HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6376 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.• Z-6376
NAME: Coleman PD -R Short -Form
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER•
307 Farris Street
Stephen Coleman
#9 Gravelle Dr.
Little Rock, AR
868-7737
AREA: .50± acres
ENGINEERISURVEYOR:
Donald Brooks
1611 Main Street
72211 No. Little Rock, AR
372-2131
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: R-2 Single Family
Proposed "PD -R"
VARIANCES WAIVERS REQUESTED:
BACKGROUND•
ALLOWED USES: Currently Single
Family
PROPOSED USE: Six dwellings in
two structures
None
A
These two parcels are extracts from a larger tract that involves
much of this block. The land has remained zoned R-2 Single
Family since annexation. There has been much redevelopment on
property adjacent as office, multifamily and on Markham Street to
the north one block is Bale Chevrolet. There have been sporadic
single family lot developments over the past 10 or 15 years.
Mostly to the south.
A. PROPOSAL•
The owner will construct two buildings with three lots each
facing a central parking area with a minimum of 12 parking
spaces. One driveway off Farris Street will serve the site.
Screening and landscaping are proposed to meet code. The
buildings will be two story with brick and vinyl exterior.
The units will be 1,260 square feet of living space with one
car garage and patios.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is somewhat sparse. However, there are a number of
large trees the owner proposes to save. The terrain is a
moderate slope from street to rear of twelve feet plus or
minus. Adjacent uses are: Office and residential to the
north; west is a large apartment project; south is single
family and on Gamble Road to the east are vacant R-2 zoned
lots.
FILE
C.
E.
F.
Z-6376 (Cont.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None received at this writing. One information call was
received.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Farris Street has 27 feet of pavement. Dedication of
right-of-way will be required to 30 feet from
centerline.
2. Farris Street will need to be improved to commercial
street standards in accordance with the Master Street
plan for construction and plans submitted for review and
approval.
3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
4. Delete circle drive entrance or increase diameter of
circle drive to 46 feet minimum.
5. Provide 8 feet deep by 10 feet wide with 5 foot radii
backout at east end at parking lot for vehicles to
backout and exit lot.
6. Contact 317-4452 for barricade permit and curb cut
permit.
UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not affected.
AP&L: No Comment.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: Easements needed.
Water: No Comment.
Fire Department: Remove island from driveway.
County Plannin No Comment - inside city
LATA:
No comment - no general daily service nearby - Wal-Mart at
Bowman nearest service - West Markham route.
ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape:
The proposed patio area protrudes four feet into the six
foot wide minimum land use buffer required along the
northern and southern perimeters of the site. A six high
opaque wood fence or dense evergreen plantings are required
along the northern, southern and eastern property lines.
K
FILE. NO.: Z-6376 (Cont.) — —
Planning Division:
The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan
recommends Office. The request is for Multifamily. The
requested zoning is PRD at a density of almost 14 units per
acre. The surrounding land use is a mix of residential and
office. To the north is primarily office use. The use to
the south is a single family home. The only Plan amendments
in this area have been along Chenal Parkway, west of Gamble.
The immediate area has not been modified since the Plan was
adopted in 1990. This is a location that should be designed
to assure compatibility with the existing single family.
Therefore a low scale office or low density multifamily use
could be considered. Since the single family use to the
south accesses Gamble not Ferris, while this development
accesses only Ferris, there will be a perceived separation.
With the conversion of areas from residential to
nonresidential use in the Bowman Road area, some additional
residential would be appropriate. As stated above, the use
on this site should be designed to be compatible with
existing single family. Therefore any change in the Plan
should be to Low Density Multifamily, Suburban Office or
Single Family. The proposed use is too intense.
G. ANALYSIS•
The staff review revealed a number of design issues that
require attention prior to commission action. These are:
1. Many critical dimensions are absent.
2. The access street is not dimensioned with respect to
right-of-way or pavement.
3. The decks require identification of construction type
height, covering, etc.
4. A section through the site is needed?
5. Ground treatment should be shown.
6. Work is needed on parking layout and maneuver area.
7. Show screening and buffers.
8. Dumpster site should be shown.
9. Identify rounded projections in front of units,
landscaped islands?
