Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7769 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7769 NAME: Castle Investments Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located at 1715 South Summit Street DEVELOPER: Castle Investment, LLC 127251-30 Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Donald W. Books, RLS 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family Triplex VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST — APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site located at 1715 South Summit Street from R-3, Single-family to PD -R to allow an existing structure to be converted into a three -unit dwelling. The developer has indicated his company is a real estate investment company which purchases distressed homes, often in foreclosure, and re -furbishes the homes for sale, rent or lease -purchase. The developer states the refurbished homes provide owners and renters with a quality home at a market -affordable price. In the developers' statement and proposal the developers indicate they are particularly committed to the downtown Little Rock neighborhoods. The developers state they purchased the home at 1715 South Summit Street at a FILE NO.: Z-7769 foreclosure auction earlier this year. At the time of purchase the structure was in absolute distress. The developers state since the purchase, they have improved the property's general appearance and the site is no longer an eyesore. The developers state their intent is to restore the property at 1715 South Summit Street and upon completion of the restoration and renovation of the property, they will then offer three families a proper home at an affordable cost. The proposed site plan includes the placement of four parking spaces at the rear of the site to be served off an existing alleyway. The applicant has indicated seven feet of landscaping along the property lines adjoining the proposed parking pad. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is zoned R-3, Single-family and contains a single-family structure located mid -block. There is a functioning alley located behind- the home. The homes located to the north of the site are vacant homes with one burned and the other in a severe state of disrepair. The homes located across the street and to the south of the site appear to be occupied and in good repair. There is a mixture of housing types in the area including single-family, duplex, triplex and multi -family homes, although the structure is located in a block that appears to be single-family. There are a number of vacant and boarded homes located in the area. The indicated block contains two vacant homes; neither of which are boarded. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one phone call from an area resident stating concerns about the proposed request. All property owners located within 200 - feet of the site along with all residents located within 300 -feet of the site who could be identified and the Central High Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7769 (Cont. 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. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) to convert an existing building into a triplex. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 20, File No. LU05-08-01). Master Street Plan: Summit, 17th, and 18th Streets are all shown as local streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets may require dedication of right-of- way and street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Citv Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings are required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. Prior to construction it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Clay Culver was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was to convert an existing structure into a triplex. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if 3 FILE NO.: Z-7769 (Cont. any signage would be added to the site. Mr. Culver stated there would not be any signage. Staff also questioned if a dumpster would be placed on the site. Mr. Culver stated a dumpster would not be utilized. Staff questioned if a cover would be added to the parking in the future. Mr. Culver stated he did not think so but he would provide staff with an updated cover letter indicating the future plans for covering on or before January 5, 2005. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies, indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. 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 site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated screening adjacent to the parking pad but is requesting a waiver of the required screening along the entire property line. The applicant has indicated a 7.5 -foot landscape strip adjacent to the parking pad, which will be planted with a screening material. The applicant is requesting the waiver to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and has stated a fence along the property lines would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. The applicant has indicated there will not be any signage placed to identify the development and has indicated a dumpster will not be utilized on the site. The applicant has indicated garbage collection will be provided by the City of Little Rock. The applicant has indicated the proposed parking will not initially be covered but is requesting to option to add covered parking in the future. The applicant has indicated the covered parking will be stainless steel tubing with a galvanized roofing material. Staff would recommend if a cover is placed over the indicated parking the construction materials be consistent with architectural elements and architectural designs in the area. The applicant has indicated the development will consist of three units. The site plan includes the placement of four parking spaces. The indicated parking is adequate to meet the minimum parking required for a multi -family development containing three units. Staff is not supportive of the proposed density of the site. The applicant is requesting the development of the existing structure with three multi -family units resulting in a density of 18.75 units per acre. Staff feels the redevelopment of the site with three units is too intense for the area. There are multi -family uses located in the area