Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5961 Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1995 ITEM H FILE NO.: Z-5961 NAME: HARRISON PLACE APARTMENTS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Harrison Street and Evergreen Street DEVELOPER: DR. JAMES METRAILER 417 N. University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 666-0249 AREA• 0.32 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ARCHITECT: Mr. Greg Peckham HILLHOUSE ASSOCIATES 111 Center St., Suite 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1662 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PROPOSED USES: None FT. NEW STREET: 0 Multi -Family Residential The applicant proposes a Planned Development -Residential in order to develop a multi -family residential project to contain 4 attached "townhome" dwellings on a 3.07 acre lot. Each of the townhomes is to be a two-story, 1,250 square foot dwelling unit. The front of the units will face Harrison St. At the rear of each unit is proposed to be a private yard area. Beyond the rear yard area, abutting the alley along the west boundary of the site, concrete parking pads are proposed to be constructed. A dumpster area is also proposed to be located off the alley. On- site parking for 7 vehicles is provided. Improvement to the alley is to be accomplished to City standards. An additional 2.5 feet of right-of-way along Evergreen St. is proposed, as is construction of concrete sidewalks along both boundary streets with a handicap ramp at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St. intersection. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the PD -R is requested. May 16, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM NO.: B(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5961 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant. There is a single-family home abutting the site to the north and one across the alley to the west. The improvements in the alley are substandard. There is a steep change in grade from the alley level down to Evergreen St. The site is zoned R-2. There is R-2 zoned property to the north, south, and west. Across Harrison St. to the east is a C-3 zoned tract which contains a shopping center and an apartment building. To the southeast is an R-4 zoned area which contains other multi -family dwellings. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works Comments: i) Dedication of additional right-of-way for Evergreen St. is required. Evergreen is a collector, and the Master Street Plan requires collector streets to have 60 foot rights-of-way. 2) A 25 foot turn radius will be required at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St. intersection. 3) Storm drains must be constructed pursuant to the regulations, and stormwater detention from the added runoff must be provided. 4) The width of improvements to the alley must be 20 feet if primary access is taken from the alley Additional dedication may be required to adequately install the alley improvements. 5) A concrete apron is required from the right-of-way line to the street for the alley. 6) Sidewalks are required on both boundary streets. 7) A grading permit will be required. Water Works has no comments on this item. Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there is no adverse effect. A 6" sewer main is located in the alley. Wastewater Utility should be contacted for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. 2 May 16, 1995 sDIVr I ITEM NG.: B Coni FILE NO.: Z-5961 Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not provided comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The project narrative needs to deal with whether the units are anticipated to be held under one ownership or sold as individual townhome. The site involves using two existing platted lots. As part of the PD process, a replat of the two lots can be prepared and filed to combine the lots. If a replat is prepared, the required dedication of the additional right=of=way along the Evergreen St. frontage of the site can be dedicated. If a replat is not prepared, the required right-of-way dedication can be accomplished with a quit -claim deed. The tract size is 14,000 square feet. Four units are proposed, which is a density of 12.5 units per acre. In an R-4 zoning district (the 2 -family district), the requirement is for one duplex on a minimum 7000 square foot lot. With the 14,000 square foot lot, two duplexes (four unity) would be permitted. The MF -12 zoning district permits 12 units per acre. The proposed development, at 12.5 units per acre, is very close to this density. The site is currently zoned R-2, as is the abutting property. In the R-2 zoning district, the minimum side yard setback is 10% of the lot width, not to exceed 8 feet. The site is composed of two 50 foot lots, with a total width, after dedication of the right-of-way along Evergreen St., of 97.5 feet. Landscape review comments that the buffer requirement along the northern and southern property lines is 5 feet in width. The landscape ordinance requires a width of 6 feet of landscaping north and south of the proposed vehicular use areas. A buffer is required to separate single-family and multi -family use areas, and this buffer can be either dense evergreen plantings or a "good neighbor" fence. A solid building wall with no openings can meet the qualification for the required fencing. The Planning Division comments that the site is in the Heights -Hillcrest District. Although the adopted Land Use Plan recommends single family development, the density of the proposed residential use is not significantly above that 3 May 16, 1995 BDIVISIO ITEM O.: B(Cont-FILE NO.: Z-5961 of single family. This, together with the site being across the street from multi -family uses, justifies the proposed use within the single-family classified area. E. ANALYSIS• The density of the proposed development is not significantly different from other development in the area, and is not in conflict with the Land Use Plan for the area. If single-family homes were built on the two 50 foot wide lots, the side yard setback could be 5 feet. This 5 foot side yard setback from the home to the north is what is proposed for the development. The side yard along the Evergreen St. side of the development is proposed to be 7 feet, after dedication of the additional 2.5 feet of right- of-way. ight- of-way. The development provides the required number of off-street parking spaces. The regulations require 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (Sec. 36-502(1)d.), which is 6 spaces; 7 are provided. The required dumpster area, buffers, landscaping, and street and alley improvements are being provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Dr. James Metrailer, the applicant, and Mr. Greg Peckham, the project architect, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development and the applicant and his architect reviewed the staff comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed these comments with the applicant, and the applicant responded that all needed changes would be made and all requirements would be met. