Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7722 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7722 NAME: Lagniappe Addition Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and "I" Street DEVELOPER: Lagniappe Addition, LLC 2106 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential — currently six platted lots PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential — four lots proposed VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variance — 1. A variance to allow the development of pipe stem lots and a variance to allow a reduced width of a pipe stem lot. 2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2 (15 -feet). 3. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. 4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for Lots 1 — 4 (5 -feet). A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot and two tract development through a PD -R. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated the FILE NO.: Z-7722 minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. A fifteen foot building line is being requested along "I" Street, which will act as the side yard for Lot 1. The side yards within the development are proposed as five feet. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The screening fence will add privacy for the future homeowners as well as the existing homeowners in the area. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 -foot access and utility easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single family home located on six previously platted lots abutting "I" Street to the south and Alsop Park to the north. "I" Street is a narrow roadway along the southern perimeter of the site. The area is characterized by single-family homes located on 50 -foot by 150 -foot lots; many of the homes sitting on two lots. Immediately adjacent to the site, to the east, is a single-family home located on a large tract abutting Alsop Park. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200 -feet of the site and all residents located within 300 - feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for operation or private property. 2. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of "I" Street prior to occupancy. 2 NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along the east property boundary. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688- 1414 for additional details. Enter. : No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements to allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights -Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the construction of four 3 FILE NO.: Z-7722 Cont. single-family homes on four lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: `I' and Walnut Streets are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements at the entrance to the development. Any proposed street extension accessing the development will need to be built to Local Street standards. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal listed several objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is that "overall development goals should be used to direct specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood." The second goal is: "the city's land - use and zoning policies should be enforced to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale " and the third goal is "Advance the possibilities of the Hillcrest community, and prevent the deterioration of midtown Little Rock." New development in the area needs to reflect characteristics of the existing neighborhood to preserve the community scale and show investment in the area. Showing investment in the Hillcrest area will reduce the possibility of neighborhood' deterioration. The Public Infrastructure .goal states "...Hillcrest should be adequately and regularly maintained in order to ensure the minimum long-term cost to the public and in order to retain and enhance the value in and desirability of the neighborhood." A primary objective of this goal is: "Street geometric design standards should be appropriate to a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and should be specific to and typical of the geometric design of the original neighborhood." This goal is supported by numerous action statements: "The City should adopt new street standards for Hillcrest based on the following principles... 1) Streets should be narrow and curb radii small, giving priority to the pedestrian over the automobile. 2) Sidewalks and a continuous sidewalk network are integral parts of the transportation system." Also the Public Infrastructure goal addresses new construction standards. "The following street standards are recommended for Hillcrest ... 1) Usual and Customary to the Neighborhood: In all cases where improvements are made to street segments, the cross section should be consistent with the existing street and like streets in its vicinity. 2) Street Width: Local streets should be either 24 feet (inside of curb to inside of curb) with parking on one side of the street or 28 feet with parking allowed on both sides. 3) Curb Radii: A neighborhood -wide standard on both sides of a street except a lane (see lane recommendation below). Sidewalks shall be at least five feet wide and separated from the back o of the curb by a greenway of varying widths but no less than two feet unless terrain or lack of right-of-way 4 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. require otherwise. Handicapped access shall be provided at all designated pedestrian crossings. 4) Design Speed: The design speed for all local streets shall be twenty (20) miles per hour, except a lane, which shall be fifteen (15) miles per hour. Design speed on collectors shall be twenty-five (25) miles per hour and thirty-five (35) miles per hour on minor arterials." All streets affected or created by this development will need to meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Action Plan. This style of development has the potential to fit the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan goals if designed with respect to traditional Hillcrest streets and homes. This development will place four homes on six previously platted lots keeping building massing similar to the surrounding neighborhood and have an access drive to serve the new homes. Landsca e: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated they had received several phone calls from area residents indicating concern with the proposed development; both minimum and maximum square footages of the proposed homes. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed construction materials, a typical building footprint, building elevations and proposed roof pitch. Staff also stated the garbage collection containers would not be allowed in the public right- of-way. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated garbage collection would not be provided on the indicated private street. Staff also stated the street should be designed to a standard 80 -foot cul-de-sac or tee -type turnaround. Mr. White stated the desire of the development was to develop the homes in a low scale development and not to construct a major street into the proposed lots. He stated the indicated drive would be adequate to serve four lots with fire protection. Mr: White stated all other services would be received at "I" Street. Staff questioned detention. Mr. White stated an in -lieu contribution was being requested. Staff stated based on the size of the site, this would be considered. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the impact on traffic in the area. It was stated "I" Street was a narrow roadway and currently it was impossible to pass on "I" Street when trucks were parked. Mr. White stated the developer would widen the street adjacent to his property per Master Street Plan requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting agencies and departments suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information. There 5 FILE NO.: Z-7722 was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff indicating the proposed minimum square footage of the indicated homes. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to set a maximum square footage of the homes since there are creative ways to gain additional space and not increase the massing of a home. The applicant has also indicated the proposed construction materials, roof pitch and a typical building footprint on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated the proposed drive as 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. The applicant has contacted the fire department concerning access to the site and has received approval of the indicated design. The applicant has also indicated no City services (garbage collection) will take place on the proposed driveway. The site plan includes the placement of trash receptacles near the drive on proposed Lot 2. The applicant has Indicated the cans will remain in this area and will be screened with evergreen screening and decorative fencing. On trash day, the residents will roll their container to the street for collection and return the container to the receptacle location once emptied. The applicant has indicated mail will be handled in a similar manner with a mail kiosk located on "I" Street for all four proposed lots. The kiosk will be constructed of materials similar to those proposed in the new home construction. The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a fifteen foot building line along "I" Street. The applicant has indicated the side yards within the development as five feet. The subdivision ordinance typically requires a twenty-five foot building line adjacent to a street and side yard setbacks of ten percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant's requested reduced setbacks. The indicated setbacks are consistent with setbacks of existing homes in the area. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The ordinance typically allows a D FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. maximum fence height of six feet. The applicant has indicated the screening fence will add for privacy of the future homeowners as well as the existing home owners in the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence in the indicated area. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot development and two tracts through a PD -R. There are two tracts proposed within the development. These two tracts will be maintained by the property owners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The ordinance for a pipe stem lot typically requires to width of the stem to be 30 -feet. The indicated 10 -foot pipe stem would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the pipe stem to develop with a reduced width. Staff is supportive of this request. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. Staff feels this adequate to access the indicted lots and provide emergency service to the lots, if required. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence along the side and rear property lines of each of the indicated lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested plat variance to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot and the requested variance to allow a reduced width of the pipe stem. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Joe White and Ms. Kathy Purcell were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of 7 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont approval. Staff noted additional comments from the Parks Department including a request to meet with the Parks Department prior to development to allow the development to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had met with the neighbors on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives to the plan. She stated the plan had been revised four or five times to take into consideration the suggestions of adjoining property owners. She stated all the significant trees had been located on the site and if possible they were to be saved. She stated the materials in the existing house would be reused where possible. Ms. Purcell stated there had been concern with parking. She stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and two car driveway. Mr. White stated the original submission to staff included the placement of five lots on the site. He stated from there the development had been refined to include four lots and two tracts to satisfy the adjoining property owners. He stated the development fit well with the neighborhood and he felt the development a nice in -fill development. Ms. Sally Rector addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she was not excited about the development and had only recently became supportive of the development. She stated if the area were to develop the proposed development was best due to the developers working with the neighbors and trying to save the existing trees. She stated she did have concerns with an eight -foot fence being placed on the property line. She stated she was not aware of this being requested. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing area property owners in their opposition of the proposed development. He stated the concern with the proposal was the intensity. He stated his clients did not expect the property to not develop but the development of four homes on the site was too intense. He stated his clients felt two possible three homes was more acceptable. Mr. Giles stated the development was an in -fill development which typically did not meet all the perimeters of the ordinance. He stated the scale of the project was over -fill. He stated the existing street did not have the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed development. He stated the proposed development did not meet the intent of the PZD ordinance with regard to development. He stated there were concerns with the proposed driveway and the capacity to handle the proposed cars of the residents. He stated his request was a deferral request to allow additional time for the developers to meet with the neighbors and the residents association concerning the proposed development. Ms. Carol Ramsey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated four homes was too intense. She stated currently exiting her driveway was dangerous at best due to the location of an existing utility pole. She stated with the development of four additional homes this would only increase the traffic on "I" Street. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was at 4305 "1" Street and his desire was to preserve the neighborhood. He stated the developers were motivated by profit and not the good of E FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont the neighborhood. He stated the developers did not live in the area and were not aware of the current traffic concerns of area residents. He also stated the new development would only increase the traffic noise and congestion. He stated "I" Street was currently 22 feet from curb to curb. He stated with cars parked on each side of the street there was only 8 feet of pavement to travel. He stated the property needed to be developed but with 2 homes, not 4 homes. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he loved Hillcrest the way it was. He stated the eight foot fence was out of character for the neighborhood. He stated homes in the area were thirty-five feet apart not the ten feet being proposed. He stated with reasonable requirements redevelopment could occur. He stated with the indicated development traffic would double on "I" Street. He stated the site would lend itself to the redevelopment with two homes and not the four being proposed. He stated the reasonable redevelopment would include the placement of a 1600 square foot footprint on the lot, fifteen foot side yard setbacks and a maximum building height of 32 -feet. He stated the developers have given the residents a "kinda looks like" but no assurance of how the development would be constructed. He also requested the fence be eliminated. Mr. Borne stated the proposed driveway would have a 28 percent grade. He questioned fire protection on such a grade. He stated there was a 40 -foot drop from the front to the rear of the site. He stated Walnut Street was much steeper than Ash Street and felt this was the reason it was not constructed. He requested the Commission defer the request until the Hillcrest Residents Association could meet with the developer. Mr. Gary Wheeler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the developers were only interested making a profit. He stated to make a profit the developers would be required to put boxes on the lots which would be out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the street infrastructure was not in place to handle the additional traffic the development would generate. He requested the Commission deny the request for development as proposed. Ms. Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated there was an alternative proposal to rebuild the existing home and construct one home on the rear of the site. She requested the Commission deny the request as proposed. Mr. Tony Woodell addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. He stated the association had not met since staff informed them of the request. He stated the association did have a meeting on Monday, October 11, beginning at 7:00 pm. He requested the Commission defer the item until after the meeting to allow the association to take a formal stand. Mr. Joe White stated parking concerns had been raised. He stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and a driveway. He stated the development was platted as six lots previously and the request to allow four homes to be developed. He stated N FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. the four lots met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. White stated the developers had met with Commissioner Rector six weeks ago and with other area residents to obtain input. He stated the site had been on the market for four years. Ms. Beverly Darwin stated she had lived in the house previously. She requested a deferral until additional information could be obtained. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the notification of property owners and the neighborhood association. Mr. White stated the developers would be willing to take a two week deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request for deferral to the October 21, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. an update to the Commission indicating the applicant had met w Residents Neighborhood Association as requested by the Commission 7, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff stated the residents association had vot( the proposed request and a letter from the President of the Hill Neighborhood Association had been included in a package give to the the agenda meeting. Staff also stated since the previous meeting th numerous e-mails and phone calls in opposition of the proposed requ, there were a few e-mails and phone calls in support of the proposed Staff noted the e-mails had also been give to the Commission in the agenda meeting. Staff stated the developer had since withdrawn thei reduced side yard setback and the eight -foot fence. Staff noted a fift line along I Street was still being sought to allow the new homes to re with the exiting residents in the area. Staff stated they continuec Staff presented th the Hillcrest at their October d to not support -rest Residents Commission at :y had received ;st. Staff stated request as well. package at the request for the :en -foot building main in keeping to support the proposed development. Staff stated they felt the development was in keeping with the neighborhood and the project a quality in -fill development. Ms. Kathy Purcell addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. She stated the site had been on the market for years and had been marketed for development and not restoration. She stated the price of the land and home did not lend itself to restoration. She stated three builders had looked at the home for restoration and determined the cost was not feasible. She stated the request was for a PRD to allow the redevelop of six lots with four homes. She stated she and her partners had met with the residents and made several concessions. She stated the original proposal included the development of five homes. She stated the proposal was now for four homes. She stated the building height was also a concern of neighbors and the partners had agreed to limit the structures to two stories with the second floor in the roofline. 10 9I4: 80110WA I FA F*40AWO *W Ms. Purcell stated the net effect of the development would be two new homes. She stated the property owner to the south had removed a structure to add a garden and the existing home on the site would be removed, allowing for the net of two homes. She stated parking was also a concern of the neighborhood. She stated the development was providing parking on-site for the new homes. She stated in addition one-half street improvements would be added to the property frontage allowing for additional paving. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had located all the significant trees and the design had been created to save as many existing trees as possible. She stated the drive had been relocated to accommodate the home to the south to lessen the impact of headlights shining into the home. Ms. Purcell stated the development would limit the building height to 32 feet and provide a maximum building coverage of 32 percent including the garage. She stated the homes would be limited in square footage to 3200 square feet for the homes along I Street and 4500 square feet on the rear two homes. She stated the typical minimum side yard setback would be adhered to as required by the Zoning Ordinance and fencing would not exceed the typical maximum fence height per the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the development did include two tracts to protect adjoining property owners and allow for additional privacy. She stated these tracts would be retained by the homeowners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. She stated to relocate the drive to the east would not allow the development to meet the required grades per City ordinance. She stated Mr. Joe White could address this issue for the Commission. Ms. Purcell stated the developer's first desire was to develop the homes compatible to the existing neighborhood. She stated the intent was not to construct new homes in the same manner as the new homes in the Heights. She stated based on architectural design of the existing neighborhood the new homes would be constructed to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Joe White, project engineer, addressed the Commission concerning the development and street grades. He stated the grade of the proposed driveway was consistent with grades currently allowed by City Ordinance or 18 percent. He stated if the driveway was moved to the east the grade would be 20 to 25 percent, which far exceed the allowable limits of City Ordinances. Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a member of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. He stated the meeting held on October 11th between the developers and the neighborhood was an informative meeting but in the end the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors had elected to not support the development. He stated the Board felt the development to intense for the site and out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood was looking for a development that adhered to standard lot sizes, typical setbacks and separated by minimal distances. He stated the development would change the face of the block 11 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont.) along I Street by allowing a street midway of the block. He stated the development would allow a block within a block. He stated the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association supported redevelopment in their area when consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Carolyn Newbern addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was a member of the Historic District Commission and preservation was the key. She stated preservation should be the highest priority rather than demolition. She stated the development was out of character with the neighborhood and did not conform to the existing design of the neighborhood. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated I Street would not handle the additional traffic the new homes would generate. He stated currently there were residents who parked on I Street leaving a very narrow travel lane. He stated the development would add a new street mid -block on I Street changing the face of the neighborhood. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he lived in the neighborhood and he had been an architect for 30 plus years. He stated he did not feel the development could meet the required street grade. He stated the drive should be relocated to the east and off -set with Walnut Street. He stated he also felt four homes was too intense for the site. He stated if the drive were relocated to the east the developers could add three homes to the site; two along I Street and one home in the rear. He stated the foot print of the homes along I Street could be 1650 square feet and the rear home could be as much as 6000 square feet. He stated he did support redevelopment in the area, just not this proposal. Mr. Paul Zander addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had a secondary offer on the site and his desire was to restore the existing home. He stated his desire was to add a second home on the site at some point in the future but to maintain the block face of I Street. Mr. Gary Darwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had lived in the area for 30 plus years and he felt the development too intense. He stated two homes was sufficient redevelopment. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the site had several constraints limiting the buildability. He stated his clients felt the development ill placed and was too much on the existing acreage. He stated the intent of the PZD ordinance was to allow development of a site with the zoning and platting process being carried out simultaneously. He stated in the ordinance under the purpose and intent the development was to be compatible with the area and the existing pattern of development. He stated the ordinance was not created for the sole benefit of the developer. 12 FILE NO.: Z-7722 Cont. Mr. Giles stated the development was being constructed with a private street, which would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated if the street was constructed to public street standard then a private street was acceptable. He stated the indicated drive did not meet current ordinance requirements with regard to grade or minimum pavement width. He stated the development would generate a great deal of traffic and the street would become a collector street and not a local street. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development how the property was currently platted and the footprint of homes that could be constructed on each of the six lots. Chairman Rahman stated he lived in a historic neighborhood and he would welcome new housing stock. He stated it was important to have new homes as well as older homes to further a neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Bill Rector). 13 FILE NO.: Z-7722 NAME: Lagniappe Addition Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and "I" Street DEVELOPER: Lagniappe Addition, LLC 2106 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.0 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 R-2, Single-family FT. NEW STREET: 0 Single-family Residential — currently six platted lots PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential — four lots proposed VARIAN C ESNVAIVE RS REQUESTED: Plat Variance — 1. A variance to allow the development of pipe stem lots and a variance to allow a reduced width of a pipe stem lot. 2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2 (15 -feet). 3. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. 4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for Lots 1 — 4 (5 -feet). A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot and two tract development through a PD -R. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated the FILE NO.: Z-7722 minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. A fifteen foot building line is being requested along "I" Street, which will act as the side yard for Lot 1. The side yards within the development are proposed as five feet. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The screening fence will add privacy for the future homeowners as well as the existing homeowners in the area. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 15 -feet of pavement and a 30 -foot access and utility easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single family home located on six previously platted lots abutting "I" Street to the south and Alsop Park to the north. "I" Street is a narrow roadway along the southern perimeter of the site. The area is characterized by single-family homes located on 50 -foot by 150 -foot lots; many of the homes sitting on two lots. Immediately adjacent to the site, to the east, is a single-family home located on a large tract abutting Alsop Park. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200 -feet of the site and all residents located within 300 - feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for operation or private property. 2. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of "I" Street prior to occupancy. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Con 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along the east property boundary. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING, Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688- 1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Enera : Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements to allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. 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 applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the construction of four K FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. single-family homes on four lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: `I' and Walnut Streets are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements at the entrance to the development. Any proposed street extension accessing the development will need to be built to Local Street standards. Existing or proposed Class I, Il, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal listed several objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is that "overall development goals should be used to direct specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood." The second goal is: "the city's land - use and zoning policies should be enforced to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale " and the third goal is "Advance the possibilities of the Hillcrest community, and prevent the deterioration of midtown Little Rock." New development in the area needs to reflect characteristics of the existing neighborhood to preserve the community scale and show investment in the area. Showing investment in the Hillcrest area will reduce- the possibility of neighborhood deterioration. The Public Infrastructure goal states "...Hillcrest should be adequately and regularly maintained in order to ensure the minimum long-term cost to the public and in order to retain and enhance the value in and desirability of the neighborhood." A primary objective of this goal is: "Street geometric design standards should be appropriate to a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and should be specific to and typical of the geometric design of the original neighborhood." This goal is supported by numerous action statements: "The City should adopt new street standards for Hillcrest based on the following principles... 1) Streets should be narrow and curb radii small, giving priority to the pedestrian over the automobile. 2) Sidewalks and a continuous sidewalk network are integral parts of the transportation system." Also the Public Infrastructure goal addresses new construction standards. "The following street standards are recommended for Hillcrest ... 1) Usual and Customary to the Neighborhood: In all cases where improvements are made to street segments, the cross section should be consistent with the existing street and like streets in its vicinity. 2) Street Width: Local streets should be either 24 feet (inside of curb to inside of curb) with parking on one side of the street or 28 feet with parking allowed on both sides. 3) Curb Radii: A neighborhood -wide standard on both sides of a street except a lane (see lane recommendation below). Sidewalks shall be at least five feet wide and separated from the back o of the curb by a greenway of varying widths but no less than two feet unless terrain or lack of right-of-way 4 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. require otherwise. Handicapped access shall be provided at all designated pedestrian crossings. 4) Design Speed: The design speed for all local streets shall be twenty (20) miles per hour, except a lane, which shall be fifteen (15) miles per hour. Design speed on collectors shall be twenty-five (25) miles per hour and thirty-five (35) miles per hour on minor arterials." All streets affected or created by this development will need to meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Action Plan. This style of development has the potential to fit the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan goals if designed with respect to traditional Hillcrest streets and homes. This development will place four homes on six previously platted lots keeping building massing similar to the surrounding neighborhood and have an access drive to serve the new homes. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated they had received several phone calls from area residents indicating concern with the proposed development; both minimum and maximum square footages of the proposed homes. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed construction materials, a typical building footprint, building elevations and proposed roof pitch. Staff also stated the garbage collection containers would not be allowed in the public right- of-way. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated garbage collection would not be provided on the indicated private street. Staff also stated the street should be designed to a standard 80 -foot cul-de-sac or tee -type turnaround. Mr. White stated the desire of the development was to develop the homes in a low scale development and not to construct a major street into the proposed lots. He stated the indicated drive would be adequate to serve four lots with fire protection. Mr. White stated all other services would be received at 'T' Street. Staff questioned detention. Mr. White stated an in -lieu contribution was being requested. Staff stated based on the size of the site, this would be considered. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the impact on traffic in the area. It was stated "I" Street was a narrow roadway and currently it was impossible to pass on "I" Street when trucks were parked. Mr. White stated the developer would widen the street adjacent to his property per Master Street Plan requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting agencies and departments suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information. There 67 FILE NO.: Z-7722 was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff indicating the proposed minimum square footage of the indicated homes. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to set a maximum square footage of the homes since there are creative ways to gain additional space and not increase the massing of a home. The applicant has also indicated the proposed construction materials, roof pitch and a typical building footprint on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated the proposed drive as 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. The applicant has contacted the fire department concerning access to the site and has received approval of the indicated design. The applicant has also indicated no City services (garbage collection) will take place on the proposed driveway. The site plan includes the placement of trash receptacles near the drive on proposed Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the cans will remain in this area and will be screened with evergreen screening and decorative fencing. On trash day, the residents will roll their container to the street for collection and return the container to the receptacle location once emptied. The applicant has indicated mail will be handled in a similar manner with a mail kiosk located on "I" Street for all four proposed lots. The kiosk will be constructed of materials similar to those proposed in the new home construction. The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a fifteen foot building line along "I" Street. The applicant has indicated the side yards within the development as five feet. The subdivision ordinance typically requires a twenty-five foot building line adjacent to a street and side yard setbacks of ten percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant's requested reduced setbacks. The indicated setbacks are consistent with setbacks of existing homes in the area. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The ordinance typically allows a R FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. maximum fence height of six feet. The applicant has indicated the screening fence will add for privacy of the future homeowners as well as the existing home owners in the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence in the indicated area. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot development and two tracts through a PD -R. There are two tracts proposed within the development. These two tracts will be maintained by the property owners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The ordinance for a pipe stem lot typically requires to width of the stem to be 30 -feet. The indicated 10 -foot pipe stem would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the pipe stem to develop with a reduced width. Staff is supportive of this request. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" �)treet with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. Staff feels this adequate to access the indicted lots and provide emergency service to the lots, if required. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence along the side and rear property lines of each of the indicated lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested plat variance to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot and the requested variance to allow a reduced width of the pipe stem. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Joe White and Ms. Kathy Purcell were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of U FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont.) approval. Staff noted additional comments from the Parks Department including a request to meet with the Parks Department prior to development to allow the development to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had met with the neighbors on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives to the plan. She stated the plan had been revised four or five times to take into consideration the suggestions of adjoining property owners. She stated all the significant trees had been located on the site and if possible they were to be saved. She stated the materials in the existing house would be reused where possible. Ms. Purcell stated there had been concern with parking. She stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and two car driveway. Mr. White stated the original submission to staff included the placement of five lots on the site. He stated from there the development had been refined to include four lots and two tracts to satisfy the adjoining property owners. He stated the development fit well with the neighborhood and he felt the development a nice in -fill development. Ms. Sally Rector addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she was not excited about the development and had only recently became supportive of the development. She stated if the area were to develop the proposed development was best due to the developers working with the neighbors and trying to save the existing trees. She stated she did have concerns with an eight -foot fence being placed on the property line. She stated she was not aware of this being requested. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing area property owners in their opposition of the proposed development. He stated the concern with the proposal was the intensity. He stated his clients did not expect the property to not develop but the development of four homes on the site was too intense. He stated his clients felt two possible three homes was more acceptable. Mr. Giles stated the development was an in -fill development which typically did not meet all the perimeters of the ordinance. He stated the scale of the project was over -fill. He stated the existing street did not have the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed development. He stated the proposed development did not meet the intent of the PZD ordinance with regard to development. He stated there were concerns with the proposed driveway and the capacity to handle the proposed cars of the residents. He stated his request was a deferral request to allow additional time for the developers to meet with the neighbors and the residents association concerning the proposed development. Ms. Carol Ramsey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated four homes was too intense. She stated currently exiting her driveway was dangerous at best due to the location of an existing utility pole. She stated with the development of four additional homes this would only increase the traffic on "I" Street. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was at 4305 "1" Street and his desire was to preserve the neighborhood. He stated the developers were motivated by profit and not the good of 91 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. the neighborhood. He stated the developers did not live in the area and were not aware of the current traffic concerns of area residents. He also stated the new development would only increase the traffic noise and congestion. He stated "I" Street was currently 22 feet from curb to curb. He stated with cars parked on each side of the street there was only 8 feet of pavement to travel. He stated the property needed to be developed but with 2 homes, not 4 homes. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he loved Hillcrest the way it was. He stated the eight foot fence was out of character for the neighborhood. He stated homes in the area were thirty-five feet apart not the ten feet being proposed. He stated with reasonable requirements redevelopment could occur. He stated with the indicated development traffic would double on "I" Street. He stated the site would lend itself to the redevelopment with two homes and not the four being proposed. He stated the reasonable redevelopment would include the placement of a 1600 square foot footprint on the lot, fifteen foot side yard setbacks and a maximum building height of 32 -feet. He stated the developers have given the residents a "kinda looks like" but no assurance of how the development would be constructed. He also requested the fence be eliminated. Mr. Borne stated the proposed driveway would have a 28 percent grade. He questioned fire protection on such a grade. He stated there was a 40 -foot drop from the front to the rear of the site. He stated Walnut Street was much steeper than Ash Street and felt this was the reason it was not constructed. He requested the Commission defer the request until the Hillcrest Residents Association could meet with the developer. Mr. Gary Wheeler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the developers were only interested making a profit. He stated to make a profit the developers would be required to put boxes on the lots which would be out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the street infrastructure was not in place to handle the additional traffic the development would generate. He requested the Commission deny the request for development as proposed. Ms. Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated there was an alternative proposal to rebuild the existing home and construct one home on the rear of the site. She requested the Commission deny the request as proposed. Mr. Tony Woodell addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. He stated the association had not met since staff informed them of the request. He stated the association did have a meeting on Monday, October 11, beginning at 7:00 pm. He requested the Commission defer the item until after the meeting to allow the association to take a formal stand. Mr. Joe White stated parking concerns had been raised. He stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and a driveway. He stated the development was platted as six lots previously and the request to allow four homes to be developed. He stated 9 FILE NO.: Z-7722(Cont.) the four lots met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. White stated the developers had met with Commissioner Rector six weeks ago and with other area residents to obtain input. He stated the site had been on the market for four years. Ms. Beverly Darwin stated she had lived in the house previously. She requested a deferral until additional information could be obtained. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the notification of property owners and the neighborhood association. Mr. White stated the developers would be willing to take a two week deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request for deferral to the October 21, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented an update to the Commission indicating the applicant had met with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association as requested by the Commission at their October 7, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff stated the residents association had voted to not support the proposed request and a letter from the President of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association had been included in a package give to the Commission at the agenda meeting. Staff also stated since the previous meeting they had received numerous e-mails and phone calls in opposition of the proposed request. Staff stated there were a few e-mails and phone calls in support of the proposed request as well. Staff noted the e-mails had also been give to the Commission in the package at the agenda meeting. Staff stated the developer had since withdrawn their request for the reduced side yard setback and the eight -foot fence. Staff noted a fifteen -foot building line along I Street was still being sought to allow the new homes to remain in keeping with the exiting residents in the area. Staff stated they continued to support the proposed development. Staff stated they felt the development was in keeping with the neighborhood and the project a quality in -fill development. Ms. Kathy Purcell addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. She stated the site had been on the market for years and had been marketed for development and not restoration. She stated the price of the land and home did not lend itself to restoration. She stated three builders had looked at the home for restoration and determined the cost was not feasible. She stated the request was for a PRD to allow the redevelop of six lots with four homes. She stated she and her partners had met with the residents and made several concessions. She stated the original proposal included the development of five homes. She stated the proposal was now for four homes. She stated the building height was also a concern of neighbors and the partners had agreed to limit the structures to two stories with the second floor in the roofline. 10 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. Ms. Purcell stated the net effect of the development would be two new homes. She stated the property owner to the south had removed a structure to add a garden and the existing home on the site would be removed, allowing for the net of two homes. She stated parking was also a concern of the neighborhood. She stated the development was providing parking on-site for the new homes. She stated in addition one-half street improvements would be added to the property frontage allowing for additional paving. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had located all the significant trees and the design had been created to save as many existing trees as possible. She stated the drive had been relocated to accommodate the home to the south to lessen the impact of headlights shining into the home. Ms. Purcell stated the development would limit the building height to 32 feet and provide a maximum building coverage of 32 percent including the garage. She stated the homes would be limited in square footage to 3200 square feet for the homes along I Street and 4500 square feet on the rear two homes. She stated the typical minimum side yard setback would be adhered to as required by the Zoning Ordinance and fencing would not exceed the typical maximum fence height per the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the development did include two tracts to protect adjoining property owners and allow for additional privacy. She stated these tracts would be retained by the homeowners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. She stated to relocate the drive to the east would not allow the development to meet the required grades per City ordinance. She stated Mr. Joe White could address this issue for the Commission. Ms. Purcell stated the developer's first desire was to develop the homes compatible to the existing neighborhood. She stated the intent was not to construct new homes in the same manner as the new homes in the Heights. She stated based on architectural design of the existing neighborhood the new homes would be constructed to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Joe White, project engineer, addressed the Commission concerning the development and street grades. He stated the grade of the proposed driveway was consistent with grades currently allowed by City Ordinance or 18 percent. He stated if the driveway was moved to the east the grade would be 20 to 25 percent, which far exceed the allowable limits of City Ordinances. Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a member of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. He stated the meeting held on October 11th between the developers and the neighborhood was an informative meeting but in the end the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors had elected to not support the development. He stated the Board felt the development to intense for the site and out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood was looking for a development that adhered to standard lot sizes, typical setbacks and separated by minimal distances. He stated the development would change the face of the block 11 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. along I Street by allowing a street midway of the block. He stated the development would allow a block within a block. He stated the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association supported redevelopment in their area when consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Carolyn Newbern addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was a member of the Historic District Commission and preservation was the key. She stated preservation should be the highest priority rather than demolition. She stated the development was out of character with the neighborhood and did not conform to the existing design of the neighborhood. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated I Street would not handle the additional traffic the new homes would generate. He stated currently there were residents who parked on I Street leaving a very narrow travel lane. He stated the development would add a new street mid -block on I Street changing the face of the neighborhood. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he lived in the neighborhood and he had been an architect for 30 plus years. He stated he did not feel the development could meet the required street grade. He stated the drive should be relocated to the east and off -set with Walnut Street. He stated he also felt four homes was too intense for the site. He stated if the drive were relocated to the east the developers could add three homes to the site; two along I Street and one home in the rear. He stated the foot print of the homes along I Street could be 1650 square feet and the rear home could be as much as 6000 square feet. He stated he did support redevelopment in the area, just not this proposal. Mr. Paul Zander addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had a secondary offer on the site and his desire was to restore the existing home. He stated his desire was to add a second home on the site at some point in the future but to maintain the block face of I Street. Mr. Gary Darwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had lived in the area for 30 plus years and he felt the development too intense. He stated two homes was sufficient redevelopment. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the site had several constraints limiting the buildability. He stated his clients felt the development ill placed and was too much on the existing acreage. He stated the intent of the PZD ordinance was to allow development of a site with the zoning and platting process being carried out simultaneously. He stated in the ordinance under the purpose and intent the development was to be compatible with the area and the existing pattern of development. He stated the ordinance was not created for the sole benefit of the developer. 12 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. Mr. Giles stated the development was being constructed with a private street, which would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated if the street was constructed to public street standard then a private street was acceptable. He stated the indicated drive did not meet current ordinance requirements with regard to grade or minimum pavement width. He stated the development would generate a great deal of traffic and the street would become a collector street and not a local street. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development how the property was currently platted and the footprint of homes that could be constructed on each of the six lots. Chairman Rahman stated he lived in a historic neighborhood and he would welcome new housing stock. He stated it was important to have new homes as well as older homes to further a neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Bill Rector). 13 FILE NO.: Z - NAME: Lagniappe Addition Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and "I" Street DEVELOPER: Lagniappe Addition, LLC 2106 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential — currently six platted lots PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential — four lots proposed VARIAN CESM/AIVEIRS REQUESTED: Plat Variance — 1. A variance to allow the development of pipe stem lots and a variance to allow a reduced width of a pipe stem lot. 2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2 (15 -feet). 3. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. 4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for Lots 1 — 4 (5 -feet). A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot and two tract development through a PD -R. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated the FILE NO.: Z-7722 Cont. minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. A fifteen foot building line is being requested along "I" Street, which will act as the side yard for Lot 1. The side yards within the development are proposed as five feet. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The screening fence will add privacy for the future homeowners as well as the existing homeowners in the area. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 -foot access and utility easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single family home located on six previously platted lots abutting "I" Street to the south and Alsop Park to the north. "I" Street is a narrow roadway along the southern perimeter of the site. The area is characterized by single-family homes located on 50 -foot by 150 -foot lots; many of the homes sitting on two lots. Immediately adjacent to the site, to the east, is a single-family home located on a large tract abutting Alsop Park. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS - As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200 -feet of the site and all residents located within 300 - feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for operation or private property. 2. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of "I" Street prior to occupancy. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7722 Cont. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along the east property boundary. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688- 1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements to allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. 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 properly. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the construction of four 3 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. single-family homes on four lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: `I' and Walnut Streets are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements at the entrance to the development. Any proposed street extension accessing the development will need to be built to Local Street standards. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal listed several objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is that "overall development goals should be used to direct specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood." The second goal is: "the city's land - use and zoning policies should be enforced to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale " and the third goal is "Advance the possibilities of the Hillcrest community, and prevent the deterioration of midtown Little Rock." New development in the area needs to reflect characteristics of the existing neighborhood to preserve the community scale and show investment in the area. Showing investment in the Hillcrest area will reduce the possibility of neighborhood deterioration. The Public Infrastructure goal states "...Hillcrest should be adequately and regularly maintained in order to ensure the minimum long-term cost to the public and in order to retain and enhance the value in and desirability of the neighborhood." A primary objective of this goal is: "Street geometric design standards should be appropriate to a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and should be specific to and typical of the geometric design of the original neighborhood." This goal is supported by numerous action statements: "The City should adopt new street standards for Hillcrest based on the following principles... 1) Streets should be narrow and curb radii small, giving priority to the pedestrian over the automobile. 2) Sidewalks and a continuous sidewalk network are integral parts of the transportation system." Also the Public Infrastructure goal addresses new construction standards. "The following street standards are recommended for Hillcrest ... 1) Usual and Customary to the Neighborhood: In all cases where improvements are made to street segments, the cross section should be consistent with the existing street and like streets in its vicinity. 2) Street Width: Local streets should be either 24 feet (inside of curb to inside of curb) with parking on one side of the street or 28 feet with parking allowed on both sides. 3) Curb Radii: A neighborhood -wide standard on both sides of a street except a lane (see lane recommendation below). Sidewalks shall be at least five feet wide and separated from the back o of the curb by a greenway of varying widths but no less than two feet unless terrain or lack of right-of-way 4 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. require otherwise. Handicapped access shall be provided at all designated pedestrian crossings. 4) Design Speed: The design speed for all local streets shall be twenty (20) miles per hour, except a lane, which shall be fifteen (15) miles per hour. Design speed on collectors shall be twenty-five (25) miles per hour and thirty-five (35) miles per hour on minor arterials." All streets affected or created by this development will need to meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Action Plan. This style of development has the potential to fit the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan goals if designed with respect to traditional Hillcrest streets and homes. This development will place four homes on six previously platted lots keeping building massing similar to the surrounding neighborhood and have an access drive to serve the new homes. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated they had received several phone calls from area residents indicating concern with the proposed development; both minimum and maximum square footages of the proposed homes. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed construction materials, a typical building footprint, building elevations and proposed roof pitch. Staff also stated the garbage collection containers would not be allowed in the public right- of-way. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated garbage collection would not be provided on the indicated private street. Staff also stated the street should be designed to a standard 80 -foot cul-de-sac or tee -type turnaround. Mr. White stated the desire of the development was to develop the homes in a low scale development and not to construct a major street into the proposed lots. He stated the indicated drive would be adequate to serve four lots with fire protection. Mr. White stated all other services would be received at "I" Street. Staff questioned detention. Mr. White stated an in -lieu contribution was being requested. Staff stated based on the size of the site, this would be considered. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the impact on traffic in the area. It was stated "I" Street was a narrow roadway and currently it was impossible to pass on "I" Street when trucks were parked. Mr. White stated the developer would widen the street adjacent to his property per Master Street Plan requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting agencies and departments suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information. There 5 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff indicating the proposed minimum square footage of the indicated homes. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to set a maximum square footage of the homes since there are creative ways to gain additional space and not increase the massing of a home. The applicant has also indicated the proposed construction materials, roof pitch and a typical building footprint on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated the proposed drive as 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. The applicant has contacted the fire department concerning access to the site and has received approval of the indicated design. The applicant has also indicated no City services (garbage collection) will take place on the proposed driveway. The site plan includes the placement of trash receptacles near the drive on proposed Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the cans will remain in this area and will be screened with evergreen screening and decorative fencing. On trash day, the residents will roll their container to the street for collection and return the container to the receptacle location once emptied. The applicant has indicated mail will be handled in a similar manner with a mail kiosk located on "I" Street for all four proposed lots. The kiosk will be constructed of materials similar to those proposed in the new home construction. The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a fifteen foot building line along "I" Street. The applicant has indicated the side yards within the development as five feet. The subdivision ordinance typically requires a twenty-five foot building line adjacent to a street and side yard setbacks of ten percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant's requested reduced setbacks. The indicated setbacks are consistent with setbacks of existing homes in the area. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The ordinance typically allows a FILE NO.: Z-77 maximum fence height of six feet. The applicant has indicated the screening fence will add for privacy of the future homeowners as well as the existing home owners in the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence in the indicated area. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot development and two tracts through a PD -R. There are two tracts proposed within the development. These two tracts will be maintained by the property owners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The ordinance for a pipe stem lot typically requires to width of the stem to be 30 -feet. The indicated 10 -foot pipe stem would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the pipe stem to develop with a reduced width. Staff is supportive of this request. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. Staff feels this adequate to access the indicted lots and provide emergency service to the lots, if required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence along the side and rear property lines of each of the indicated lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested plat variance to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot and the requested variance to allow a reduced width of the pipe stem. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Joe White and Ms. Kathy Purcell were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of 7 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. approval. Staff noted additional comments from the Parks Department including a request to meet with the Parks Department prior to development to allow the development to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had met with the neighbors on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives to the plan. She stated the plan had been revised four or five times to take into consideration the suggestions of adjoining property owners. She stated all the significant trees had been located on the site and if possible they were to be saved. She stated the materials in the existing house would be reused where possible. Ms. Purcell stated there had been concern with parking. She stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and two car driveway. Mr. White stated the original submission to staff included the placement of five lots on the site. He stated from there the development had been refined to include four lots and two tracts to satisfy the adjoining property owners. He stated the development fit well with the neighborhood and he felt the development a nice in -fill development. Ms. Sally Rector addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she was not excited about the development and had only recently became supportive of the development. She stated if the area were to develop the proposed development was best due to the developers working with the neighbors and trying to save the existing trees. She stated she did have concerns with an eight -foot fence being placed on the property line. She stated she was not aware of this being requested. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing area property owners in their opposition of the proposed development. He stated the concern with the proposal was the intensity. He stated his clients did not expect the property to not develop but the development of four homes on the site was too intense. He stated his clients felt two possible three homes was more acceptable. Mr. Giles stated the development was an in -fill development which typically did not meet all the perimeters of the ordinance. He stated the scale of the project was over -fill. He stated the existing street did not have the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed development. He stated the proposed development did not meet the intent of the PZD ordinance with regard to development. He stated there were concerns with the proposed driveway and the capacity to handle the proposed cars of the residents. He stated his request was a deferral request to allow additional time for the developers to meet with the neighbors and the residents association concerning the proposed development. Ms. Carol Ramsey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated four homes was too intense. She stated currently exiting her driveway was dangerous at best due to the location of an existing utility pole. She stated with the development of four additional homes this would only increase the traffic on "I" Street. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was at 4305 "1" Street and his desire was to preserve the neighborhood. He stated the developers were motivated by profit and not the good of E -*3 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont the neighborhood. He stated the developers did not live in the area and were not aware of the current traffic concerns of area residents. He also stated the new development would only increase the traffic noise and congestion. He stated "I" Street was currently 22 feet from curb to curb. He stated with cars parked on each side of the street there was only 8 feet of pavement to travel. He stated the property needed to be developed but with 2 homes, not 4 homes. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he loved Hillcrest the way it was. He stated the eight foot fence was out of character for the neighborhood. He stated homes in the area were thirty-five feet apart not the ten feet being proposed. He stated with reasonable requirements redevelopment could occur. He stated with the indicated development traffic would double on "I" Street. He stated the site would lend itself to the redevelopment with two homes and not the four being proposed. He stated the reasonable redevelopment would include the placement of a 1600 square foot footprint on the lot, fifteen foot side yard setbacks and a maximum building height of 32 -feet. He stated the developers have given the residents a "kinda looks like" but no assurance of how the development would be constructed. He also requested the fence be eliminated. Mr. Borne stated the proposed driveway would have a 28 percent grade. He questioned fire protection on such a grade. He stated there was a 40 -foot drop from the front to the rear of the site. He stated Walnut Street was much steeper than Ash Street and felt this was the reason it was not constructed. He requested the Commission defer the request until the Hillcrest Residents Association could meet with the developer. Mr. Gary Wheeler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the developers were only interested making a profit. He stated to make a profit the developers would be required to put boxes on the lots which would be out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the street infrastructure was not in place to handle the additional traffic the development would generate. He requested the Commission deny the request for development as proposed. Ms. Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated there was an alternative proposal to rebuild the existing home and construct one home on the rear of the site. She requested the Commission deny the request as proposed. Mr. Tony Woodell addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. He stated the association had not met since staff informed them of the request. He stated the association did have a meeting on Monday, October 11, beginning at 7:00 pm. He requested the Commission defer the item until after the meeting to allow the association to take a formal stand. Mr. Joe White stated parking concerns had been raised. He stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and a driveway. He stated the development was platted as six lots previously and the request to allow four homes to be developed. He stated Rl FILE NO.: Z-7722 the four lots met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. White stated the developers had met with Commissioner Rector six weeks ago and with other area residents to obtain input. He stated the site had been on the market for four years. Ms. Beverly Darwin stated she had lived in the house previously. She requested a deferral until additional information could be obtained. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the notification of property owners and the neighborhood association. Mr. White stated the developers would be willing to take a two week deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request for deferral to the October 21, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented an update to the Commission indicating the applicant had met with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association as requested by the Commission at their October 7, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff stated the residents association had voted to not support the proposed request and a letter from the President of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association had been included in a package give to the Commission at the agenda meeting. Staff also stated since the previous meeting they had received numerous e-mails and phone calls in opposition of the proposed request. Staff stated there were a few e-mails and phone calls in support of the proposed request as well. Staff noted the e-mails had also been give to the Commission in the package at the agenda meeting. Staff stated the developer had since withdrawn their request for the reduced side yard setback and the eight -foot fence. Staff noted a fifteen -foot building line along I Street was still being sought to allow the new homes to remain in keeping with the exiting residents in the area. Staff stated they continued to support the proposed development. Staff stated they felt the development was in keeping with the neighborhood and the project a quality in -fill development. Ms. Kathy Purcell addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. She stated the site had been on the market for years and had been marketed for development and not restoration. She stated the price of the land and home did not lend itself to restoration. She stated three builders had looked at the home for restoration and determined the cost was not feasible. She stated the request was for a PRD to allow the redevelop of six lots with four homes. She stated she and her partners had met with the residents and made several concessions. She stated the original proposal included the development of five homes. She stated the proposal was now for four homes. She stated the building height was also a concern of neighbors and the partners had agreed to limit the structures to two stories with the second floor in the roofline. 10 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont. Ms. Purcell stated the net effect of the development would be two new homes. She stated the property owner to the south had removed a structure to add a garden and the existing home on the site would be removed, allowing for the net of two homes. She stated parking was also a concern of the neighborhood. She stated the development was providing parking on-site for the new homes. She stated in addition one-half street improvements would be added to the property frontage allowing for additional paving. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had located all the significant trees and the design had been created to save as many existing trees as possible. She stated the drive had been relocated to accommodate the home to the south to lessen the impact of headlights shining into the home. Ms. Purcell stated the development would limit the building height to 32 feet and provide a maximum building coverage of 32 percent including the garage. She stated the homes would be limited in square footage to 3200 square feet for the homes along I Street and 4500 square feet on the rear two homes. She stated the typical minimum side yard setback would be adhered to as required by the Zoning Ordinance and fencing would not exceed the typical maximum fence height per the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the development did include two tracts to protect adjoining property owners and allow for additional privacy. She stated these tracts would be retained by the homeowners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. She stated to relocate the drive to the east would not allow the development to meet the required grades per City ordinance. She stated Mr. Joe White could address this issue for the Commission. Ms. Purcell stated the developer's first desire was to develop the homes compatible to the existing neighborhood. She stated the intent was not to construct new homes in the same manner as the new homes in the Heights. She stated based on architectural design of the existing neighborhood the new homes would be constructed to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Joe White, project engineer, addressed the Commission concerning the development and street grades. He stated the grade of the proposed driveway was consistent with grades currently allowed by City Ordinance or 18 percent. He stated if the driveway was moved to the east the grade would be 20 to 25 percent, which far exceed the allowable limits of City Ordinances. Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a member of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. He stated the meeting held on October 11th between the developers and the neighborhood was an informative meeting but in the end the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors had elected to not support the development. He stated the Board felt the development to intense for the site and out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood was looking for a development that adhered to standard lot sizes, typical setbacks and separated by minimal distances. He stated the development would change the face of the block 11 FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont.) along I Street by allowing a street midway of the block. He stated the development would allow a block within a block. He stated the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association supported redevelopment in their area when consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Carolyn Newbern addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was a member of the Historic District Commission and preservation was the key. She stated preservation should be the highest priority rather than demolition. She stated the development was out of character with the neighborhood and did not conform to the existing design of the neighborhood. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated I Street would not handle the additional traffic the new homes would generate. He stated currently there were residents who parked on I Street leaving a very narrow travel lane. He stated the development would add a new street mid -block on I Street changing the face of the neighborhood. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he lived in the neighborhood and he had been an architect for 30 plus years. He stated he did not feel the development could meet the required street grade. He stated the drive should be relocated to the east and off -set with Walnut Street. He stated he also felt four homes was too intense for the site. He stated if the drive were relocated to the east the developers could add three homes to the site; two along I Street and one home in the rear. He stated the foot print of the homes along I Street could be 1650 square feet and the rear home could be as much as 6000 square feet. He stated he did support redevelopment in the area, just not this proposal. Mr. Paul Zander addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had a secondary offer on the site and his desire was to restore the existing home. He stated his desire was to add a second home on the site at some point in the future but to maintain the block face of I Street. Mr. Gary Darwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had lived in the area for 30 plus years and he felt the development too intense. He stated two homes was sufficient redevelopment. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the site had several constraints limiting the buildability. He stated his clients felt the development ill placed and was too much on the existing acreage. He stated the intent of the PZD ordinance was to allow development of a site with the zoning and platting process being carried out simultaneously. He stated in the ordinance under the purpose and intent the development was to be compatible with the area and the existing pattern of development. He stated the ordinance was not created for the sole benefit of the developer. `K FILE NO.: Z-7722 (Cont_ Mr. Giles stated the development was being constructed with a private street, which would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated if the street was constructed to public street standard then a private street was acceptable. He stated the indicated drive did not meet current ordinance requirements with regard to grade or minimum pavement width. He stated the development would generate a great deal of traffic and the street would become a collector street and not a local street. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development how the property was currently platted and the footprint of homes that could be constructed on each of the six lots. Chairman Rahman stated he lived in a historic neighborhood and he would welcome new housing stock. He stated it was important to have new homes as well as older homes to further a neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Bill Rector). 13 October 7, 2004 ITEM NO.: 17 NAME: Lagniappe Addition Short -form PD -R FILE NO.: Z-7722 LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and "I" Street DEVELOPER: Lagniappe Addition, LLC 2106 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 FNC;INFFR• White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.0 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 R-2, Single-family FT. NEW STREET: 0 Single-family Residential — currently six platted lots PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential — four lots proposed VARIAN C ESMAIVE RS REQUESTED: Plat Variance — 1. A variance to allow the development of pipe stem lots and a variance to allow a reduced width of a pipe stem lot. 2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2 (15 -feet). 3. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. 4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for Lots 1 — 4 (5 -feet). A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST The applicant proposes the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot and two tract development through a PD -R. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated the October 7, 2004 SUBMVISION ITEM NO.: 17 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7722 minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. A fifteen foot building line is being requested along "I" Street, which will act as the side yard for Lot 1. The side yards within the development are proposed as five feet. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The screening fence will add privacy for the future homeowners as well as the existing homeowners in the area. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area: The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 -foot access and utility easement. B. EXISTING CONDITION The site contains a single family home located on six previously platted lots abutting "I" Street to the south and Alsop Park to the north. "I" Street is a narrow roadway along the southern perimeter of the site. The area is characterized by single-family homes located on 50 -foot by 150 -foot lots; many of the homes sitting on two lots. Immediately adjacent to the site, to the east, is a single-family home located on a large tract abutting Alsop Park. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200 -feet of the site and all residents located within 300 - feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for operation or private property. �q October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7722 2. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of "I" Street prior to occupancy. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along- the east property boundary. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements to allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. 3 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7722 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 applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the construction of four single-family homes on four lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: `I' and Walnut Streets are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements at the entrance to the development. Any proposed street extension accessing the development will need to be built to Local Street standards. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal listed several objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is that "overall development goals should be used to direct specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood." The second goal is: "the city's land - use and zoning policies should be enforced to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale " and the third goal is "Advance the possibilities of the Hillcrest community, and prevent the deterioration of midtown Little Rock." New development in the area needs to reflect characteristics of the existing neighborhood to preserve the community scale and show investment in the area. Showing investment in the Hillcrest area will reduce the possibility of neighborhood deterioration. The Public Infrastructure goal states "...Hillcrest should be adequately and regularly maintained in order to ensure the minimum long-term cost to the public and in order to retain and enhance the value in and desirability of the neighborhood." A primary objective of this goal is: "Street geometric design standards should be appropriate to a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and should be specific to and typical of the geometric design of the original neighborhood." This goal is supported by numerous action statements: "The City should adopt new street standards for Hillcrest based on the following principles... 1) Streets should be narrow and curb radii small, giving priority to the pedestrian over the automobile. 2) Sidewalks and a continuous sidewalk network are integral parts of the transportation system." Also the Public Infrastructure goal addresses new construction standards. "The following street standards are recommended for Hillcrest ... 1) Usual and Customary to the Neighborhood: In all cases where improvements are made to street segments, the cross section 2 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7722 should be consistent with the existing street and like streets in its vicinity. 2) Street Width: Local streets should be either 24 feet (inside of curb to inside of curb) with parking on one side of the street or 28 feet With parking allowed on both sides. 3) Curb Radii: A neighborhood -wide standard on both sides of a street except a lane (see lane recommendation below). Sidewalks shall be at least five feet wide and separated from the back o of the curb by a greenway of varying widths but no less than two feet unless terrain or lack of right-of-way require otherwise. Handicapped access shall be provided at all designated pedestrian crossings. 4) Design Speed: The design speed for all local streets shall be twenty (20) miles per hour, except a lane, which shall be fifteen (15) miles per hour. Design speed on collectors shall be twenty-five (25) miles per hour and thirty-five (35) miles per hour on minor arterials." All streets affected or created by this development will need to meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Action Plan. This style of development has the potential to fit the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan goals if designed with respect to traditional Hillcrest streets and homes. This development will place four homes on six previously platted lots keeping building massing similar to the surrounding neighborhood and have an access drive to serve the new homes. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated they had received several phone calls from area residents indicating concern with the proposed development; both minimum and maximum square footages of the proposed homes. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed construction materials, a typical building footprint, building elevations and proposed roof pitch. Staff also stated the garbage collection containers would not be allowed in the public right- of-way. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated garbage collection would not be provided on the indicated private street. Staff also stated the street should be designed to a standard 80 -foot cul-de-sac or tee -type turnaround. Mr. White stated the desire of the development was to develop the homes in a low scale development and not to construct a major street into the proposed lots. He stated the indicated drive would be adequate to serve four lots with fire protection. Mr. White stated all other services would be received at "I" Street. Staff questioned detention. Mr. White stated an in -lieu contribution was being requested. Staff stated based on the size of the site, this would be considered. 5 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17(Cont.)FILE NO-- Z-7722 There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the impact on traffic in the area. It was stated "I" Street was a narrow roadway and currently it was impossible to pass on "I" Street when trucks were parked. Mr. White stated the developer would widen the street adjacent to his property per Master Street Plan requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting agencies and departments suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff indicating the proposed minimum square footage of the indicated homes. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to set a maximum square footage of the homes since there are creative ways to gain additional space and not increase the massing of a home. The applicant has also indicated the proposed construction materials, roof pitch and a typical building footprint on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated the proposed drive as 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. The applicant has contacted the fire department concerning access to the site and has received approval of the indicated design. The applicant has also indicated no City services (garbage collection) will take place on the proposed driveway. The site plan includes the placement of trash receptacles near the drive on proposed Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the cans will remain in this area and will be screened with evergreen screening and decorative fencing. On trash day, the residents will roll their container to the street for collection and return the container to the receptacle location once emptied. The applicant has indicated mail will be handled in a similar manner with a mail kiosk located on "I" Street for all four proposed lots. The kiosk will be constructed of materials similar to those proposed in the new home construction. 0 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont. -7722 The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a fifteen foot building line along "I" Street. The applicant has indicated the side yards within the development as five feet. The subdivision ordinance typically requires a twenty-five foot building line adjacent to a street and side yard setbacks of ten percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant's requested reduced setbacks. The indicated setbacks are consistent with setbacks of existing homes in the area. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The ordinance typically allows a maximum fence height of six feet. The applicant has indicated the screening fence will add for privacy of the future homeowners as well as the existing home owners in the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence in the indicated area. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot development and two tracts through a PD -R. There are two tracts proposed within the development. These two tracts will be maintained by the property owners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from "I" Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The ordinance for a pipe stem lot typically requires to width of the stem to be 30 -feet. The indicated 10 -foot pipe stem would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the pipe stem to develop with a reduced width. Staff is supportive of this request. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to "I" Street with 16 -feet of pavement and a 30 - foot access and utility easement. Staff feels this adequate to access the indicted lots and provide emergency service to the lots, if required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to place an eight foot fence along the side and rear property lines of each of the indicated lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested plat variance to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot and the requested variance to allow a reduced width of the pipe stem. 7 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (C FILE NO.: Z-7722 Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Joe White and Ms. Kathy Purcell were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff noted additional comments from the Parks Department including a request to meet with the Parks Department prior to development to allow the development to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had met with the neighbors on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives to the plan. She stated the plan had been revised four or five times to take into consideration the suggestions of adjoining property owners. She stated all the significant trees had been located on the site and if possible they were tobe saved. She stated the materials in the existing house would be reused where possible. Ms. Purcell stated there had been concern with parking. She stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and two car driveway. Mr. White stated the original submission to staff included the placement of five lots on the site. He stated from there the development had been refined to include four lots and two tracts to satisfy the adjoining property owners. He stated the development fit well with the neighborhood and he felt the development a nice in -fill development. Ms. Sally Rector addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she was not excited about the development and had only recently became supportive of the development. She stated if the area were to develop the proposed development was best due to the developers working with the neighbors and trying to save the existing trees. She stated she did have concerns with an eight -foot fence being placed on the property line. She stated she was not aware of this being requested. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing area property owners in their opposition of the proposed development. He stated the concern with the proposal was the intensity. He stated his clients did not expect the property to not develop but the development of four homes on the site was too intense. He stated his clients felt two possible three homes was more acceptable. Mr. Giles stated the development was an in -fill development which typically did not meet all the perimeters of the ordinance. He stated the scale of the project was E:3 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 over -fill. He stated the existing street did not have the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed development. He stated the proposed development did not meet the intent of the PZD ordinance with regard to development. He stated there were concerns with the proposed driveway and the capacity to handle the proposed cars of the residents. He stated his request was a deferral request to allow additional time for the developers to meet with the neighbors and the residents association concerning the proposed development. Ms. Carol Ramsey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated four homes was too intense. She stated currently exiting her driveway was dangerous at best due to the location of an existing utility pole. She stated with the development of four additional homes this would only increase the traffic on "I" Street. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was at 4305 "1" Street and his desire was to preserve the neighborhood. He stated the developers were motivated by profit and not the good of the neighborhood. He stated the developers did not live in the area and were not aware of the current traffic concerns of area residents. He also stated the new development would only increase the traffic noise and congestion. He stated "I" Street was currently 22 feet from curb to curb. He stated with cars parked on each side of the street there was only 8 feet of pavement to travel. He stated the property needed to be developed but with 2 homes, not 4 homes. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he loved Hillcrest the way it was. He stated the eight foot fence was out of character for the neighborhood. He stated homes in the area were thirty-five feet apart not the ten feet being proposed. He stated with reasonable requirements redevelopment could occur. He stated with the indicated development traffic would double on "I" Street. He stated the site would lend itself to the redevelopment with two homes and not the four being proposed. He stated the reasonable redevelopment would include the placement of a 1600 square foot footprint on the lot, fifteen foot side yard setbacks and a maximum building height of 32 -feet. He stated the developers have given the residents a "kinda looks like" but no assurance of how the development would be constructed. He also requested the fence be eliminated. Mr. Borne stated the proposed driveway would have a 28 percent grade. He questioned fire protection on such a grade. He stated there was a 40 -foot drop from the front to the rear of the site. He stated Walnut Street was much steeper than Ash Street and felt this was the reason it was not constructed. He requested the Commission defer the request until the Hillcrest Residents Association could meet with the developer. Mr. Gary Wheeler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the developers were only interested making a profit. He stated to make a profit the developers would be required to put boxes on the lots which would be out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the street infrastructure was not in place to October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-7722 handle the additional traffic the development would generate. He requested the Commission deny the request for development as proposed. Ms. Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated there was an alternative proposal to rebuild the existing home and construct one home on the rear of the site. She requested the Commission deny the request as proposed. Mr. Tony Woodell addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. He stated the association had not met since staff informed them of the request. He stated the association did have a meeting on Monday, October 11, beginning at 7:00 pm. He requested the Commission defer the item until after the meeting to allow the association to take a formal stand. Mr. Joe White stated parking concerns had been raised. He stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and a driveway. He stated the development was platted as six lots previously and the request to allow four homes to be developed. He stated the four lots met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. White stated the developers had met with Commissioner Rector six weeks ago and with other area residents to obtain input. He stated the site had been on the market for four years. Ms. Beverly Darwin stated she had lived in the house previously. She requested a deferral until additional information could be obtained. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the notification of property owners and the neighborhood association. Mr. White stated the developers would be willing to take a two week deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request for deferral to the October 21, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 10 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7722 NAME: Ligniappe' Addition Short -form PD -R LOCATION: located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and "I" Street Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Provide a typical building footprint on the proposed site plan. 3. Provide the driveway locations on the proposed site plan. 4. Provide the maximum number of stories and the maximum building height on the proposed site plan. 5. Provide details of the proposed mail kiosk. Construction material/height. 6. Provide details of the proposed garbage collection area. Move the location outside the street right-of-way. 7. Provide details of the proposed construction materials of the new homes. 8. Provide details of the proposed building elevations and roof pitch. 9. Provide details of the minimum square footages proposed for the new homes. Variance/Waivers: Plat Variance — Lots with ou rp u b I�Irstreet frontage. Public Works: 1. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section 31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standard as public streets. A minimum access easement width of 45 -feet is required and street width of 24 -feet from back of curb to back of curb. A standard 80 -foot cul-de-sac or tee type turnaround is required. 2. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for operation or private property. 3. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of "I" Street prior to occupancy. 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along the east property boundary. 5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional informtiv c Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received - Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted, SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water r\eq in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main eft nsJ io wile required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements 16._allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact thL--Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2434 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. Planninq Division: Landscape: No comment. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, September 22, 2004.