most of which are carriage type homes or were constructed or converted several years previously as multi -family units. On the immediate block, all the uses appear to be single-family. Staff would support the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Staff feels with the size of the structure, if it were converted into a duplex unit, this would encourage families to locate in the new homes. The total lot area is 7,609 0 FILE NO.: Z-7769 (Cont. square feet. Based on lot area required for multi -family development, or 2,400 square feet per family, the required lot would be 7,200 square feet. The available lot area of 7,609 square feet is adequate to meet this minimum lot area requirement but staff feels the development of three units is too intense. Staff feels with the development of two units, there would be additional area both inside the structure and outside the structure to encourage families to locate to the site. As previously stated, staff is not supportive of the redevelopment of the site as a triplex development. Staff feels the development is too intense for the area. The area is a fragile neighborhood with redevelopment taking place throughout the area but not so much in the homes immediately adjacent to the site. Staff feels the introduction of a triplex will not encourage families to move into the area. Staff feels with the use of the structure as a duplex, one unit upstairs and one unit downstairs, will encourage families to move into the area and help to add stability to the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request for a triplex but stated they would support the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Mr. Clay Cullem addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated his firm's desire was to transform this existing derelict structure into a home for three families at a reasonable price. He stated he felt the transformation of the home would make the home an anchor for the community. He stated if approved the home would be one of the nicest homes in the area. Mr. Bruce Cook addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated his firm bought the structure at a foreclosure sale. He stated they were not able to gain entry prior to the sale and only after the home was purchased did they gain entry. He stated the home was being renovated for a triplex unit and currently there were five meters in place. He stated the pervious owner was conducting the renovations without permits or approvals from the City. He stated the home contained 2966 square feet and was a two-story home. He stated the cost to renovate the home as a single-family unit was too extensive to allow for a recoup of the cost and the increased number of units was necessary to make the project cost effective. He stated he would amend his application to include the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Ms. Ethel Ambrose addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood had created a diverse neighborhood by encouraging 5 FILE NO.: Z-7769 (Cont persons to join the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood also appreciated persons who came into the neighborhood and asked the community what the goals and visions for the area were instead of telling the neighborhood what was going to happen. She stated the area was redeveloping as single-family by the conversion of previous multi -family structures into single-family homes. She requested the Commission deny the request to convert the structure into any use other than a single-family home. Ms. Terri Hollingsworth addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the area currently had a disportional number of renters. She stated the proposed use did not comply with the Neighborhood Plan established for the area and she felt the structure should be converted to single-family. Mr. Sterling H. Piggee, Jr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the structure had been a problem for him for several years based on the use of the site as multi -family. He stated he had to place a fence along the property line to keep residents from driving through his yard. He stated with the placement of three units on the site this would only cause increased traffic into the area and parking would become a problem for residents. He stated all the homes in the area were single- family homes and the area did not need any additional rental units. Chairman Mizan questioned if the neighborhood wanted a house that was falling down or no development. Ms. Ambrose stated any development was not better than no development. She stated the site had potential for good development as a single-family home. She stated a triplex was too intense for the area. Mr. Cook stated the development would be a quality development and an asset to the area. Staff questioned the proposed covered _parking material. Mr. Cook stated if the covered parking were placed on the site they would comply with staff's recommendations and be architecturally compatible both in design and construction materials. Commissioner Rector questioned if this was an amendment to the application. Mr. Cook stated this was an amendment. A motion was made to approve the request as amended to include the redevelopment of the site as a duplex unit and the covered parking materials to be architecturally compatible both in design and construction materials to the area. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. [: January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 20.1 NAME: Castle Investments Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located at 1715 South Summit Street DEVELOPER: Castle investment, LLC 127251-30 Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Donald W. Books, RLS 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.16 acres FI WW1-V NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family Triplex VARIAN CES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST — APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site located at 1715 South Summit Street from R-3, Single-family to PD -R to allow an existing structure to be converted into a three -unit dwelling. The developer has indicated his company is a real estate investment company which purchases distressed homes, often in foreclosure, and re -furbishes the homes for sale, rent or lease -purchase. The