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff reported that all technical issues had been resolved, and indicated that, except for neighborhood opposition, the item would have been recommended for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for approval. Staff related that objections expressed by neighbors included: rental units being placed in a predominantly owner -occupied neighborhood; two-story units being in a predominantly one-story neighborhood; increased traffic on the 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISzo ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5961 streets and in the alley; and, trash pick-up at night or early morning. Staff, as a response to this latter concern, recommended that dumpster servicing be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays. Staff recommended approval of the proposed development. Dr. Jim Metrailer, the owner, reported that he had owned the site for approximately 10 years and that it is vacant. He related that, to the east, across Harrison St. is the back side of a shopping center and a 3 -story, high density, apartment building. To the southeast, diagonally across Harrison and Evergreen Streets, is a duplex development. He concluded, then, that the 4-plex townhome development which he proposes, would be a good transition to the single-family neighborhood to the west. Mr. Greg Peckham, the project architect, outlined the proposal. He said that the architecture is designed to blend with the single-family character of the neighborhood, -with -each unit having a front porch with columns, and construction being of brick and wood. He said that, although the units are to be approximately 1250 square foot, two-story homes, the roof line is to be lowered to reduce the scale of the two-story construction. He said that all requirements of the City staff had been addressed. Ms. Margery Anderson, identifying herself as owning the home immediately to the north of the proposed development, and as being the one who would be the most affected by it, spoke in support of the development. She said that the vacant lot, as it now exists, grows up in weeds; that there are snakes and beer cans on the lot; and, that the lot is used as a parking lot for trucks by one of the neighbors across the alley. She said that the proposed four-plex, with its columns and porches, would be an asset to the neighborhood, and that Hillcrest needs new development. Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the development, saying that the existing zoning does not permit the duplex use, nor does the Land Use Plan provide for such a development. She said that if the multi- family use is permitted to cross Harrison St., it could be the first of many incremental encroachments. She urged the City to hold to the adopted Land Use Plan. Ms. Mary Boaz, identifying herself as a resident of the area, living on Polk St., spoke in opposition to the requested re- zoning. She said that the use was "commercial", and that whenever you have rental units, the residents are more transient. She said that the neighborhood is predominantly owner -occupied single-family, and that the rental units would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 5 May 16, 1995 IIBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5961 Ms. Jan Bowman, identifying herself as living on Harrison St. at the north end of the block from the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She said that the home next to her's is a rental unit, and college students live there. She said that these college "students disturb the peace of the neighborhood and are a nuisance. She said that the proposed development would attract more college students, and this would add to the problem. She said that parking would be a problem, since there is limited parking on-site; there is not off-street parking provided for two of the four existing homes on Harrision St., and since Harrison St. has parking allowed only on the west side. She said that the apartments across Harrison St. face east onto a courtyard, and do not affect the neighborhood across Harrison St. to the west. Ms. Martha Cross, identifying herself as a resident of the immediate area, said she opposed the request. She stated that apartments are a business for Dr. Metrailer, and that the proposal, then, is for a commercial use of the property. She said that four units is too many units for the land, and that the development would increase traffic and trash. She said that townhouses are not in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Mary Lake identified herself as living directly to the west of the proposed development, and she spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She said that all the comings and goings would be from the alley, which is directly behind her home. She objected, she said, to the increased noise, disturbance, and traffic which would result from the apartments. She said that her carport is on the alley, and that, when work is done in the alley during the construction of the development, she would not have access to her carport. Ms. Beth Lipsmeyer, whose residence is at the northeast corner of Tyler St. and Evergreen St., spoke in opposition to the development. She said that the apartments would cause an increase in traffic, and would adversely affect the character of the existing single-family neighborhood. Mr. David Mann, whose residence faces Tyler St., and whose rear - entry driveway would be opposite the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the development. He said that the apartment project would cause an increase in traffic in the alley, through which he and others have access to their drives and carports, and having to share the alley with apartment traffic would cause problems for them. He objected to a dumpster being located at the northwest corner of the project, across from his property. He said that the neighbors had been misled by Dr. Metrailer's use of the term "townhouse", which, he felt, has the connotation of owner -occupied homes, versus the term "apartment", which connotes rental units, which, in turn, mean a high turn -over rate of residents. He objected to rental units being permitted in the 0 May 16, 1995 OQBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 neighborhood, saying that the residents in the neighborhood look out for one another and want to know their neighbors. The turn- over associated with rental units, and the character of renters, does not permit this type of neighborliness to exist. He questioned the amount of alley which would be available and which is shown on the