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
This plan like many small projects does not have severe
design problems but there are enough to challenge the
flexibility of the PZD process. Staff feels that given
these design problems and the land use/density question of
planning staff, that the project be redesigned to reduce the
unit count. The current 12 per acre should be closer to
MF -6 density.
3
FILE NO.; Z-6375 Cont.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COM ONT: (AUGUST 28, 1997)
The Committee, applicant and staff discussed the design issues at
length, especially the drive and parking, setbacks and buffering.
The applicant indicated he would make adjustments in the plan
where feasible to absorb the needed landscaping and buffering,
address the staff and Public Work concerns.
The Committee directed the applicant to return to staff a revised
site plan by Thursday, September 4 in order to receive
consideration at the September 18 public hearing.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and section through
the site that answered the basic questions of Planning Staff.
There remains a question about perimeter landscaping.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997)
Richard Wood of Staff presented this item and updated the
Commission on staff recommendation. Wood pointed out that the
design, while not what we would normally support was very near
acceptable. Wood stated this item was left on regular agenda
because it was in staff opinion a matter that deserved a thorough
public discussion. He said that while there are some marginal
design issues, a primary reason for staff recommendation is the
density the density being closely associated with the design
problems. A reduction by one unit was suggested. The Chairman
then asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Coleman came to the
podium and stated he did not understand staff comment about
density. Wood responded by offering the same statement as
presented in the Planning Comments in this agenda. That is the
plan indicated fewer units or less density. He said 5 would give
more flexibility in design. The chair then asked Coleman if he
had any discussion with staff about the density issue. He said
no. Commissioner Putnam then offered comments on what was
discussed at Subdivision Committee meeting. Wood responded to
that by saying staff "Doesn't raise land use issues at
Subdivision Committee meetings."
The primary reason for this procedure is avoidance of presenting
recommendations at that time.
Commissioner Putnam then offered several comments on how this
process divides the matter and how the issue passes over to a
different base when it reaches public hearing. Staff pointed out
that the comments of Planning Staff are presented in the agenda.
Chairman Lichty asked Commissioner Putnam whether he had a
problem with the application as chair of the Committee. He
stated he did not and asked that Commissioner Rahman comment.
4
FILE NO.i Z-6376 (Cont.
Commissioner Rahman said he had no problem with it and did not
remember the density issue.
Chairman Lichty then asked staff if it was staff opinion that if
approved this application would be in conflict with the plan.
The staff response was that the language in the agenda is not
that strong. In responding to the Chairman's question, Wood
stated that he did not write the recommendation but that he felt
the issue of density was border line. Commissioner Putnam
agreed. The Chairman then addressed Mr. Coleman again, asking if
he had anything else to say. Again, he stated he did not
understand how one unit made a difference. Mr. Coleman offered
comments on his project design elements, retaining large trees
and what the neighboring uses were. Commissioner Rahman then
asked Mr. Coleman if he had a problem with reducing the density.
Several persons offered comments (garbled). Staff again
explained what was intended by the recommendation and how it
related to the design being so tight. Wood suggested that while
the plan is still very tight the owner has worked with staff to
resolve much of the site design issues. However, in doing so now
offers more paved surface in the rear yard for dumpsters or back
out space. Wood pointed out this design is tight.
Again, Commissioner Putnam went over what was discussed and
resolved at committee level.
Again, staff responded that the agenda contains a lengthy
thorough write-up on the density issue.
The applicant was again addressed by Commissioner Rahman. The
previous question of can he reduce his density or will he? Mr.
Coleman said that if he responded by saying yes, then it might be
looked upon as better. He asked what is to gain by reducing.
The answer from the chairman was the number of people on a plat
of land. The Chair addressed all participants by setting the
point of the applicant, staff, Subdivision Committee, etc. Again
reminding all that staff said this is border line. The Chair
asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak on this. He
then stated the Chair was open for a motion. Commissioner Putnam
offered a motion to approve the application as resolved by
Subdivision Committee. The motion produced a vote of 9 ayes, 1
noe and 1 absent.
5