developer states the refurbished homes provide owners and renters with a quality home at a market -affordable price. In the developers' statement and proposal the developers indicate they are particularly committed to the downtown Little Rock neighborhoods. The January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7769 developers state they purchased the home at 1715 South Summit Street at a foreclosure auction earlier this year. At the time of purchase the structure was in absolute distress. The developers state since the purchase, they have improved the property's general appearance and the site is no longer an eyesore. The developers state their intent is to restore the property at 1715 South Summit Street and upon completion of the restoration and renovation of the property, they will then offer three families a proper home at an affordable cost. The proposed site plan includes the placement of four parking spaces at the rear of the site to be served off an existing alleyway. The applicant has indicated seven feet of landscaping along the property lines adjoining the proposed parking pad. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is zoned R-3, Single-family and contains a single-family structure located mid -block. There is a functioning alley located behind the home. The homes located to the north of the site are vacant homes with one burned and the other in a severe state of disrepair. The homes located across the street and to the south of the site appear to be occupied and in good repair. There is a mixture of housing types in the area including single-family, duplex, triplex and multi -family homes, although the structure is located in a block that appears to be single-family. There are a number of vacant and boarded homes located in the area. The indicated block contains two vacant homes; neither of which are boarded. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one phone call from an area resident stating concerns about the proposed request. All property owners located within 200 - feet of the site along with all residents located within 300 -feet of the site who could be identified and the Central High Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. 2 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. 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. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) to convert an existing building into a triplex. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 20, File No. LU05-08-01). Master Street Plan: Summit, 17th, and 18th Streets are all shown as local streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets may require dedication of right-of- way and street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings are required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. 3 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 Cont. FILE NO.: z-7759 Prior to construction it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT - (December 29, 2004) Mr. Clay Culver was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was to convert an existing structure into a triplex. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if any signage would be added to the site. Mr. Culver stated there would not be any signage. Staff also questioned if a dumpster would be placed on the site. Mr. Culver stated a dumpster would not be utilized. Staff questioned if a cover would be added to the parking in the future. Mr. Culver stated he did not think so but he would provide staff with an updated cover letter indicating the future plans for covering on or before January 5, 2005. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies, indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. 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 site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated screening adjacent to the parking pad but is requesting a waiver of the required screening along the entire property line. The applicant has indicated a 7.5 -foot landscape strip adjacent to the parking pad, which will be planted with a screening material. The applicant is requesting the waiver to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and has stated a fence along the property lines would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. The applicant has indicated there will not be any signage placed to identify the development and has indicated a dumpster will not be utilized on the site. The applicant has indicated garbage collection will be provided by the City of Little Rock. The applicant has indicated the proposed parking will not initially be covered but is requesting to option to add covered parking in the future. The applicant has indicated the covered parking will be stainless steel tubing with a galvanized roofing material. Staff would recommend if a cover is placed over the indicated parking the construction materials be consistent with architectural elements and architectural designs in the area. The applicant has indicated the development will consist of three units. The site plan includes the placement of four parking spaces. The indicated parking is adequate to meet the minimum parking required for a multi -family development containing three units. 4 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont. NO.: Z - Staff is not supportive of the proposed density of the site. The applicant is requesting the development of the existing structure with three multi -family units resulting in a density of 18.75 units per acre. Staff feels the redevelopment of the site with three units is too intense for the area. There are multi -family uses located in the area most of which are carriage type homes or were constructed or converted several years previously as multi -family units. On the immediate block, all the uses appear to be single-family. Staff would support the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Staff feels with the size of the structure, if it were converted into a duplex unit, this would encourage families to locate in the new homes. The total lot area is 7,609 square feet. Based on lot area required for multi -family development, or 2,400 square feet per family, the required lot would be 7,200 square feet. The available lot area of 7,609 square feet is adequate to meet this minimum lot area requirement but staff