site plan, versus the amount of alley which is in use at the present time, saying that property owners abutting the alley might have to give up some of the land which they are currently using. He stated that he and his wife oppose the development. Ms. Jean Miller, a resident of "L" St. at the north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the development. She said that traffic is heavy on the streets in the area, with traffic heading towards Kavanaugh Blvd., and that if the alley is made into a thoroughfare, traffic will cut through the alley en route to Kavanaugh. Mr. Pat O'Dwyer, whose residence faces Tyler St., with the rear of the lot facing the subject alley, spoke in opposition to the project. He said that 8-12 additional people living on the block was too many people. He objected to the development of the alley to provide the rear access to the townhomes or apartments, saying that it would take land from his lot, and would increase noise and litter in the alley. He said that he objected to renters living in the neighborhood. Ms. Rose Perrymore, who identified herself as a property owner living in a home which faces Tyler St., and whose rear yard faces the subject alley, said that she objects to the development. She said that the other neighbors have expressed her concerns, but added that that development would not increase property values of the single-family homes in the area. She said that everyone will eventually want to sell their home, and having apartments in the neighborhood will make it harder to sell them, since, she said, people do not want to live next door to apartments. Mr. Jerry Sears, identifying himself as owning a home which faces Tyler St. and whose rear yard abuts the subject alley at the north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He said that a 2 -story townhouse does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood; that the neighborhood does not have 2 -story building. He said that traffic, especially the traffic entering the Evergreen and Kavanaugh intersection, backs up onto Harrison and Evergreen, and that traffic cuts through the other neighborhood streets trying to avoid the intersection. He said that improving the alley will prompt drivers to cut through the alley as they head for alternate routes to avoid the Evergreen - Kavanaugh intersection. He said that, in the past few years, the property owners in the block have tried to turn the block and neighborhood around, to stop the decline and deterioration which had been occurring; that only one home in the block is now a 7 May 16, 1995 BDIVISION ITEM NO • B Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 rental unit, and the property owners do not want to see the number of rental units increased. He complained that rental units are not kept up on the outside, and renters do not participate in neighborhood clean-up and fix -up efforts. He said that all the other blocks in the area have twelve homes per block, and that their block already has twelve homes in it; that building four more living units on the block would be too dense. Dr. Metrailer, responding to the neighbors' concerns, said that he had grown up in the neighborhood; that his mother had lived in the neighborhood until she died recently and his children attend the neighborhood school. He said that he had felt that the townhome development would contribute to the neighborhood's stability and value. He had reviewed, he said, the possibility of moving onto the lots some older homes which would be renovated, but had concluded that these would not add to the value of the neighborhood. He said that with proposed rents of $800.00 per month, he had felt that college students would be precluded from renting the units. He related that he was proposing to maintain the exterior of the buildings and the lawns himself. Dr. Metrailer, responding to specific complaints and concerns which neighbors had related, said that trucks parked on his property were one of the neighbor's, not his; and, he said that he had reviewed the possibility of developing the site with single-family homes, but that people do not want to live across the street from apartments, so the townhome development had seemed to be a good transition from the multi -family across the street and act as a buffer for the single-family neighborhood. He reminded the Commission that, when Mr. Sears stated that there are no two-story buildings in the neighborhood, he was omitting the information that he had recently gained approval from the Commission for an apartment unit in his back yard, and that the apartment unit is a two-story building. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the nature of the improvements to the alley and the location of garbage pick-up. Dr. Metrailer responded that the grade of the alley would be adjusted to a provide proper grade transition from Evergreen onto the alley. He explained that there would be no dumpster as a garbage container on the site; that individual garbage containers, the "green monsters", would be used. Staff interjected that, since the development is a multi -family development, normally, private dumpster service is required. Dr. Metrailer said that he had talked with sanitation, and that the townhouse development would be treated as individual homes, with "green monsters" being able to be used. Chairperson Walker confirmed with Dr. Metrailer that, if dumpster service is required, he would agree to limiting the servicing of 8 May 16, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM O • HCont_) FILE NO.: Z-5961 the dumpster as suggested by staff: from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, to which Dr. Metrailer assented. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the width of the alley. Mr. Peckham responded that the plat shows a 20 foot wide alley easement, and that, to assure no conflict with existing fences or structures on the west side of the alley, the proposed site plan shows paving to begin several feet off the rear property line of the lots to the west, and, shows dedication of several feet of additional right-of-way off Dr. Metrailer's side of the alley to provide adequate maneuvering and parking space for vehicles. The space provided along the west alley easement line should, he said, provide adequate transition space between the new grade of the alley and the existing carport grades of the homes to the west. Commissioner Ball asked staff if staff had any reservations on its recommendation for approval of the development. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson said that the addition of four dwelling units to the area, in an area with multi -family developments existing across the street, and where homes are built on smaller lots, would, in staff's opinion, not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification on the proximity of rental units to the proposed project site. Dr. Metrailer responded that, in addition to the 3 -story multi- family development directly across Harrision street to the east, there is a duplex development diagonally across the Harrision- Evergreen intersection from the site. He said that within a couple of blocks, there are other rental units. Chairperson Walker called the question, but, because the vote was 4 ayes, 5 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent, with the request not getting the requisite 6 votes either for or against the proposal, the item was deferred until the May 16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, and indicated that the item had been deferred from the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing due to the provision of the Commission Bylaws which provides for an automatic deferral if an item does not receive at least 6 ayes or 6 nays. Staff again recommended approval of the request, indicating that, in staff's opinion, the four -unit townhome would be a viable transition from the commercial and multi -family uses 9 May 16, 1995 BDIVI IO ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE N Z-5961 to the west across Harrison to the single-family residential area. Staff indicated that a letter from the Hillcrest Residents' Association had been received in which the Association had recommended denial of the requested PD -R, and reported that a copy of the letter had been placed at each Commissioner's desk. Dr. Metrailer, the applicant, was present. Dr. Metrailer reiterated his position from the April 4, 1995 hearing: that the lots are not attractive for development as owner -occupied single- family dwellings; that rental property, multi -family rental property, is not uncommon in the Hillcrest area; and, that the development would be an attractive addition to the area, neighborhood, and to Little Rock. He said that, with the three- story multi -family building directly across the street from his lots, with the back of a strip shopping center cater -corner to the northeast from the site, and with duplex/multi-family development cater -corner to the southeast from the site, the site is not desirable as a site on which a new owner -occupied home might be built. He presented a map showing the numerous rental units in the area. He pointed out that, with Evergreen St., the side street of the property, being a collector street, and with the amount of traffic which uses Evergreen St., the lots are not desirable lots for development for owner -occupied single-family dwellings. He related that he had talked with Realtors, and that they had confirmed that a high-quality townhome development in the area would be a boon to the area. He pointed out that, architecturally, the townhome units had been designed to be complementary to and blend with the area; and, that he would commit to maintaining the yard and exterior of the townhome units. Staff pointed out that there had seemed to be some misunderstanding at the previous Commission hearing concerning the extent of the alley improvements. Staff said that the alley would be improved only in the area immediately behind the applicant's property, not the full length of the alley. The steep approach to the alley from Evergreen Dr. would be adjusted to provide a usable approach. Ms. Mary Boaz, a resident of the area, spoke for a group of residents who are in opposition to the request. She asked the group of residents who were in opposition to the item to stand, and presented each Commissioner with a copy of a petition containing 47 names of residents of the area who are in opposition to the requested re -zoning. She presented a map of the area immediately surrounding the proposed development with the households noted who were in opposition to the request, supported the request, or who had not indicated a preference. She pointed out that there is strong opposition shown. She presented a map of the immediate area which showed the number of homes which are owner -occupied homes versus rental units, and said that the area is overwhelmingly owner -occupied. She said 10 May 16, 1995 �V_BDIVI510 ITEM NO.: H (CynC FILE NO.: Z-5961 that the neighbors do not want rental units built. She presented a map which showed the length of time people had lived in the neighborhood, and mentioned that some had been residents of the area for 30-50 years. She said that there is a strong commitment of the residents to the neighborhood, and that it is a real neighborhood. Rental units would undermine this, she said. She disputed Dr. Metrailer's contention that the lots would be undesirable for development for single-family residences, pointing out that one of the residences immediately across from the back of the shopping center had just been sold to an owner - occupant within the past year and a half; and, that she would have bought the house next door to that particular house if it had been placed on the market in lieu of being made into a rental unit. This disproves, she said, Dr. Metrailer's argument concerning the lots potential for development for single-family residential use. She said that parking would be a problem on Harrison St., since there is inadequate parking being provided for the townhomes. She reiterated that the rental units would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as it exists, and would undermine the sense of "neighborhood" which is important to the people who live in Hillcrest. She said that the two-story, zero lot line townhomes do not fit in with the cottage character of Hillcrest, and that townhomes could affect the Hillcrest application for inclusion into a Historical District. Dr. John Graves, reporting that he was representing the Hillcrest Residents' Association, spoke in opposition to the requested PD- R. He said that the Association is an advocate for the people in the neighborhood, and, with the strong opposition to the development by the neighborhood, the Association was reflecting their position. He said that the Association was concerned that the residential integrity of the neighborhood would be adversely affected by the approval of such a townhome project. He said that the project does not conform to the predominantly single- family character of the area; that Harrison St. is a clear line of demarcation between multi -family and commercial uses and the single-family uses. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson cautioned the Commission about making a decision based on whether the occupants would be renters versus owner -occupied. He said that renters cannot be seen as "second class" residents. He said that, given the fact that there are multi -family residential uses directly across the street and cater -corner across the street, with commercial uses cater -corner to the north-east, staff could support the townhome development. If these multi -family and commercial uses had not been present, then the staff recommendation would have been different. He said that he could not imagine someone building a new house at the site of the proposed development. 11 May 16, 1995 BLIVI i ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z--5261 Chairperson Walker called the question, and the item was denied with the vote of 5 ayes, 6 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 12 FILE NO.• Z-5961 DAME: HARRISON PLACE APARTMENTS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Harrison Street and Evergreen Street DEVELOPER: DR. JAMES METRAILER 417 N. University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 666-0249 AREA• 0.32 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ARCHITECT• Mr. Greg Peckham HILLHOUSE ASSOCIATES 111 Center St., Suite 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1662 NUMBER OF LOTS• 1 PROPOSED USES: None FT. NEW STREET• 0 Multi -Family Residential The applicant proposes a Planned Development -Residential in order to develop a multi -family residential project to contain 4 attached "townhome" dwellings on a 3.07 acre lot. Each of the townhomes is to be a two-story, 1,250 square foot dwelling unit. The front of the units will face Harrison St. At the rear of each unit is proposed to be a private yard area. Beyond the rear yard area, abutting the alley along the west boundary of the site, concrete parking pads are proposed to be constructed. A dumpster area is also proposed to be located off the alley. On- site parking for 7 vehicles is provided. Improvement to the alley is to be accomplished to City standards. An additional 2.5 feet of right-of-way along Evergreen St. is proposed, as is construction of concrete sidewalks along both boundary streets with a handicap ramp at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St. intersection. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the PD -R is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant. There is a single-family home abutting the site to the north and one across the alley to the west. The improvements in the alley are substandard. There is a FILE NO • Z-5961 (Cont.) steep change in grade from the alley level down to Evergreen St. The site is zoned R-2. There is R-2 zoned property to the north, south, and west. Across Harrison St. to the east is a C-3 zoned tract which contains a shopping center and an apartment building. To the southeast is an R-4 zoned area which contains other multi -family dwellings. C. ENGINEERING/UTIL_ITY COMMENTS: Public Works Comments: 1) Dedication of additional right-of-way for Evergreen St. is required. Evergreen is a collector, and the Master Street Plan requires collector streets to have 60 foot rights-of-way. 2) A 25 foot turn radius will be required at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St. intersection. 3) Storm drains must be constructed pursuant to the regulations, and stormwater detention from the added runoff must be provided. 4) The width of improvements to the alley must be 20 feet if primary access is taken from the alley Additional dedication may be required to adequately install the alley improvements. 5) A concrete apron is required from the right-of-way line to the street for the alley. 6) Sidewalks are required on both boundary streets. 7) A grading permit will be required. Water Works has no comments on this item. Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there is no adverse effect. A 6" sewer main is located in the alley. Wastewater Utility should be contacted for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not provided comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. 2 FILE NO.: Z-5961(Cont.) D. I E LEGAL TECH I AL DE IGN: The project narrative needs to deal with whether the units are anticipated to be held under one ownership or sold as individual townhome. The site involves using two existing platted lots. As part of the PD process, a replat of the two lots can be prepared and filed to combine the lots. If a replat is prepared, the required dedication of the additional right-of-way along the Evergreen St. frontage of the site can be dedicated. If a replat is not prepared, the required right-of-way dedication can be accomplished with a quit -claim deed. The tract size is 14,000 square feet. Four units are proposed, which is a density of 12.5 units per acre. In an R-4 zoning district (the 2 -family district), the requirement is for one duplex on a minimum 7000 square foot lot. With the 14,000 square foot lot, two duplexes (four unity) would be permitted. The MF -12 zoning district permits 12 units per acre. The proposed development, at 12.5 units per acre, is very close to this density. The site is currently zoned R-2, as is the abutting property. In the R-2 zoning district, the minimum side yard setback is 10% of the lot width, not to exceed 8 feet. The site is composed of two 50 foot lots, with a total width, after dedication of the right-of-way along Evergreen St., of 97.5 feet. Landscape review comments that the buffer requirement along the northern and southern property lines is 5 feet in width. The landscape ordinance requires a width of 6 feet of landscaping north and south of the proposed vehicular use areas. A buffer is required to separate single-family and multi -family use areas, and this buffer can be either dense evergreen plantings or a "good neighbor" fence. A solid building wall with no openings can meet the qualification for the required fencing. The Planning Division comments that the site is in the Heights -Hillcrest District. Although the adopted Land Use Plan recommends single family development, the density of the proposed residential use is not significantly above that of single family. This, together with the site being across the street from multi -family uses, justifies the proposed use within the single-family classified area. E. ANALYSIS: The density of the proposed development is not significantly different from other development in the area, and is not in conflict with the Land Use Plan for the area. 3 FILE NO.: Z-5961(Cont.) If single-family homes were built on the two 50 foot wide lots, the side yard setback could be 5 feet. This 5 foot side yard setback from the home to the north is what is _proposed for the development. -The side yard along the Evergreen St. side of the development is proposed to be 7 feet, after dedication of the additional 2.5 feet of right- of-way. ight- of-way. The development provides the required number of off-street parking spaces. The regulations require 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (Sec. 36-502(1)d.), which is 6 spaces; 7 are provided. The required dumpster area, buffers, landscaping, and street and alley improvements are being provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Dr. James Metrailer, the applicant, and Mr. Greg Peckham, the project architect, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development and the applicant and his architect reviewed the staff comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed these comments with the applicant, and the applicant responded that all needed changes would be made and all requirements would be met. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNTNC COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff reported that all technical issues had been resolved, and indicated that, except for neighborhood opposition, the item would have been recommended for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for approval. Staff related that objections expressed by neighbors included: rental units being placed in a predominantly owner -occupied neighborhood; two-story units being in a predominantly one-story neighborhood; increased traffic on the streets and in the alley; and, trash pick-up at night or early morning. Staff, as a response to this latter concern, recommended that dumpster servicing be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays. Staff recommended approval of the proposed development. Dr. Jim Metrailer, the owner, reported that he had owned the site for approximately 10 years and that it is vacant. He related that, to the east, across Harrison St. is the back side of a shopping center and a 3 -story, high density, apartment building. To the southeast, diagonally across Harrison and Evergreen Streets, is a duplex development. He concluded, then, that the 4 FILE NO.: Z-5961 (co 4-plex townhome development which he proposes, would be a good transition to the single-family neighborhood to the west. Mr. Greg Peckham, the project archiCect, outlined the proposal. He said that the architecture is designed to blend with the single-family character of the neighbo*rhood, with each unit having a front porch with columns, and construction being of brick and wood. He said that, although the units are to be approximately 1250 square foot, two-story homes, the roof line is to be lowered to reduce the scale of the two-story construction. He said that all requirements of the City staff had been addressed. Ms. Margery Anderson, identifying herself as owning the home immediately to the north of the proposed development, and as being the one who would be the most affected by it, spoke in support of the development. She said that the vacant lot, as it now exists, grows up in weeds; that there are snakes and beer cans on the lot; and, that the lot is used as a parking lot for trucks by one of the neighbors across the alley. She said that the proposed four-plex, with its columns and porches, would be an asset to the neighborhood, and that Hillcrest needs new development. Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the development, saying that the existing zoning does not permit the duplex use, nor does the Land Use Plan provide for such a development. She said that if the multi- family use is permitted to cross Harrison St., it could be the first of many incremental encroachments. She urged the City to hold to the adopted Land Use Plan. Ms. Mary Boaz, identifying herself as a resident of the area, living on Polk St., spoke in opposition to the requested re- zoning. She said that the use was "commercial", and that whenever you have rental units, the residents are more transient. She said that the neighborhood is predominantly owner -occupied single-family, and that the rental units would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Jan Bowman, identifying herself as living on Harrison St. at the north end of the block from the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She said that the home next to hex's is a rental unit, and college students live there. She said that these college students disturb the peace of the neighborhood and are a nuisance. She said that the proposed development would attract more college students, and this would add to the problem. She said that parking would be a problem, since there is limited parking on-site; there is not off-street parking provided for two of the four existing homes on Harrision St., and since Harrison St. has parking allowed only on the west side. She said that the apartments across Harrison St. face east onto a courtyard, and do not affect the neighborhood across Harrison St. to the west. 5 FILE NO • Z-5961 (Cont.) Ms. Martha Cross, identifying herself as a resident of the immediate area, said she opposed the request. She stated that apartments are a business for Dr. MWtrailer, and that the proposal, then, is for a commercial use of the property. She said that four units is too many units for the land, and that the development would increase traffic and trash. She said that townhouses are not in keeping with the,neighborhood. Ms. Mary Lake identified herself as living directly to the west of the proposed development, and she spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She said that all the comings and goings would be from the alley, which is directly behind her home. She objected, she said, to the increased noise, disturbance, and traffic which would result from the apartments. She said that her carport is on the alley, and that, when work is done in the alley during the construction of the development, she would not have access to her carport. Ms. Beth Lipsmeyer, whose residence is at the northeast corner of Tyler St. and Evergreen St., spoke in opposition to the development. She said that the apartments would cause an increase in traffic, and would adversely affect the character of the existing single-family neighborhood. Mr. David Mann, whose residence faces Tyler St., and whose rear - entry driveway would be opposite the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the development. He said that the apartment project would cause an increase in traffic in the alley, through which he and others have access to their drives and carports, and having to share the alley with apartment traffic would cause problems for them. He objected to a dumpster being located at the northwest corner of the project, across from his property. He said that the neighbors had been misled by Dr. Metrailer's use of the term "townhouse", which, he felt, has the connotation of owner -occupied homes, versus the term "apartment", which connotes rental units, which, in turn, mean a high turn -over rate of residents. He objected to rental units being permitted in the neighborhood, saying that the residents in the neighborhood look out for one another and want to know their neighbors. The turn- over associated with rental units, and the character of renters, does not permit this type of neighborliness to exist. He questioned the amount of alley which would be available and which is shown on the site plan, versus the amount of alley which is in use at the present time, saying that property owners abutting the alley might