Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5873 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-5873 NAME: Kremer Short -Form PD -R REQUEST: Staff proposal to review for revocation, a PD -R that expired in November of 1997. DEVELOPER: William R. Kremer AREA: 0.32 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PD-R/R-3 ALLOWED USES: Multifamily as PD -R PROPOSED USE: Eight apartments were authorized. BACKGROUND: In August of 1994 the applicant filed his request for consideration of a plan to build apartments on this vacant corner. The Commission held its hearing on the request on j.September 6, 1994 at which time there were objectors involved. The proposal conformed to the land use plan and staff supported the request. A lengthy meeting was held. Commissioners were concerned about building elevations. The request was deferred until October 18, 1994. On October 18, another lengthy meeting produced a planning commission vote to approve the PD -R. The City Board approved the request on November 23, 1994. OWNER'S POSITION: Mr. Kremer submitted a letter on April 30 in which he stated that he would like to do the project, but needs two additional years. He requests reinstatement. RECOMMENDATION• That the PD -R be revoked; that Ordinance No. 16,782 creating the PD -R be repealed and, that, the property be returned to R-3 Single Family zoning. Staff suggests that, if Mr. Kremer is serious about doing the apartments, he could be placed on a later agenda to reinstate the plan approval. This would require repeal of the current ordinance and approval of another. FILE NO., Z-5873 (Cont.) NOTICE INFORMATION PER ORDINANCE: Little Rock Ordinance No. 16,798 requires that City Staff provide notice to the owner of record, adjacent residents and neighborhood associations. This has been or will be done. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 1998) The Chair identified the issue. A brief statement by staff presented a recommendation that the revocation be completed. The applicant presented a statement as to why the PRD expired, saying he did not know about the three years and had other activities that prohibited building the apartments. He said he would like to have a two year extension. Mrs. Trumper, a neighbor presented arguments in support of the revocation. Staff pointed out that extension could only be gained through refiling and a public hearing. There were four calls in support of revocation. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to recommend the revocation to the Board Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 2 1. Meeting Date: November 15, 1994 2. Case No.: Z-5873 3. Request: Establish KREMER'T -- SHORT -FORM PRD 4. Location: At the southeast corner of W. Markham St. and S. Park St. 5. Owner A licant: William R. Kremer 6. Existing_ tatus: Vacant; zoned R-3 7. Proposed Use: Multi -Family Residential 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planni-ncr Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None. The applicant is dedicating the required right-of-way, and making the required improvements to both boundary streets. 12. _RecQmmendation Forwarded_ With: A vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. Obiectors: Jim Achard, Mary Post, Lon Jones, and Dulyn Butler. Post cards from 27 area residents were mailed in by persons who wrote that they were in opposition to the proposed rezoning from single-family to multi- family for the purpose of building a 2 -story, 8 -unit apartment building. 14. NeicThborhood Contact Pers Others: Barbara Petrucelli, Ridgeway Property Owners Association; Ms. Jayne Cia; and Susan or Louis Leslie. 15. NeiohborhQod Plan: Heights -Hillcrest (4) FILE NO.: Z-5873 NAME: KREMER'S -- SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. Markham Street and S. Park Street DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• William R. Kremer Robert D. Holloway 11219 Financial Center Parkway ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, INC. Little Rock, AR 72211 200 Casey Drive 228-4485 Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8806 AREA: 0.32 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONIN R-3 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DI TRICT• 4 CENSQS TRACT: 14 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of the sidewalk requirement along the N. Park St. frontage of the site aTATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the construction of multi -family facility consisting of 8 apartments (4 units down stairs; 4 -up stairs) on a 0.32 acre site. Provision is made for off-street parking for 12 vehicles. The development involves construction of one-half street improvements on both boundary streets, Markham and Park Streets. A sidewalk is to be constructed along the Markham St. frontage of the -site; however,' fop the Park St. frontage, a waiver from the requirement is requested. The primary access to the site is to be by way of a driveway off Markham St. An exit from the site is provided to an improved alley to the east. Required landscaping and the provision of a "good neighbor" fence along the south and east boundary of the site is proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PRD for a 2 -story, 8 -unit apartment facility to be built on a 0.32 acre site. There is to be parking for 12 vehicles on the site. Required street and sidewalk improvements on Markham and Park Streets are included in the proposal, except there is a request for a waiver of the sidewalk improvements on Park St. FILE NO.: Z-5873 (Cont.) B. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently vacant, and has been so for several years. The site is elevated above the Markham St. grade approximately 4 feet, then rises another 4 feet at the south property line. Neither Markham or Park Streets have a curb and gutter section along the project property line; neither street has the required sidewalk along the street frontage. Park St. "dead -ends" one-half block south of the Markham St. intersection; however there are two homes on lots south of the proposed development and there is an apartment building on the west side of Park St. at the "dead-end". There is a sidewalk on the project side of Park St. on beyond the project site to the south. A portion of the right-of-way along the east side of Park St. has been paved, and this paved area is being used for parking for, presumably, the commercial building across Park St. to the west. The north - south alley abutting the east side of the site is paved. The site is currently zoned R-3, with R-3 property to the east and south. R-4 property lies directly across Markham St. to the north; the State School for the Deaf campus, on property which is zoned R-2, is cater -corner to the northwest across the Markham -Park intersection. Directly across Park St. to the west is C-3 zoned property. (The Little Rock Auto Clock and Speedometer Service business is located in this C-3 hrea.) ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENT$: Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan is to be provided. Before issuance of -the building permit, plans must be submitted for the right-of-way improvements, as well as a complete grading and drainage plan. Water Works comments that Water Works needs to be contacted regarding meter size and location. Wastewater comments that sewer is -available, and there will be no adverse effect on the system. -- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the site plan as presented. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for buffers, landscaping, and land use screening meet the Ordinance requirements. Trees and shrubs will be required within the southern land use buffer. The dumpster enclosure must be opaque and be 8' high on 3 sides. 2 FILE NO.: Z-5873 _(Cont.) Land Use review reports that the site is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District, and is designated as Multi -Family Residential (MF) of the adopted land use plan. The "MF" category is intended to accommodate residential development of 10 to 36 units per acre. The proposal is for 8 units on 0.32 acres, equating to 24 units per acre. The proposal is, therefore, consistent with the land use plan. D. ISSUE LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The applicant proposes to make street improvements on both Markham and on Park, and proposes to construct the required sidewalk on Markham; however, a waiver is requested for the required sidewalk on Park, and this will require Hoard of Directors approval. The ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces/dwelling unit in multi -family uses. In this case, 12 would be required, and 12 are provided. Any anticipated signage must be specified and must be located on the site plan. The survey and PRD site plan show N. Park St. as N. Park Ave. This is incorrect; Park Ave. is in the College Station area off Frazier Pike. The street name must be corrected on both the survey and°PRD site plan. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed development is consistent with the land use plan, and the applicant proposes to meet all development standards which are required by the various ordinances and entities, except that a waiver from the sidewalk requirement on Park St. is requested. Since there are single-family and multi -family residences to the south of the site on Park St., and since there is -an -existing sidewalk south -of the site which can be extended northward along the Park St. frontage of the -site to intersect with the sidewalk to -be constructed along Markham St., the sidewalk along Park St. should be constructed. F. STAFF RECQMMENDATIQNS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD request, but does not recommend approval of the waiver of the sidewalk on Park St. 3 FILE NO.: Z-5873 Cont. SpBDIVTSION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994) Mr. Robert Holloway, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the request and reviewed with the Committee the proposed site plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Holloway the items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Holloway indicated that he would make the needed adjustments and additions to the plans. He clarified with the Committee various items concerning the condition of the existing improvements on the boundary streets and the alley, indicating that boundary street improvements would be made, but that a waiver of the sidewalk requirement on Park St. was being sought, and indicating that the alley was improved. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) Mr. Bob Holloway was present to represent the developer. Staff presented the application, and noted that the requested waiver of the sidewalk construction along the Park St. frontage of the site had been withdrawn by the applicant; that the sidewalk would be constructed. Mr. Holloway indicated that the application and staff's presentation were sufficient to outline the proposal, and said that he would prefer to respond to the objectors who were present. Mr. Dulyn Butler, indicating that he is the owner of the abutting property to the south, said that his home is the only dwelling abutting the property. He said that he had bought the dwelling knowing that the home was in a-siyigle-family zoned area, and said that he wants the single-family zoning in the area to remain. He stated that the proposed 8 -unit apartment dwelling was to be built within 10 feet of his home, and objected to that situation. Mr. Jim Achard, indicating that' he lives a 'block -away from the proposed development, said that; although he is not opposed to development on the site, he felt -that an 8 -unit -apartment development was "a bit much". He said that, since the proposed property is elevated above the surrounding property, the second floor windows of the apartment -building would -look down onto Mr. Butler's yard and home. A 2 -story structure, he said, is out of scale for the location; that something of a lesser scale would be more appropriate. He also stated that Mr. Kremer, the developer of the 8 -unit apartment project, -is also the owner -of an apartment building across Park St., at the south end of the dead-end section of Park St. He said that Mr. Kremer's other 4 FILE NO.; Z-5873 (Cont_ apartment project is not properly maintained and is tacky, and questioned whether a new facility developed by Mr. Kremer would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Holloway responded to the criticisms. He said that the other property owned by Mr. Kremer was built in 1928, and, consequently, shows its age. He said that the neighborhood has been, for many years, a "mixed use" area, with the multi -family dwelling to the south, a commercial use to the west, other multi -family directly to the north, and the deaf school to the northwest. Mr. Butler's house is a large, order home, which sits well off the ground and has high ceilings and a high roof. It is probably, he said, as tall as the proposed 2 -story building being considered. The exiting topography of the site is proposed to be lowered, so that the proposed building will be lower than the present site would suggest. There is to be a privacy fence along the southern boundary of the site, and this property line is to be landscaped. Mr. Holloway also corrected Mr. Butler's contention that the apartment building would be built 10 feet from his home. Instead, he said, it would be built 10 feet off the south property line, and Mr. Butler's home is south of that property line. Mr. Holloway stated that all traffic generated by the proposed development would use W. Markham St., and that trash pick-up would use the alley to the east; therefore, S. Park St. would not be "burdened" by the new use. Commissioner Oleson questioned the number of units proposed for the development, indicating that the 8 units seemed too many for the acreage involved. Walter Malone, of the Planning staff, indicated that the land use plan calls for the area.to be "multi -family", and that the "MF" designation suggests developments of 12 or more units per acre. Staff also mentioned that the R-5 zoning district would permit the -density proposed for the subjject property. The proposed development, then, is in conformance with the adopted land use.. plan, and is in line with other zoning and use in the area. Commissioner Willis, then Commissioner Walker, indicated that exterior elevations and a topographic cross-section of the development and its relationship with the property to the -south would be helpful in their being able to determine the appropriateness of the development. Mr. Holloway indicated that, in light of the Commissioner's desire for the additional exhibits, he would ask that the item be deferred until the October 18, 1994 Planning Commission hearing, and that he would, a the Subdivision Committee meeting of September 29, produce the requested.drawings. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the October 18th. hearing. The motion was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 5 FILE NO.• Z-5873 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994) Staff recalled that this item had been deferred in order for a topographic cross section to be prepared and for exterior elevations to be presented. Staff reported that the topographic cross section has been received, and shows that the new 2 -story building will be no higher than the abutting 1 -story house. Staff pointed out that the Land Use Plan calls for this area to be multi -family; that there are many multi -family uses in the area; that the site meets all Ordinance requirements; and, that staff recommended approval of the PRD zoning. Staff reported that 27 post cards had been received in the mail from area residents who are in opposition to the PRD, along with 1 post card received in favor of it. Mr. Bob Holloway, the project engineer, was present, and introduced Ms. Stephenie Kremer, an owner -developer of the site. Mr. Holloway had photos of the site and the surrounding properties, including the abutting home to the south, and he passed these photographs around to the Commission members. He reported that the single -story home to the south would be slightly higher in overall height than the proposed 2 -story apartment building, and that the second floor of the apartment building would be almost level with the first floor of the abutting home. He explained that the grade of the proposed site would be lowered somewhat, making the site lower than the abutting homesite to the south. He explained further that the abutting home is an older home, with its first floor elevated 4-5 feet above its yard, and that it has high ceilings, giving it a more imposing look from the front. He presented the topographic cross section which showed the relationship between the two properties. He also reported that the original home which had_ occupied the site had been closer to the south property line than the proposed apartment building wpuld be, and that there would be a privacy fence and a landscape buffer separating the two buildings. He reminded the Commission that the requested waiver from the sidewalk requirement for S. Park -St: had been -deleted, --- and that all Master Street Plan requirements for both S. Park and W. Markham Streets would be provided. He then presented the exterior elevations of_the.proposed apartment building,_and _ reported that, in an attempt to blend the new construction with the other homes in the area, that the exterior was proposed to be lap board style vinyl siding. He pointed out that all required parking is contained within the site. - _- Mr. Jim Achard spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He reported that he lived one block to the north of the site. He indicated _that,.with 8 units on 1/3 acre, the proposed_:, __ . _ development equaled a development in an MF -24 zoning district. He said that a less intense development would be more acceptable; that 4 units on one level