Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7282 Staff AnalysisDecember 19, 2002 ITEM NO.: B.1 NAME: Griffin Short -form PD -R LOCATION: 2701 — 2723 Walker Street DEVELOPER: Christopher L. Griffin 8212 Pine Summit Court Little Rock, AR 72204 1=K1r1IAIFFR- Marvin T. Griffin 11324 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.75 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family (24 units per acre) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: O.: Z-7282 FT. NEW STREET: 0 The applicant proposes the construction of 18 units of multi -family housing on this 0.75 acre site. The site will be accessed by a single entry from Walker Street with all the parking spaces heading into the buildings. There are 32 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont) FILE NO.: Z-7282 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant, flat, grass covered site and the few trees, which once occupied the site have been removed. The area is primarily developed as single- family in all directions around the site. There is a sidewalk along West 28th Street adjacent to the site and running west but not extending any further to the east. West 28th Street also has curb and gutter in place. Walker Street is an unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the development. The John Barrow, the Campus Place, the Westbrook, the Kensington Place Neighborhood Association, all residents, who could be identified, within 300 -feet of the site and all property owners within 200 -feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. Walker Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at 28th Street and Walker Street. 3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. (Street width on 28th Street is adequate.) 4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. Edge of driveway on Walker must have minimum 25' spacing from property line. As an alternative, take access from 28th Street. 5. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. 6. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance does not apply to this property. Oa December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-7282 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project. Capacity Contribution Analysis is required. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 for additional details. AP & L: No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 regarding water service to this development. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 319-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: The site is no located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: The request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development — Residential for apartments (18 Units). A Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-10-04). City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan. The housing and neighborhood revitalization goal of improving the overall appearance and safety of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of reviewing design standards for new construction of residential units, which is supported by an action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be compatible with existing architecture in the area. Landscape: The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum nine (9) foot wide land use buffer, or the minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a 3 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7282 wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern, southern and eastern perimeters of the site. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 29, 2002) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item to the Committee indicating the intent of the development. Staff stated there were technical issues associated with the proposed development and Staff would work with the applicant to resolve these issues prior to the Commission meeting. The Committee then determined there were no further issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant has not submitted a revised plan to staff therefore, there are several technical issues which still need to be resolved. The applicant has not indicated the location of the dumpster. It is possible the dumpster could be located at the end of the driveway in the parking area to the north. The applicant will be required to fully screen the dumpster as required by the ordinance, three sides at least two feet above the top of the dumpster. The applicant also has not relocated the driveway. In Staff's opinion the development and the neighborhood would be better served if the driveway were moved to West 28th Street and access were not allowed from Walker Street. There would be an estimated 150 to 200 trips per day generated from the development. West 28th Street, in some areas, has been constructed to Master Street Plan Standard and is classified as a collector street while Walker Street is an unimproved roadway adjacent to the site and is classified as a residential street. (The portion of Walker Street south of the site, from West 28th Street to Asher Avenue is classified as a collector street and has been constructed.) Staff feels the bulk of the traffic should be routed to the collector street. The applicant has also not indicated screening and landscaping. The applicant will be required to install a nine (9) foot wide buffer along the northern perimeter of the site and a six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence or dense evergreen plantings, along the northern, southern and eastern perimeters of the site. Although, there are many technical questions left unanswered, Staff feels the issues can be "flushed out" at the Public Hearing. 4 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7282 Staff is not supportive of the application, as filed. The proposed density of the development is too intense for this site. The site is situated in the heart of a single-family neighborhood and the area of the proposed development is much too small to accommodate a development of this intensity. Furthermore, Walker Street is an unimproved chip seal roadway with open ditches for drainage. Even though the applicant would be required to install street improvements adjacent to the site, the remainder of Walker Street would remain in its current conditions. The area has "turned around" in the past few years with several new single- family homes having been built. A development of this intensity could reverse the trend of the neighborhood and cause the area to begin a decline or become stagnant. Staff feels a development of this intensity would be better served by locating nearer Asher Avenue, John Barrow Road or West 12th Street. Staff does not feel the placement of 18 multi -family units on this site is an appropriate measure. Staff feels a development of 24 -units per acre is much too intense for this site but a development of lower density might be appropriate as in -fill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested application for Griffin Short -form PD -R as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 2002) Mr. Christopher Griffin was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the October 31, 2002 Public Hearing to allow Mr. Griffin time to work with the neighborhood on issues associated with the proposed development, to review the proposed density and possible reduce the density. Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the By -Laws. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to waive the By -Laws and place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral to the October 31, 2002 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for Deferral and approved, as recommended by Staff, by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 2002) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request for the item to be deferred to the December 19, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of this request. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 5 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: FILE NO.: Z-7282 (DECEMBER 19, 2002) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had verbally requested this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request for withdrawal. Staff stated the applicant had indicated he was not ready to move forward with a development at this time and would resubmit an application when his development plans were firmed -up. There was no further discussion. The application was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 1.1