have to give up some of the land which they are currently using. He stated that he and his wife oppose the development. Ms. Jean Miller, a resident of "L" St. at the north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the development. She said that traffic is heavy on the streets in the area, with traffic heading towards Kavanaugh Blvd., and that if the alley is made into a 11 FILE NO.: Z-5961 (Cont. thoroughfare, traffic will cut through the alley en route to Kavanaugh. Mr. Pat O'Dwyer, whose residence faces Tyler St., with the rear of the lot facing the subject alley, spoke in opposition to the project. He said that 8-12 additional people living on the block was too many people. He objected to the development of the alley to provide the rear access to the town4iomes or apartments, saying that it would take land from his lot, and would increase noise and litter in the alley. He said that he objected to renters living in the neighborhood. Ms. Rose Perrymore, who identified herself as a property owner living in a home which faces Tyler St., and whose rear yard faces the subject alley, said that she objects to the development. She said that the other neighbors have expressed her concerns, but added that that development would not increase property values of the single-family homes in the area. She said that everyone will eventually want to sell their home, and having apartments in the neighborhood will make it harder to sell them, since, she said, people do not want to live next door to apartments. Mr. Jerry Sears, identifying himself as owning a home which faces Tyler St. and whose rear yard abuts the subject alley at the north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He said that a 2 -story townhouse does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood; that the neighborhood does not have 2 -story building. He said that traffic, especially the traffic entering the Evergreen and Kavanaugh intersection, backs up onto Harrison and Evergreen, and that traffic cuts through the other neighborhood streets trying to avoid the intersection. He said that improving the alley will prompt drivers to cut through the alley as they head for alternate routes to avoid the Evergreen - Kavanaugh intersection. He said that, in the past few years, the property owners in the block have tried to turn the block and neighborhood around, to stop the decline and deterioration which had been occurring; that only one home in the block is now a rental unit, and the property owners do not want to see the number of rental units increased. He complained that rental units are not kept up on the outside, and renters do not participate in neighborhood clean-up and fix -up efforts. He said that all the other blocks in the area have twelve homes per block, and that their block already has twelve homes in it; that building four more living units on the block would be too dense. Dr. Metrailer, responding to the neighbors' concerns, said that he had grown up in the neighborhood; that his mother had lived in the neighborhood until she died recently and his children attend the neighborhood school. He said that he had felt that the townhome development would contribute to the neighborhood's stability and value. He had reviewed, he said, the possibility of moving onto the lots some older homes which would be renovated, but had concluded that these would not add to the value of the neighborhood. He said that with proposed rents of 7 FILE NO.: Z-5961 (Cont_. $800.00 per month, he had felt that college students would be precluded from renting the units. He related that he was proposing to maintain the exterior of the buildings and the lawns himself. Dr. Metrailer, responding—to specific complaints and concerns which neighbors had related, said that trucks parked on his property were one of the neighbor's, not his; and, he said that he had reviewed the possibility of developing the site with single-family homes, but that people do not want to live across the street from apartments, so the townhome development had seemed to be a good transition from the multi -family across the street and act as a buffer for the single-family neighborhood. He reminded the Commission that, when Mr. Sears stated that there are no two-story buildings in the neighborhood, he was omitting the information that he had recently gained approval from the Commission for an apartment unit in his back yard, and that the apartment unit is a two-story building. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the nature of the improvements to the alley and the location of garbage pick-up. Dr. Metrailer responded that the grade of the alley would be adjusted to a provide proper grade transition from Evergreen onto the alley. He explained that there would be no dumpster as a garbage container on the site; that individual garbage containers, the "green monsters", would be used. Staff interjected that, since the development is a multi -family development, normally, private dumpster service is required. Dr. Metrailer said that he had talked with sanitation, and that the townhouse development would be treated as individual homes, with "green monsters" being able to be used. Chairperson Walker confirmed with Dr. Metrailer that, if dumpster service is required, he would agree to limiting the servicing of the dumpster as suggested by staff: from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, to which Dr. Metrailer assented. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the width of the alley. Mr. Peckham responded that the plat shows a 20 foot wide alley easement, and that, to assure no conflict with existing fences or structures on the west side of the alley, the proposed site plan shows paving to begin several feet off the rear property line of the lots to the west, and, shows dedication of several feet of additional right-of-way off Dr. Metrailer's side of the alley to provide adequate maneuvering and parking space for vehicles. The space provided along the west alley easement line should, he said, provide adequate transition space between the new grade of the alley and the existing carport grades of the homes to the west. 8 FILE NO.: z-5961 (Cont. Commissioner Ball asked staff if staff had any reservations on its recommendation for approval of the development. Neighborhoods and Planning Director—Jim Lawson said that the addition of four dwelling units to the area, in an area with multi -family developments existing across the street, and where homes are built on smaller lots, would, in staff's opinion, not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification on the proximity of rental units to the proposed project site. Dr. Metrailer responded that, in addition to the 3 -story multi- family development directly across Harrision street to the east, there is a duplex development diagonally across the Harrision- Evergreen intersection