Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5146 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: March 21, 1989 2. Case No.: Z-5146 3. Request: Reclassify from current high density residential district to PRD, Planned Residential District. 4_ Location: 1020 Commerce Street 5. Owner/Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Hollinger 6. Existing__Sta_tus: The site is currently zoned multifamily and occupied by two single family dwellings. 7. Proposed Use: The site is proposed for clearance of current buildings and replacement by a large single family home with a detached accessory dwelling. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends approval of the PRD as filed. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. 11. Objectors: There were no objectors in attendance. FILE NO.: Z-5146 NAME: Hollinger PRD Short -form LOCATION: 1020 Commerce Street DEVELOPER: Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Hollinger 1020 Commerce Street Little Rock, AR 72201 372-2632 ENGINEER: Tommy Jameson, AIA Whitsell, Evans & Rasco 101 E. Capital, Suite 410 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-5300 AREA: 17,000 sq. ft. +/- NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 1/2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: HR, High Density Residential PROPOSED USES: Multi -family Residential, 2 units PLANNING DISTRICT: 5 CENSUS TRACT: 3 STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The owner proposes to remove the existing structures from this 2 1/2 lot ownership and construct a new dwelling with a combination guest house and shop at the rear of the site. The guest house is to accommodate their parents in their later years and the shop portion will be for Mr. Hollinger's personal hobbies, etc., not for commercial usage. Specifically, the actions will occur as follows: 1. Removal of 1016 Commerce Street. The relocation of this structure is in the hands of the new owner and should happen within 30-60 days. 2. Remove 1016 Commerce outbuilding and construct a new guest house and shop. This would occur in the spring/summer of 1989. 3. Move into guest house/shop and remove existing structure at 1020 Commerce in late 1989 or 1990. 4. Construct main house in 1990-1991. (Continued) New features to be added: The guest house and shop at the west end, or rear of the site; the main house with southeast corner located where the southeast corner of the existing 1020 Commerce is located; erection of a privacy fence from the main house north to the existing north fencing and hedges. The fencc design will be vertical boards six feet high with a one foot lattice panel above, total height will be seven feet. A privacy fence from the existing north fencing south to the guest house. This fence will continue from the shop to the garage of the main house but become a covered walkway with a low roof above the lattice panel in addition to a privacy fence. A new concrete sidewalk will be constructed to the new east porch and new concrete driveways in the rear to the shop and garage. The existing site light at the southwest corner of the site will remain. No other site lighting is proposed. Landscaping will include foundation plantings, a formal rose garden and a complete sprinkler system. The existing berm on the south side of the site will be retained but "eased" to make it less steep and easier to maintain. Architectural features of the new structures: The features of the new structures are intended to blend with the historic neighborhood without duplicating specific historic styles. Materials proposed to be utilized include: 1. Red brick foundation 2. Prefinished vinyl siding with 3" exposure 3. Painted wood, trimmed soffet, facia and major porch elements. Some porch elements will likely be vinyl such as lattice and ballusters. 4. Concrete porch roof 5. Composition shingle roof 6. One -over -one double hung windows 7. Nine foot ceilings. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This owner proposes to remove the several existing structures occupied as residential and occupied as residential; over a period of time, rebuild in the form of a guest house and shop initially on the rear of the lot; and at a future point, complete a large new single family dwelling on the corner lot. r (Continued) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property currently is generally flat land is most of the abutting neighborhood. Street improvements are in place. The alley is paved. There should be no physical improvement issues attached to this PUD review. C.. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: RE E. F. The owner should provide in the redevelopment of this corner access ramps in the sidewalks at the intersection for the handicapped as well as at the alley. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The only issues attendant to this filing are subdivision plat requirements. The Planning Staff feels that this corner should be replatted as a single tract, the purpose of which is to prevent future sale of one of the dwellings from the site as a separate principal residence. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff has reviewed this proposal, has made contact with the Historic District Commission Staff and has determined no issue of consequence. Our feeling is that this proposal is in keeping with the past history of the neighborhood and the continuing use of properties abutting for recreation and the future retirement facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval replatting as a single lot handicapped access ramps. of the PUD subject to the and provision of the (Continued)_ SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (February 9, 1989) Mr. Tommy Jameson representing the architect for this project was present. He offered a few comments and responded to some of the issues that had been identified. There was a general discussion of the proposal. There were no issues of significance to relate to the full Commission. The item is forwarded without further comment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were no objectors in attendance. The application was represented by Mr. Tommy Jameson. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion was then made to that effect. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PRD DISTRICT TITLED HOLLINGER PRD (Z-5146) IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following described property be changed from HR, High Density Residential to PRD, Planned Residential District. A parcel of land in Block 58, Original City, Little Rock, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: Property described as Lots 7 and 8, and the S 1/2 of Lot 9 in Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Hollinger PRD (Short -form) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Article VII, Section 36 of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued)_ SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (February 9, 1989) Mr. Tommy Jameson representing the architect for this project was present. He offered a few comments and responded to some of the issues that had been identified. There was a general discussion of the proposal. There were no issues of significance to relate to the full Commission. The item is forwarded without further comment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were no objectors in attendance. The application was represented by Mr. Tommy Jameson. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion was then made to that effect. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent.