Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7258 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7258 NAME: BLS, LLC Short -from PD -R LOCATION: 321 Rose Street DEVELOPER: BLS Propoerties, LLC 1605 Tyler Street Little Rock, AR 72204 AREA: 0.16 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two-family ALLOWED USES: Two-family dwellings PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Triplex ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Hensley, AR 72065 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to redevelop the structure located at 321 Rose Street into a triplex. The site was built as a two story structure in the 1970's with two units on the main level and two units on the lower level; at walkout level. The lower units were constructed with the wastewater systems installed at the time of original construction but the units on the lower level were never completed. The building has been functioning as a duplex unit since construction. The applicant proposes no additional footprint expansion and no additional exterior construction. Concrete patios will be poured for the lower units and the FILE NO.: Z-7258 Cont.) proposal includes a six (6) foot privacy fence to separate the outdoor living spaces. The applicant is proposing to place two parking spaces to the south of the structure, which will be accessed by the functioning alley, and two spaces adjacent to C Street. The new parking pad adjacent to C Street will require a curb cut. The parking cover over the alley spaces will remain but will be rehabbed. The applicant is proposing a six (6) foot wood privacy fence along the east property line and a four (4) foot wrought iron fence along the right-of-way line and adjacent to the parking pad on the south side of the property. The applicant is proposing landscaping along the rear property line and installing sod in the front yard, adjacent to Rose Street. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a functioning duplex with the units on the main level currently under extensive rehabilitation. The area is a mixture of single family and multi -family structures on R-2 and R-4 zoned properties. The alley running east to west beside the structure is a functioning alley and has recently been resurfaced. The street is a typical Hillcrest residential city street with curb and gutter and no sidewalks on the site adjacent to the applicant's property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All residents within 200 feet of the site, the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing staff has received several phone calls requesting additional information from the area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Maximum driveway width on "C" Street is limited to 20 feet. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Curb is in extremely poor condition. 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7258 Cont. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning.: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUESITECHNICALIDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The property is zoned R-4, Two -Family and the applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. A land use plan amendment in not required for this application for the following reasons: 1) the application of a PRD will illustrate all changes to the property, 2) this is an existing structure that from the street has the perception of three units already, 3) there is no change in the footprint or exterior of the building, 4) it was originally built as a four-plex, and 5) Staff would not expand the application since the Neighborhood Action plan is due for a review in a year or so and 6) the "general" nature of the land use plan, together with the small area of the application. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan contains an action statement in the chapter on Zoning and Land Use, which calls for allowing no more than eight dwelling units per residential structure. Landscape: The land use buffer and perimeter landscaping strips along the eastern perimeter drop below the minimum width requirement of 6.7 feet. This takes into account the reduction allowed within the designated "Mature Area". This is a requirement of both the landscape and zoning ordinances. Building Codes: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 17, 2002) Mr. Shane Scott, the applicant, was present representing the application. Staff described the proposed project indicating the building was currently functioning as a duplex. Staff stated the unit was two story and the bottom story had not been finished out. Staff stated Mr. Scott had indicated the plumbing had been stubbed out in the lower level and on one side of the basement stud walls had been put in place but sheetrock had never been installed. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7258 (Cont.) Staff stated there were concerns with the driveway locations and the street intersection. Staff stated the western most parking space on both the north and south proposed parking pads should be removed and the driveway narrowed to 20 -feet. Staff stated the proposed landscaping did not meet the minimum width requirement of 6.7 feet. Staff stated with the removal of the parking space the applicant would be better able to meet his minimum landscaping requirements. Staff stated the development would typically require a minimum of six (6) parking spaces. Staff stated they did not believe the applicant could meet the typical ordinance requirements for parking and landscaping with a four-plex. Staff stated they felt the developer was trying to over -build the site and density was the primary issue. Staff stated the applicant should consider a triplex instead. Staff stated with a triplex development the developer could meet the minimum ordinance requirements with regard to parking and landscaping and still develop the site at a greater density than the current density. Staff noted the applicant would be required to repair and/or replace curb and gutter or sidewalk that was damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Staff noted the curb in the area was in extremely poor condition. There being no further issues, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted to staff a revised drawing on July 23, 2002. The applicant indicated there would not be any additional signage as a result of the project. The applicant has removed the indicated parking space adjacent to Rose Street and indicated the space will be designated as No Parking. The applicant has revised his application to include a triplex as opposed to the fourplex as was originally submitted. The applicant has indicated there will be two units located on the north end of the structure; one on upper level and one on the lower level. The third unit will be located in the southern end of the building and will be a townhouse unit. The applicant is proposing the townhouse unit to be a three (3) bedroom, two (2) bath unit. The applicant is proposing four parking spaces with the development. He has indicated two (2) spaces will be accessed from C Street and two (2) spaces accessed from the alleyway. The existing carport located adjacent to the alleyway will remain but will be totally rehabbed. The parking adjacent to C Street will not be covered parking. As stated the applicant has indicated four (4) on-site parking spaces. The parking proposed appears to be adequate to serve three (3) units. The typical ordinance requirement for a multi -family development of this size would be four (4) spaces. 4 LE NO.: Z-7258 (Cont. The applicant has indicated increased landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed landscaping is sufficient to meet the Landscaping Ordinance requirement but does however fall below the landuse buffer requirement in two places, the patio area outside the townhouse and the stairway leading the to the lower story unit on the north end of the building. Staff recommends the applicant increase the landscape strip outside the townhouse to the minimum 6.7 -feet landuse buffer. Staff is supportive of the reduced landuse buffer at the stairway. The site is such that the stairway is located in the most conducive location due to the terrain and the applicant has indicated a six (6) foot wood privacy fence to be located along the eastern property line, which would act as a screening device for the residents to the east. Staff is supportive of the application for development of the site as a triplex. The applicant has reduced the number of units to allow on-site parking for the proposed density. The applicant is not proposing any exterior changes to the building footprint nor the structure. The unit has the appearance of a triplex with three doors facing Rose Street, although the third door does not access the lower unit. The property is currently zoned R-4, two-family district which encourage duplex development at appropriate locations. The applicant has indicated willingness to repair and replace curb and gutter, (there are not sidewalks located on the applicant's property) to C Street but is requesting a waiver of the repair of the curb along Rose Street. Currently a "No Parking" designation is adjacent to the applicant's property frontage on Rose Street and C Street. Staff is supportive of the request to waive the rehab of curb and gutter repair along Rose Street. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 2002) Mr. Shane Scott was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Mr. Brett Rogers addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Rogers stated his primary opposition was to the lack of parking. He stated the area was a difficult area with the majority of the property owners parking on the street. He stated the neighborhood was also plagued with UAMS employees parking well into the neighborhood. He stated the UAMS Guesthouse was currently under construction and there were concerns the parking proposed would not be adequate to serve the facility. He stated the approval of the increased density was premature without finding the full impact of the UAMS Guesthouse. 5 FILE NO.: Z-7258 (Cont. Ms. Judy Rudd spoke in opposition to the application. She stated she was the owner of the home at 322 Rose Street and had live in the house for three years prior to moving to her new home. She stated parking was a major concern. She stated the units were proposed with seven (7) bedrooms and only four parking spaces. She stated the proposed parking would not accommodate the number of persons which would be living in the units. Ms. Rudd also stated Rose Street was a primary "cut -through" for motorist from West Markham Street to Lee Street. Mr. Shane Scott, the applicant, stated his company had recently acquired the property. He stated the property was currently in disrepair and his desire was to bring the site back to its full grander. He stated he was currently renovating the upstairs units and the desire was to construct a townhouse type unit on the south end to the property and a top and bottom unit on the north end of the structure. Commissioner Rector questioned if the applicant could add an additional parking space adjacent to C Street. Staff stated the original proposal included three spaces on the north and south ends of the site. Staff stated due to proximity of street intersections and landscaping concerns Staff had requested the applicant remove those spaces. Staff stated the applicant would be required to go before the City Beautiful Commission to be awarded the reduced landscaping. There was a general discussion concerning the character of the neighborhood and the availability of parking. A motion was made to approve the application as filed. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. August 8, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 NAME: BLS, LLC Short -from PD -R LOCATION: 321 Rose Street DEVELOPER: BLS Propoerties, LLC 1605 Tyler Street Little Rock, AR 72204 AREA: 0.16 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two-family ALLOWED USES: Two-family dwellings PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Triplex FILE NO.: Z-725 PNrINFFR. Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Hensley, AR 72065 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to redevelop the structure located at 321 Rose Street into a triplex. The site was built as a two story structure in the 1970's with two units on the main level and two units on the lower level; at walkout level. The lower units were constructed with the wastewater systems installed at the time of original construction but the units on the lower level were never completed. The building has been functioning as a duplex unit since construction. The applicant proposes no additional footprint expansion and no additional exterior construction. Concrete patios will be poured for the lower units and the August 8, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7258 proposal includes a six (6) foot privacy fence to separate the outdoor living spaces. The applicant is proposing to place two parking spaces to the south of the structure, which will be accessed by the functioning alley, and two spaces adjacent to C Street. The new parking pad adjacent to C Street will require a curb cut. The parking cover over the alley spaces will remain but will be rehabbed. The applicant is proposing a six (6) foot wood privacy fence along the east property line and a four (4) foot wrought iron fence along the right-of�-way line and adjacent to the parking pad on the south side of the property. The applicant is proposing landscaping along the rear property line and installing sod in the front yard, adjacent to Rose Street. - B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a functioning duplex with the units on the main level currently under extensive rehabilitation. The area is a mixture of single family and multi -family structures on R-2 and R-4 zoned properties. The alley running east to west beside the structure is a functioning alley and has recently been resurfaced. The street is a typical Hillcrest residential city street with curb and gutter and no sidewalks on the site adjacent to the applicant's property: C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS.- All OMMENTS: All residents within 200 feet of the site, the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing staff has received several phone calls requesting additional information from the area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Maximum driveway width on "C" Street is limited to 20 feet. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Curb is in extremely poor condition. 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. ENTERGY: No comment received. 2 August 8, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7258 ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Plannin No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The property is zoned R-4, Two -Family and the applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. A land use plan amendment in not required for this application for the following reasons: 1) the application of a PRD will illustrate all changes to the property, 2) this is an existing structure that from the street has the perception of three units already, 3) there is no change in the footprint or exterior of the building, 4) it was originally built as a four-plex, and 5) Staff would not expand the application since the Neighborhood Action plan is due for a review in a year or so and 6) the "general" nature of the land use plan, together with the small area of the application. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan contains an action statement in the chapter on Zoning and Land Use, which calls for allowing no more than eight dwelling units per residential structure. Landscape: The land use buffer and perimeter landscaping strips along the eastern perimeter drop below the minimum width requirement of 6.7 feet. This takes into account the reduction allowed within the designated "Mature Area". This is a requirement of both the landscape and zoning ordinances. Building Codes: No comment. 3 August 8, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont) FILE NO.: Z-7258 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 17, 2002) Mr. Shane Scott, the applicant, was present representing the application. Staff described the proposed project indicating the building was currently functioning as a duplex. Staff stated the unit was two story and the bottom story had not been finished out. Staff stated Mr. Scott had indicated the plumbing had been stubbed out in the lower level and on one side of the basement stud walls had been put in place but sheetrock had never been installed. Staff stated there were concerns with the driveway locations and the street intersection. Staff stated the western most parking space on both the north and south proposed parking pads should be removed and the driveway narrowed to 20 -feet. Staff stated the proposed landscaping did not meet the minimum width requirement of 6.7 feet. Staff stated with the removal of the parking space the applicant would be better able to meet his minimum landscaping requirements. Staff stated the development would typically require a minimum of six (6) parking spaces. Staff stated they did not believe the applicant could meet the typical ordinance requirements for parking and landscaping with a four-plex. Staff stated they felt the developer was trying to over -build the site and density was the primary issue. Staff stated the applicant should consider a triplex instead. Staff stated with a triplex development the developer could meet the minimum ordinance requirements with regard to parking and landscaping and still develop the site at a greater density than the current density. Staff noted the applicant would be required to repair and/or replace curb and gutter or sidewalk that was damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Staff noted the curb in the area was in extremely poor condition. There being no further issues, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS - The applicant submitted to staff a revised drawing on July 23, 2002. The applicant indicated there would not be any additional signage as a result of the project. The applicant has removed the indicated parking space adjacent to Rose Street and indicated the space will be designated as No Parking. The applicant has revised his application to include a triplex as opposed to the fourplex as was originally submitted. The applicant has indicated there will be two units located on the north end of the structure; one on upper level and one on the lower level. The third unit will be located in the southern end of the building and will be a townhouse unit. The applicant is proposing the townhouse unit to be a three (3) bedroom, two (2) bath unit. 0 August 8, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7258 The applicant is proposing four parking spaces with the development. He has indicated two (2) spaces will be accessed from C Street and two (2) spaces accessed from the alleyway. The existing carport located adjacent to the alleyway will remain but will be totally rehabbed. The parking adjacent to C Street will not be covered parking. As stated the applicant has indicated four (4) on-site parking spaces. The parking proposed appears to be adequate to serve three (3) units. The typical ordinance requirement for a multi -family development of this size would be four (4) spaces. The applicant has indicated increased landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed landscaping is sufficient to meet the Landscaping Ordinance requirement but does however fall below the landuse buffer requirement in two places, the patio area outside the townhouse and the stairyvay leading the to the lower story unit on the north end of the building. Staff recommends the applicant increase the landscape strip outside the townhouse to the minimum 6.7 -feet landuse buffer. Staff is supportive of the reduced landuse buffer at the stairway. The site is such that the stairway is located in the most conducive location due to the terrain and the applicant has indicated a six (6) foot wood privacy fence to be located along the eastern property line, which would act as a screening device for the residents to the east. Staff is supportive of the application for development of the site as a triplex. The applicant has reduced the number of units to allow on-site parking for the proposed density. The applicant is not proposing any exterior changes to the building footprint nor the structure. The unit has the appearance of a triplex with three doors facing Rose Street, although the third door does not access the lower unit. The property is currently zoned R-4, two-family district which encourage duplex development at appropriate locations. The applicant has indicated willingness to repair and replace curb and gutter, (there are not sidewalks located on the applicant's property) to C Street but is requesting a waiver of the repair of the curb along Rose Street. Currently a "No Parking" designation is adjacent to the applicant's property frontage on Rose Street and C Street. Staff is supportive of the request to waive the rehab of curb and gutter repair along Rose Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 5