from the site. He said that within a couple of blocks, there are other rental units. Chairperson Walker called the question, but, because the vote was 4 ayes, 5 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent, with the request not getting the requisite 6 votes either for or against the proposal, the item was deferred until the May 16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, and indicated that the item had been deferred from the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing due to the provision of the Commission Bylaws which provides for an automatic deferral if an item does not receive at least 6 ayes or 6 nays. Staff again recommended approval of the request, indicating that, in staff's opinion, the four -unit townhome would be a viable transition from the commercial and multi -family uses to the west across Harrison to the single-family residential area. Staff indicated that a letter from the Hillcrest Residents' Association had been received in which the Association had recommended denial of the requested PD -R, and reported that a copy of the letter had been placed at each Commissioner's desk. Dr. Metrailer, the applicant, was present. Dr. Metrailer reiterated his position from the April 4, 1995 hearing: that the lots are not attractive for development as owner -occupied single- family dwellings; that rental property, multi -family rental property, is not uncommon in the Hillcrest area; and, that the development would be an attractive addition to the area, neighborhood, and to Little Rock. He said that, with the three- story multi -family building directly across the street from his lots, with the back of a strip shopping center cater -corner to the northeast from the site, and with duplex/multi-family development cater -corner to the southeast from the site, the site is not desirable as a site on which a new owner -occupied home might be built. He presented a map showing the numerous rental units in the area. He pointed out that, with Evergreen St., the 9 FILE NO.: Z-5961 (Cont.) side street of the property, being a collector street, and with the amount of traffic which uses Evergreen St., the lots are not desirable lots for development for owner -occupied single-family dwellings. He related that he had talked with Realtors, and that they'had confirmed that a high-quality townhome development in the area would be a boon to the area. He pointed out that, architecturally, the townhome units had been designed to be complementary to and blend with the area; and, that he would commit to maintaining the yard and exterior of the townhome units. Staff pointed out that there had seemed to be some misunderstanding at the previous Commission hearing concerning the extent of the alley improvements. Staff said that the alley would be improved only in the area immediately behind the applicant's property, not the full length of the alley. The steep approach to the alley from Evergreen Dr. would be adjusted to provide a usable approach. Ms. Mary Boaz, a resident of the area, spoke for a group of residents who are in opposition to the request. She asked the group of residents who were in opposition to the item to stand, and presented each Commissioner with a copy of a petition containing 47 names of residents of the area who are in opposition to the requested re -zoning. She presented a map of the area immediately surrounding the proposed development with the households noted who were in opposition to the request, supported the request, or who had not indicated a preference. She pointed out that there is strong opposition shown. She presented a map of the immediate area which showed the number of homes which are owner -occupied homes versus rental units, and said that the area is overwhelmingly owner -occupied. She said that the neighbors do not want rental units built. She presented a map which showed the length of time people had lived in the neighborhood, and mentioned that some had been residents of the area for 30-50 years. She said that there is a strong commitment of the residents to the neighborhood, and that it is a real neighborhood. Rental units would undermine this, she said. She disputed Dr. Metrailer's contention that the lots would be undesirable for development for single-family residences, pointing out that one of the residences immediately across from the back of the shopping center had just been sold to an owner - occupant within the past year and a half; and, that she would have bought the house next door to that particular house if it had been placed on the market in lieu of being made into a rental unit. This disproves, she said, Dr. Metrailer's argument concerning the lots potential for development for single-family residential use. She said that parking would be a problem on Harrison St., since there is inadequate parking being provided for the townhomes. She reiterated that the rental units would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as it exists, and would undermine the sense of "neighborhood" which is important to the people who live in Hillcrest. She said that the two-story, zero lot line townhomes do not fit in with the cottage 10 FILE NO.: Z_= 61 ( Cont . ) character of Hillcrest, and that townhomes could affect the Hillcrest application for inclusion into a Historical District. Dr. John Graves, reporting that he was representing the Hillcrest Residents' Association, spoke in opposition to the requested PD- R. He said that the Association is an advocate for the people in the neighborhood, and, with the strong opposition to the development by the neighborhood, the Association was reflecting their position. He said that the Association was concerned that the residential integrity of the neighborhood would be adversely affected by the approval of such a townhome project. He said that the project does not conform to the predominantly single- family character of the area; that Harrison St. is a clear line of demarcation between multi -family and commercial uses and the single-family uses. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson cautioned the commission about making a decision based on whether the occupants would be renters versus owner -occupied. He said that renters cannot be seen as "second class" residents. He said that, given the fact that there are multi -family residential uses directly across the street and cater -corner across the street, with commercial uses cater -corner to the north-east, staff could support the townhome development. If these multi -family and commercial uses had not been present, then the staff recommendation would have been different. He said that he could not imagine someone building a new house at the site of the proposed development. Chairperson Walker called the question, and the item was denied with the vote of 5 ayes, 6 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 001