would be less intrusive and would be 6 FILE NO.: Z-5873 Cont. more in keeping with the predominantly single-family and duplex development in the area. He expressed concern about the parking situation in the area, saying that the 12 -unit apartment building at the south end of S. Park St., which the Kremers also own, has no on-site parking, and that the residents of that apartment building park anywhere they can, including in front of the two homes on S. Park St. which are between the proposed site and the end of S. Park St. He said that the Kremers had paved some of the shoulder of S. Park St., along the frontage of the proposed apartment site, in order to provide some parking for the 12 -unit apartment building at the end of the street, and was concerned that these spaces would be lost if the new development were constructed. He also said that if the residents of the proposed 8 -unit apartment building had more than the 12 allotted vehicles, that this would compound the parking problem. He expressed concern about the architectural style of the proposed apartment building, saying that a modern "scheme" would not be compatible with the 60 -year-old neighborhood. He suggested that the building be placed along the W. Markham St. frontage of the site, and that the parking be placed along the south boundary of the site, thus screening the parking from the north. He reported that the neighborhood is currently meeting with the City planning staff in preparation for updating the neighborhood's Land Use Plan, and that the current plan, which provides for the area to be developed with high density residential uses, would be changed to show the area as a low density residential use area. Commissioner Walker, addressing Mr. Achard, indicated that the developer is proposing to construct the required Master Street Plan improvements on both W. Markham and S. Park Streets, and that these are substantial costs to the project. He asked if the neighborhood, in saying that it would support a single -story, 4 -unit development, would be willing to support a waiver of the street development requirements for the proposed PRD. Mr. Achard responded that most of ithe streets in the neighborhood are narrow streets with open ditches on both sides, and that he did not feel -that a curb -and -gutter section at one corner would contribute that much to the neighborhood. He said that the "CDC" had not -addressed street improvements for -the neighborhood as�a priority, and that it would be his preference that the street frontages of the proposed development be left in their current condition, and that the development be 4 units in a single story facility. He said that, as a trade -off, -he would prefer that the Kremers be required to provide parking for their 12 -unit apartment building which is at the end of S. Park St. in lieu of having to make the street improvements. Ms. Mary Post, -who identified herself as living two blocks north - of the proposed PRD development, said that a "big" 2 -story apartment building was not acceptable, and that something "real modern" would not fit into the neighborhood. 6 FILE NO.: Z-5873 Cont. Mr. Lon Jones identified himself as living on the lot that would back up to the proposed development on the east, one lot removed to the south. He said that he uses the alley between him lot and the proposed development, and said that the condition of the alley was bad; that he has difficulty turning into the alley from W. Markham St. Trash service trucks and the increased traffic would be a problem. He also said that he was concerned about the noise from the dumpster service early in the morning or late at night. He related that W. Markham St. is very narrow, approaching being a one -lane roadway, and that it was not adequate for the increased traffic from the proposed development. He said that the premises of the Kremer's other apartment building at the end of Park St. has, in the past, not been kept clear of trash and wrecked vehicles. Mr. Holloway, responding to the concerns, said that the density of the proposed development was in conformance with the approved Land Use Plan; that the property immediately to the west is commercial; and, that there is much multi -family development in the area. He said that in making the required improvements to both W. Markham and S. Park Streets, additional on -street parking would be made available; that there would be more on -street parking, when the improvements are provided, rather than less. He said that, if the building were placed, as suggested by Mr. Achard, along W. Markham St., with the parking to the south between the building and the south property line, the building would be too close to the street, and would both not meet building setback requirements and be much more imposing. He said that the primary access to the site would be from the west, and would not add substantially to the traffic through the neighborhood. He pointed out that W. Markham St. to the west, along the commercial area, is a curb -and -gutter street, and the developer would be extending the curb -and -gutter section along his frontage. He said that the dQveloper would be improving the alley from W. Markham St., south, along the east property line of the site; therefore, Mr. Jones' concerns would be alleviated. He explained that the term "modern" referred to the type construction (i.e., slab -on -grade foundation and 8 foot high ceilings, rather than elevated wood floors and high ceilings), rather than the style of architecture, saying that the lap board _vinyl siding was -in keeping with the predominant "look" of the older homes in the area. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Holloway to address the concern regarding the dumpster service time. Commissioner Walker suggested that the dumpster service time be restricted to daylight hours, and Mr. Holloway and Ms. Kremer agreed. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the PRD, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 8