Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8574 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-8574 NAME: Buntaine Short -form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 303 Rosetta Street DEVELOPER: Rolfe Buntaine 1201 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72205 SURVEYOR: BTE — Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc. 1501 Market Street Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.16 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-3, Single-family Existing duplex -m PROPOSED USE: Triplex FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF VARIANCESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The property located at 303 Rosetta is currently a duplex unit with both units located on the first floor. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD-R to allow the top floor to be finished as a studio apartment. The site contains an existing paved drive located along the northern property line and a paved parking pad within the rear yard area for two (2) cars. The parking pad is accessed via a gravel drive across the property located to the north. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is zoned R-3, Single-family and is currently a duplex unit. Within the general area there are a number of duplex and triplex units. There is a paved FILE NO.: Z-8574 (Cont. drive extending from West 3d Street to the rear parking pad. It appears the drive has been constructed encroaching onto the adjacent property. Across from the site is a property zoned R-4 which appears to be multiple units. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. A few have indicated opposition to the request. A few have indicated support of the request. All property owners located within 200 feet site, all residents, who could be identified. located within 300 feet of the site and the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A platted alley and/or platted access easement is not shown on the east side of Lots 23 and 24 of C.S. Stifft's Addition to access the concrete parking area on Lot 23. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Enercty: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment- 2 FILE NO.- Z-8574 (Cont. F G CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 1-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to PRD to allow the conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. Residential Low Density is meant for single family homes and triplex homes may be seen as too dense for this land use classification. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. This area is covered by the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Plan. Their Community Preservation Goal states: "Enact a 'No Net Loss' policy in the neighborhood, that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use, etc." Master Street Plan: Rosetta Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Screening of parking areas will be required with the development of the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 22, 2010) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating they had contacted the applicant concerning the issues which had been raised during the review process. Staff stated the applicant was working with an abstract company to verify if there was a platted alley located on the rear of the lots. Staff stated if the access issue was resolved then the applicant would add additional paving within the rear yard area to provide three parking spaces and a fourth was located in the front yard area. Staff stated the additional paving would allow the development to meet the typical parking required by the zoning ordinance. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 3 FILE NO.: Z-8574 (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the July 22, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting in need of addressing via a revised site plan. The applicant has provided staff with a determination from the abstract company which indicated there was not an alley platted with the original subdivision abutting these lots. There are two of the lots located in the area which have excepted five (5) feet from the rear of their property. Lot 24 located to the north of this lot and Lot 21 which is located to the southeast of this lot. Residents have been using a graveled drive extending from West 3rd Street to take access to the rear parking area for this property which appears to be located outside the five (5) foot exception on the western lot. The site is proposed as a triplex unit with access to three (3) parking spaces in the rear yard and the drive located on Rosetta to serve as a fourth parking space. Based on the typical parking required for a multi -family development containing three (3) units four (4) spaces would be required. The applicant has provided staff with an agreement from the property owner to the east allowing residents to drive across her property to access the rear parking area. The drive is graveled and is 12-feet in width. The applicant has not provided staff with an easement which will follow the property to provide proper access continuously. Staff does not support the application as filed. Staff has concerns with the rear parking area being provided proper access. The drive as indicated is inadequate to serve the site as typically required for City services. Within areas of the City which have platted alleys the alley is usually platted with a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet and in new areas a minimum width of twenty (20) feet is required. Staff cannot support the request without proper access to the rear yard area which is providing the parking required to serve the units. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 12, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Planning Commission's By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferred of the item to the September 23, 2010, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. n FILE NO.: Z-8574 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010) Mr. Routh Buntaine was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the applicant did not have legal access to the parking area in the rear yard area proposed to serve the units. Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he had permission from the property owner to the east to allow access across her property. He stated the area was not in an easement but people had been using the access for a number of years. He stated the rear parking area contained two (2) spaces and were used by the residents in the rear unit. He stated the City did not maintain the area but there were utilities located in the area. Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the area behind her house was not an easement according to the City. She stated the area was overgrown and she had called the City to request the area be maintained. She stated the City had told her the clearing of this area was not the City's responsibility because the area was not an alley. She stated she had three concerns. She stated the first concern was parking. She stated currently there were cars parked in the street from the multi -family development across the street. She stated the addition of one more unit could create additional street parking needs. She stated her second concern was dogs. She stated the current residents had three to four dogs and the addition of one more unit could create additional dogs. She stated this could cause a problem in the neighborhood by barking. She stated her third concern was the possibility of a bad neighbor. She stated the current neighbors were very pleasant but the addition of a third unit created the potential for a bad neighbor. Mr. Buntaine stated he screened his residents very closely. He stated the current residents had lived in the units for more than two (2) years. He stated the upstairs unit would not be allowed pets. He stated the current duplex allowed for fenced yard areas for the front and rear units which allowed a yard area for each unit for their pets. He stated there would not be a problem with parking. He stated the upstairs unit would be accessed from the alley and would not park in the front. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the current access and the lack of an easement to provide proper parking. Mr. Buntaine stated he had an agreement from the adjacent property owner indicating his residents had the right to drive across her property for access. The Commission indicated this was not adequate. Cindy Dawson, the Deputy City Attorney, stated an easement was required to allow for continued access. She stated an agreement could be rescinded at will but a properly recorded easement could not. 5 FILE NO.: Z-8574 (Cont. Mr. Buntaine requested a deferral of the item to allow time to visit with an attorney and surveyor to determine the best means of access to the parking area. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant is working with the adjacent property owners and a surveyor to provide a legal description and dedication easement to allow for proper access to the site. Once the additional information is received staff will review the information. Staff will provide the Commission with a full update and final recommendation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010) Mr. Rolfe Buntaine was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item stating the item was deferred from the Commission's September 23, 2010 public hearing to allow the applicant time to secure easements to allow proper access to the parking area located within the rear yard area. Staff stated the easements had been obtained. Staff stated in the original staff write-up staff requested an 18-foot access easement to allow for proper City services. Staff stated no services would be provided from the alley and they were now comfortable with allowing the access easement to be 10-feet. Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated there were currently two units downstairs and the upstairs unit would be completed as a studio apartment. He stated there was sufficient parking on the site to handle three units. He stated he would provide a paved drive from the parking area to the street as requested by staff. Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her concern was with the number of bedrooms and the potential number of residents within the structure. She stated the existing duplex had four bedrooms and the studio apartment would add an additional bedroom. She stated two persons per bedroom could generate ten automobiles. She stated the area was predominately single-family. She stated there as also a concern with additional pets. She stated additional units could generate additional pets. She stated the approval of the triplex would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Buntaine stated the upstairs units would not be allowed dogs. He stated the only exterior modifications to the site would be the rear parking area and the drive from 3rd Street. Ce FILE NO.: Z-8574 There was a general discussion by the Commission of the application and the access to the parking area. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. 7 November 4, 2010 ITEM NO.: C NAME: Buntaine Short -form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 303 Rosetta Street DEVELOPER: Rolfe Buntaine 1201 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72205 SURVEYOR: BTE — Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc. 1501 Market Street Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.16 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-3, Single-family Existing duplex Triplex FILE NO.: Z-8574 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The property located at 303 Rosetta is currently a duplex unit with both units located on the first floor. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD-R to allow the top floor to be finished as a studio apartment. The site contains an existing paved drive located along the northern property line and a paved parking pad within the rear yard area for two (2) cars. The parking pad is accessed via a gravel drive across the property located to the north. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is zoned R-3, Single-family and is currently a duplex unit. Within the general area there are a number of duplex and triplex units. There is a paved drive extending from West 3rd Street to the rear parking pad. It appears the drive November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-857 has been constructed encroaching onto the adjacent property. Across from the site is a property zoned R-4 which appears to be multiple units. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls -from area property owners. A few have indicated opposition to the request. A few have indicated support of the request. All property owners located within 200 feet site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A platted alley and/or platted access easement is not shown on the east side of Lots 23 and 24 of C.S. Stifft's Addition to access the concrete parking area on Lot 23. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. 2 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-8574 County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 1-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to PRD to allow the conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. Residential Low Density is meant for single family homes and triplex homes may be seen as too dense for this land use classification. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. This area is covered by the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Plan. Their Community Preservation Goal states: "Enact a 'No Net Loss' policy in the neighborhood, that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use, etc." Master Street Plan: Rosetta Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. Bicycle Pian: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Screening of parking areas will be required with the development of the site. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 22, 2010) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating they had contacted the applicant concerning the issues which had been raised during the review process. Staff stated the applicant was working with an abstract company to verify if there was a platted alley located on the rear of the lots. Staff stated if 3 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574 the access issue was resolved then the applicant would add additional paving within the rear yard area to provide three parking spaces and a fourth was located in the front yard area. Staff stated the additional paving would allow the development to meet the typical parking required by the zoning ordinance. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the July 22, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting in need of addressing via a revised site plan. The applicant has provided staff with a determination from the abstract company which indicated there was not an alley platted with the original subdivision abutting these lots. There are two of the lots located in the area which have excepted five (5) feet from the rear of their property. Lot 24 located to the north of this lot and Lot 21 which is located to the southeast of this lot. Residents have been using a graveled drive extending from West 3rd Street to take access to the rear parking area for this property which appears to be located outside the five (5) foot exception on the western lot. The site is proposed as a triplex unit with access to three (3) parking spaces in the rear yard and the drive located on Rosetta to serve as a fourth parking space. Based on the typical parking required for a multi -family development containing three (3) units four (4) spaces would be required. The applicant has provided staff with an agreement from the property owner to the east allowing residents to drive across her property to access the rear parking area. The drive is graveled and is 12-feet in width. The applicant has not provided staff with an easement which will follow the property to provide proper access continuously. Staff does not support the application as filed. Staff has concerns with the rear parking area being provided proper access. The drive as indicated is inadequate to serve the site as typically required for City services. Within areas of the City which have platted alleys the alley is usually platted with a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet and in new areas a minimum width of twenty (20) feet is required. Staff cannot support the request without proper access to the rear yard area which is providing the parking required to serve the units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. 0 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (C FILE NO.: Z-8574 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 12, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Planning Commission's By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferred of the item to the September 23, 2010, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010) Mr. Routh Buntaine was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the applicant did not have legal access to the parking area in the rear yard area proposed to serve the units. Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he had permission from the property owner to the east to allow access across her property. He stated the area was not in an easement but people had been using the access for a number of years. He stated the rear parking area contained two (2) spaces and were used by the residents in the rear unit. He stated the City did not maintain the area but there were utilities located in the area. Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the area behind her house was not an easement according to the City. She stated the area was overgrown and she had called the City to request the area be maintained. She stated the City had told her the clearing of this area was not the City's responsibility because the area was not an alley. She stated she had three concerns. She stated the first concern was parking. She stated currently there were cars parked in the street from the multi -family development across the street. She stated the addition of one more unit could create additional street parking needs. She stated her second concern was dogs. She stated the current residents had three to four dogs and the addition of one more unit could create additional dogs. She stated this could cause a problem in the neighborhood by barking. She stated her third concern was the possibility of a bad neighbor. She stated the current neighbors were very pleasant but the addition of a third unit created the potential for a bad neighbor. 5 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574 Mr. Buntaine stated he screened his residents very closely. He stated the current residents had lived in the units for more than two (2) years. He stated the upstairs unit would not be allowed pets. He stated the current duplex allowed for fenced yard areas for the front and rear units which allowed a yard area for each unit for their pets. He stated there would not be a problem with parking. He stated the upstairs unit would be accessed from the alley and would not park in the front. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the current access and the lack of an easement to provide proper parking. Mr. Buntaine stated he had an agreement from the adjacent property owner indicating his residents had the right to drive across her property for access. The Commission indicated this was not adequate. Cindy Dawson, the Deputy City Attorney, stated an easement was required to allow for continued access. She stated an agreement could be rescinded at will but a properly recorded easement could not. Mr. Buntaine requested a deferral of the item to allow time to visit with an attorney and surveyor to determine the best means of access to the parking area. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant is working with the adjacent property owners and a surveyor to provide a legal description and dedication easement to allow for proper access to the site. Once the additional information is received staff will review the information. Staff will provide the Commission with a full update and final recommendation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBR 4, 2010) Mr. Rolfe Buntaine was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item stating the item was deferred from the Commission's September 23, 2010 public hearing to allow the applicant time to secure easements to allow proper access to the parking area located within the rear yard area. Staff stated the easements had been obtained. Staff stated in the original staff write-up staff requested an 18-foot access easement to allow for proper City services. Staff stated no services would be provided from the alley and they were now comfortable with allowing the access easement to be 10-feet. C01 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (ContJ FILE NO.: Z-8574 Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated there were currently two units downstairs and the upstairs unit would be completed as a studio apartment. He stated there was sufficient parking on the site to handle three units. He stated he would provide a paved drive from the parking area to the street as requested by staff. Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her concern was with the number of bedrooms and the potential number of residents within the structure. She stated the existing duplex had four bedrooms and the studio apartment would add an additional bedroom. She stated two persons per bedroom could generate ten automobiles. She stated the area was predominately single-family. She stated there as also a concern with additional pets. She stated additional units could generate additional pets. She stated the approval of the triplex would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Buntaine stated the upstairs units would not be allowed dogs. He stated the only exterior modifications to the site would be the rear parking area and the drive from 3rd Street. There was a general discussion by the Commission of the application and the access to the parking area. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. 7 September 23, 2010 ITEM NO.: NAME: Buntaine Short -form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 303 Rosetta Street DEVELOPER: Rolfe Buntaine 1201 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72205 SURVEYOR: BTE — Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc. 1501 Market Street Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.16 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-3, Single-family Existing duplex .� . Triplex FILE NO.: Z-8574 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The property located at 303 Rosetta is currently a duplex unit with both units located on the first floor. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD-R to allow the top floor to be finished as a studio apartment. The site contains an existing paved drive located along the northern property line and a paved parking pad within the rear yard area for two (2) cars. The parking pad is accessed via a gravel drive across the property located to the north. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is zoned R-3, Single-family and is currently a duplex unit. Within the general area there are a number of duplex and triplex units. There is a paved drive extending from West 3rd Street to the rear parking pad. It appears the drive September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. C FILE NO.: Z-8574 has been constructed encroaching onto the adjacent property. Across from the site is a property zoned R-4 which appears to be multiple units. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. A few have indicated opposition to the request. A few have indicated support of the request. All property owners located within 200 feet site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A platted alley and/or platted access easement is not shown on the east side of Lots 23 and 24 of C.S. Stifft's Addition to access the concrete parking area on Lot 23. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Ener : No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. 6 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION F NO.: C (Cont. County Planning: No comment. FILE NO.: Z-8574 CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 1-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to PRD to allow the conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. Residential Low Density is meant for single family homes and triplex homes may be seen as too dense for this land use classification. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. This area is covered by the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Plan. Their Community Preservation Goal states: "Enact a 'No Net Loss' policy in the neighborhood, that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use, etc." Master Street Plan: Rosetta Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Screening of parking areas will be required with the development of the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 22, 2010) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating they had contacted the applicant concerning the issues which had been raised during the review process. Staff stated the applicant was working with an abstract company to verify if there was a platted alley located on the rear of the lots. Staff stated if 3 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8574 the access issue was resolved then the applicant would add additional paving within the rear yard area to provide three parking spaces and a fourth was located in the front yard area. Staff stated the additional paving would allow the development to meet the typical parking required by the zoning ordinance. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the July 22, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting in need of addressing via a revised site plan. The applicant has provided staff with a determination from the abstract company which indicated there was not an alley platted with the original subdivision abutting these lots. There are two of the lots located in the area which have excepted five (5) feet from the rear of their property. Lot 24 located to the north of this lot and Lot 21 which is located to the southeast of this lot. Residents have been using a graveled drive extending from West 3`d Street to take access to the rear parking area for this property which appears to be located outside the five (5) foot exception on the western lot. The site is proposed as a triplex unit with access to three (3) parking spaces in the rear yard and the drive located on Rosetta to serve as a fourth parking space. Based on the typical parking required for a multi -family development containing three (3) units four (4) spaces would be required. The applicant has provided staff with an agreement from the property owner to the east allowing residents to drive across her property to access the rear parking area. The drive is graveled and is 12-feet in width. The applicant has not provided staff with an easement which will follow the property to provide proper access continuously. Staff does not support the application as filed. Staff has concerns with the rear parking area being provided proper access. The drive as indicated is inadequate to serve the site as typically required for City services. Within areas of the City which have platted alleys the alley is usually platted with a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet and in new areas a minimum width of twenty (20) feet is required. Staff cannot support the request without proper access to the rear yard area which is providing the parking required to serve the units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. 12 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8574 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 12, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Planning Commission's By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferred of the item to the September 23, 2010, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010) Mr. Routh Buntaine was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the applicant did not have legal access to the parking area in the rear yard area proposed to serve the units. Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he had permission from the property owner to the east to allow access across her property. He stated the area was not in an easement but people had been using the access for a number of years. He stated the rear parking area contained two (2) spaces and were used by the residents in the rear unit. He stated the City did not maintain the area but there were utilities located in the area. Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the area behind her house was not an easement according to the City. She stated the area was overgrown and she had called the City to request the area be maintained. She stated the City had told her the clearing of this area was not the City's responsibility because the area was not an alley. She stated she had three concerns. She stated the first concern was parking. She stated currently there were cars parked in the street from the multi -family development across the street. She stated the addition of one more unit could create additional street parking needs. She stated her second concern was dogs. She stated the current residents had three to four dogs and the addition of one more unit could create additional dogs. She stated this could cause a problem in the neighborhood by barking. She stated her third concern was the possibility of a bad neighbor. She stated the current neighbors were very pleasant but the addition of a third unit created the potential for a bad neighbor. 5 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8574 Mr. Buntaine stated he screened his residents very closely. He stated the current residents had lived in the units for more than two (2) years. He stated the upstairs unit would not be allowed pets. He stated the current duplex allowed for fenced yard areas for the front and rear units which allowed a yard area for each unit for their pets. He stated there would not be a problem with parking. He stated the upstairs unit would be accessed from the alley and would not park in the front. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the current access and the lack of an easement to provide proper parking. Mr. Buntaine stated he had an agreement from the adjacent property owner indicating his residents had the right to drive across her property for access. The Commission indicated this was not adequate. Cindy Dawson, the Deputy City Attorney, stated an easement was required to allow for continued access. She stated an agreement could be rescinded at will but a properly recorded easement could not. Mr. Buntaine requested a deferral of the item to allow time to visit with an attorney and surveyor to determine the best means of access to the parking area. There was no further discussion of the item. of the item to the November 4, 2010, public 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. The chair entertained a motion for deferral hearing. The motion carried by a vote of [Q ITEM NO.: 14. NAME: Buntaine Short -form PD-R LOCATION: located at 303 Rosetta Street Planning Staff Comments: Z-8574 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. The notice must be mailed no later than July 28, 2010. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than August 6, 2010. 2. Parking for three units would typically require the placement of four (4) on -site parking spaces. The site plan does not appear to allow for the placement of parking on -site. 3. Is any fencing proposed with the proposed development? If so provide the location of the proposed fencing including the location, total height and construction material. 4. The drive accessing the rear parking area does not appear to be located within a platted alley. Provide a written easement between this property and the adjacent property allowing the drive to access the parking area. Variance/Waivers: Public Works Conditions: 1. A platted alley and/or platted access easement is not shown on the east side of Lots 23 and 24 of C.S. Stifft's Addition to access the concrete parking area on Lot 23. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Item # 14. Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. rks and Recreation: No comment. Planning Division:_ This request is located in the 1-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to PRD to allow the conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. Residential Low Density is meant for single family homes and triplex homes may be seen as too dense for this land use classification. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. This area is covered by the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Plan. Their Community Preservation Goal states: "Enact a 'No Net Loss' policy in the neighborhood, that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use, etc." Master Street Plan: Rosetta Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Screening of parking areas will be required with the development of the site. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, July 28, 2010. Item # 14.