily PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 rRM91TS TRACT: 14 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None except that parking lot size and landscaped area may be deficient. A. Proposal To make a nonconforming apartment house conforming. The current nine units are zoned "R-3" Single Family. No additions are requested at this time. The parking is three stalls in the rear and on -street. The project consists of one bedroom units in a two story building. The project dates from 1926. B. Engineering Comments Improvement of the parking in the alley and the addition of two parking spaces should be pursued. C. Utility Comments ' Arkla and AP&L report plan okay as submitted. Z-486.0- - Continued D. Analysis The staff 's view of this project is that it has existed for many years within a nice single family environment. There are perhaps a couple of duplexes nearby. The isolation of this project from multifamily zoned areas and arterial streets presents the dilemma. We feel that introduction of "MF" zoning, even though in the form of a PRD, is a spot zone. The size of nearby homes indicates that this area might be significantly impacted if conversion of some of these homes might be the result of introduction of this zoning activity. E. Staff Recommendation Denial of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) There was a general discussion of the proposal. This action was filed for the same basic reasons as Item 10 on this agenda that being to obtain financing. Parking was discussed as a particular concern for this site inasmuch as there are currently three proper spaces designed and placed on the lot with potential for perhaps three additional. The owner said that he could improve the parking, but it would probably not be used by the tenants due to the stairs and access from that side of the building. Most people park on the street. This issue was deemed to be reduced to a land use question for the full Commission's discussion. Z-4860 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff presented its recommendation of denial based upon the neighborhood plan, spot zoning expansion, and possible encouragement of conversion of present large homes in the area, plus the site is not on a collector or arterial street. Mr. Gibson, the applicant was present. There were four letters of objection and one petition of objection with ten signatures submitted. Mr. Gibson presented his case. He responded to questions of the Commission concerning traffic, parking, and the reasons for the application. A lengthy general discussion was held with comments on increasing the parking on -site, limiting the building to individually rented units with no group occupancies such as halfway houses. Compliance with the Fire Department's request on exterior doors was also discussed. Mr. Gibson offered for the record that he would agree to comply with these requirements. Commissioner Riddick then offered for the record that the Commission should make use of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance in these kinds of cases and especially when existing buildings are involved that are already developed as apartments. He felt that conversions of existing buildings should be discouraged. The Commission accepted this thought, and discussion revealed that the Commission would not be supportive of additional multifamily zoning activities in this area. In light of the applicant's willingness to commit to additional restriction and the comments offered by the Commission, the staff changes its position to approval of the "PRD." A motion was then made to approve this application with the following conditions: 1. Provide additional parking on -site to the extent possible. This includes possible removal of any additional accessory structure in the rear yard and provision of at least six stalls. 2. Comply with the Fire Department's request concerning exterior doors and access. 3. Occupancy restrictions,as agreed to above. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position.