Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6981 Staff AnalysisMarch 8, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 NAME: Ficklin - Short -Form PD -R FILE NO.: Z-6981 LOCATION: West side of Gamble Road, approximately 600 feet south of West Markham Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Steve Ficklin White-Daters and Associates 13914 St. Michael Dr. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.43 acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: Single -Family Residential PROPOSED USE: Multi -Family Residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the 0.43 acre property on the west side of Gamble Road (approximately 600 feet south of West Markham Street) from R-2 to PD -R to allow for the construction of an eight (8) unit condominium development. The applicant notes that the project will be developed as a horizontal property regime, where each individual unit will be sold with the entirety of the property being a single ownership, governed by a property owner's association. The applicant also notes that the project will be very similar in design to the PD -R development immediately west of this site. The proposed site plan includes two (2) four -unit condominium buildings (two stories each), with a single access point from Gamble Road. Each unit will have a single car garage, with a two -car driveway leading to each unit. March 8, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6981 The proposed site plan also shows a ground -mounted sign along the north side of the driveway. The applicant notes that the sign will conform to city standards for multifamily zoning (maximum height - 6 feet, maximum area - 24 square feet). The applicant also notes that there will be no dumpster on the site, and the project will utilize city garbage collection. The site plan also notes two (2) mail kiosks which will serve the units. The applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment for this property from office to multifamily (Item 5.1 on this agenda). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and grass -covered. There are few existing trees on the site. There is an office/commercial building to the north, with another office building further north across Stacy Lane. There are single-family residences to the south, with one single-family residence and the Bale Chevrolet detail shop across Gamble Road to the east. There are additional single-family residences to the southeast and a church to the northeast. There is a similar condominium development to the west, with a large apartment complex (Shadow Lakes Apartments) further west across Farris Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls regarding this project, but no voiced opposition. The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Gamble Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to this street including 5 -foot sidewalk with planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. K March 8, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. E F FILE NO.: Z-6981 4. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to construction. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comment received. ARKIA : No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: Contact the Water Works regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. Fire Department: No Comment. Countv Planning: No Comment. CATA: Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannina Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development -Residential for condominiums. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Multi -family is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal listed three action statements relevant to this case. The first action statement states, "Require City Staff to ensure a mix of single-family and multi- family in newly developing areas, allowing the multi -family K, March 8, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6981 to act as a buffer between single family and office." The second action statement states, "Require all rental complexes (multi -family and single-family) and grounds to be maintained in a high-quality manner citywide." The third action statement states, "Develop ordinance for Rock Creek Neighborhood Plan area to limit/density/square footage of property wherever multi -family housing is approved." Landscape Issues: The landscape strip along the western perimeter must not drop below a width of 6.7 feet. The proposed structure encroaches one -foot into the 9 -foot wide land use buffer required along the southern perimeter of the site. At least 70% of this buffer is required to remain undisturbed. If a utility easement is present, it cannot be counted as part of the land use buffer area. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern perimeter. A water source will be required within 75 feet of all landscaped areas. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 15, 2001) Joe White was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the PD -R request and noted that some additional information was needed. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. White noted that these requirements would be complied with. The landscaping requirements were also discussed. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, noted that the south and west buffer areas needed to be increased. Mr. White indicated that the site plan would be revised accordingly. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PD -R to the full Commission for resolution. 4 March 8, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6981 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on February 21, 2001. The revised plan addresses the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The revised plan provides for the required landscape and buffer areas along the west and south property lines. The revised plan also shows a six (6) foot screening fence along the south property line. The site plan shows a total of 16 parking spaces (one garage space and one driveway space per unit) to serve the development. The ordinance would typically require a minimum of 12 spaces for the development. Staff supports the parking plan as proposed. To staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD -R rezoning. The applicant has noted that all Public Works and Planning requirements will be complied with. As noted in paragraph A., this project will be very similar in design to the PD -R condominium development immediately west, which fronts on Farris Street. The proposed condominium development should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approved of the PD -R rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. The ground -mounted sign must not exceed the city standards for multifamily zoning (maximum height - 6 feet, maximum area - 24 square feet). 3. Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away from adjacent residential property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 2001) Joe White was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition of the PD -R rezoning. Chairman Rector asked to hear from the objector first. Matthew Carman addressed the Commission. He asked about the notification process. The required notices to property owners 5 March 8, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6981 and residents were discussed. Staff also noted that the Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. Mr. Carman noted that he was opposed to the PD -R application. Staff presented the PD -R with a recommendation of approval as noted in paragraph I. of the agenda report. Joe White addressed the Commission in support of the proposed development. He noted that he contacted three (3) neighborhood associations and that only one (1) returned his call and that the association only had questions about the development. He noted that this proposed development is very similar to the PD -R (condo) development immediately west of the site. Mr. Carman noted that there were no apartments along Gamble Road. He noted opposition to the multifamily development of this property. Chairman Rector noted that these units would be owner -occupied. Mr. Carman stated that he objected to any multifamily development of this property. Mr. White noted that the units would initially be leased and then sold. He stated that the units would be constructed as units for sale, with firewalls. Commissioner Rahman asked Mr. Carman if he would be opposed to an office development on this property. Mr. Carman stated that he would rather have an office development. Commissioner Berry asked about the allowed building height in office zoning. Staff noted that 0-3 zoning allowed a building height of 45 feet. Commissioner Berry made additional comments concerning multifamily developments. Mr. Carman asked if this development would be connected to the condo development to the west. Mr. White stated that it would not. There was a motion to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 abstention (Lowry) and 2 absent. There was a second motion to approve the PD -R rezoning as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. The applications were approved. r; FILE NO.: Z-6981 NAME: Ficklin - Short -Form PD -R LOCATION: West side of Gamble Road, approximately 600 feet south of West Markham Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Steve Ficklin White-Daters and Associates 13914 St. Michael Dr. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.43 acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: Single -Family Residential PROPOSED USE: Multi -Family Residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the 0.43 acre property on the west side of Gamble Road (approximately 600 feet south of West Markham Street) from R-2 to PD -R to allow for the construction of an eight (8) unit condominium development. The applicant notes that the project will be developed as a horizontal property regime, where each individual unit will be sold with the entirety of the property being a single ownership, governed by a property owner's association. The applicant also notes that the project will be very similar in design to the PD -R development immediately west of this site. The proposed site plan includes two (2) four -unit condominium buildings (two stories each), with a single access point from Gamble Road. Each unit will have a single car garage, with a two -car driveway leading to each unit. FILE NO.: Z-6981 (Cont.) The proposed site plan also shows a ground -mounted sign along the north side of the driveway. The applicant notes that the sign will conform to city standards for multifamily zoning (maximum height - 6 feet, maximum area - 24 square feet) . The applicant also notes that there will be no dumpster on the site, and the project will utilize city garbage collection. The site plan also notes two (2) mail kiosks which will serve the units. The applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment for this property from office to multifamily (Item 5.1 on this agenda). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and grass -covered. There are few existing trees on the site. There is an office/commercial building to the north, with another office building further north across Stacy Lane. There are single-family residences to the south, with one single-family residence and the Bale Chevrolet detail shop across Gamble Road to the east. There are additional single-family residences to the southeast and a church to the northeast. There is a similar condominium development to the west, with a large apartment complex (Shadow Lakes Apartments) further west across Farris Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls regarding this project, but no voiced opposition. The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Gamble Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to this street including 5 -foot sidewalk with planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to construction. 2 FILE NO.: Z-6981 (Cont.) E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comment received. ARKLA: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: Contact the Water Works regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. Fire Department: No Comment. County Planning: No Comment. CATA: Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development -Residential for condominiums. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Multi -family is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal listed three action statements relevant to this case. The first action statement states, "Require City Staff to ensure a mix of single-family and multi- family in newly developing areas, allowing the multi -family to act as a buffer between single family and office." The second action statement states, "Require all rental complexes (multi -family and single-family) and grounds to be maintained in a high-quality manner citywide." The third action statement states, "Develop ordinance for Rock K3 FILE NO.: Z-6981 (Cont.) Creek Neighborhood Plan area to limit/density/square footage of property wherever multi -family housing is approved." Landscape Issues: The landscape strip along the western perimeter must not drop below a width of 6.7 feet. The proposed structure encroaches one -foot into the 9 -foot wide land use buffer required along the southern perimeter of the site. At least 70% of this buffer is required to remain undisturbed. If a utility easement is present, it cannot be counted as part of the land use buffer area. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern perimeter. A water source will be required within 75 feet of all landscaped areas. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 15, 2001) Joe White was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the PD -R request and noted that some additional information was needed. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. White noted that these requirements would be complied with. The landscaping requirements were also discussed. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, noted that the south and west buffer areas needed to be increased. Mr. White indicated that the site plan would be revised accordingly. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PD -R to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on February 21, 2001. The revised plan addresses the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The revised plan provides for the required landscape and buffer areas along the west and south property lines. The revised 4 FILE NO.: Z-6981 (Cont.) plan also shows a six (6) foot screening fence along the south property line. The site plan shows a total of 16 parking spaces (one garage space and one driveway space per unit) to serve the development. The ordinance would typically require a minimum of 12 spaces for the development. Staff supports the parking plan as proposed. To staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD -R rezoning. The applicant has noted that all Public Works and Planning requirements will be complied with. As noted in paragraph A., this project will be very similar in design to the PD -R condominium development immediately west, which fronts on Farris Street. The proposed condominium development should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approved of the PD -R rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. The ground -mounted sign must not exceed the city standards for multifamily zoning (maximum height - 6 feet, maximum area - 24 square feet). 3. Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away from adjacent residential property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 2001) Joe White was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition of the PD -R rezoning. Chairman Rector asked to hear from the objector first. Matthew Carman addressed the Commission. He asked about the notification process. The required notices to property owners and residents were discussed. Staff also noted that the Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. Mr. Carman noted that he was opposed to the PD -R application. Staff presented the PD -R with a recommendation of approval as noted in paragraph I. of the agenda report. Joe White addressed the Commission in support of the proposed development. He noted that he contacted three (3) neighborhood associations and that only one (1) returned his call and that 5 FILE NO.: Z-6981 (Cont.) the association only had questions about the development. He noted that this proposed development is very similar to the PD -R (condo) development immediately west of the site. Mr. Carman noted that there were no apartments along Gamble Road. He noted opposition to the multifamily development of this property. Chairman Rector noted that these units would be owner -occupied. Mr. Carman stated that he objected to any multifamily development of this property. Mr. White noted that the units would initially be leased and then sold. He stated that the units would be constructed as units for sale, with firewalls. Commissioner Rahman asked Mr. Carman if he would be opposed to an office development on this property. Mr. Carman stated that he would rather have an office development. Commissioner Berry asked about the allowed building height in office zoning. Staff noted that 0-3 zoning allowed a building height of 45 feet. Commissioner Berry made additional comments concerning multifamily developments. Mr. Carman asked if this development would be connected to the condo development to the west. Mr. White stated that it would not. There was a motion to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 abstention (Lowry) and 2 absent. There was a second motion to approve the PD -R rezoning as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. The applications were approved. Ci