feels the development of three units is too intense. Staff feels with the development of two units, there would be additional area both inside the structure and outside the structure to encourage families to locate tc the site. As previously stated, staff is not supportive of the redevelopment of the site as a triplex development. Staff feels the development is too intense for the area. The area is a fragile neighborhood with redevelopment taking place throughout the area but not so much in the homes immediately adjacent to the site. Staff feels the introduction of a triplex will not encourage families to move into the area. Staff feels with the use of the structure as a duplex, one unit upstairs and one unit downstairs, will encourage families to move into the area and help to add stability to the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request for a triplex but stated they would support the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Mr. Clay Cullem addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated his firm's desire was to transform this existing derelict structure into a home for three families at a reasonable price. He stated he felt the transformation of the home would make the home an anchor for the community. He stated if approved the home would be one of the nicest homes in the area. 5 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7769 Mr. Bruce Cook addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated his firm bought the structure at a foreclosure sale. He stated they were not able to gain entry prior to the sale and only after the home was purchased did they gain entry. He stated the home was being renovated for a triplex unit and currently there were five meters in place. He stated the pervious owner was conducting the renovations without permits or approvals from the City. He stated the home contained 2966 square feet and was a two-story home. He stated the cost to renovate the home as a single-family unit was too extensive to allow for a recoup of the cost and the increased number of units was necessary to make the project cost effective. He stated he would amend his application to include the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Ms. Ethel Ambrose addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood had created a diverse neighborhood by encouraging persons to join the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood also appreciated persons who came into the neighborhood and asked the community what the goals and visions for the area were instead of telling the neighborhood what was going to happen. She stated the area was redeveloping as single-family by the conversion of previous multi -family structures into single-family homes. She requested the Commission deny the request to convert the structure into any use other than a single-family home. Ms. Terri Hollingsworth addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the area currently had a disportional .number of renters. She stated the proposed use did not comply with the Neighborhood Plan established for the area and she felt the structure should be converted to single-family. Mr. Sterling H. Piggee, Jr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the structure had been a problem for him for several years based on the use of the site as multi -family. He stated he had to place a fence along the property line to keep residents from driving through his yard. He stated with the placement of three units on the site this would only cause increased traffic into the area and parking would become a problem for residents. He stated all the homes in the area were single- family homes and the area did not need any additional rental units. Chairman Mizan questioned if the neighborhood wanted a house that was falling down or no development. Ms. Ambrose stated any development was not better than no development. She stated the site had potential for good development as a single-family home. She stated a triplex was too intense for the area. Mr. Cook stated the development would be a quality development and an asset to the area. Staff questioned the proposed covered parking material. Mr. Cook stated if the covered parking were placed on the site they would comply with staff's recommendations and be architecturally compatible both in design and construction materials. Commissioner 9 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7769 Rector questioned if this was an amendment to the application. Mr. Cook stated this was an amendment. A motion was made to approve the request as amended to include the redevelopment of the site as a duplex unit and the covered parking materials to be architecturally compatible both in design and construction materials to the area. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. rl ITEM NO. 20.1. NAME: Castle Investments Short -form PD -R LOCATION: located at 1715 South Summit Street Planning Staff Comments: FILE NO.: Z-7769 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. Is any signage proposed as a part of the development? If so indicate the location along with details concerning the proposed signage including height and area. 3. Will there be a dumpster located on the site? How will be garbage collection be handled? 4. Is the intent to cover the proposed parking pad in the future? If so indicate the construction material, roof material and building elevation for the proposed covered structure. VariancelWaivers: None requested. Int IG MTATIMM 1. No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Enerav: No comment received. 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. Fire Department: County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. Planning Division: This request is located in. the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) to convert an existing building into a triplex. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 20, File No. LU05-08-01). Master Street Plan: Summit, 17th, and 18th Streets are all shown as local streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings are required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. Prior to construction it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan - Revised plat/plan: lan. Revisedplat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, December 29, 2004.