Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0397 Staff AnalysisJune 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 397 NAME: Bodeman's Addition Lot 6, Block 11 "PRD" Short Form LOCATION: NW Corner of Valentine and 6th Streets TLC'K7 rnn P.n. TnnuTMVnM. K.B. Company Bob Killingsworth #1 Inwood Circle #1 Inwood Circle Suite 202 Suite 202 Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Phone: 225-8587 AREA: 6,026 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USE: Four-plex REQUEST: To reclassify an area zoned "R-2" to "PRD." I. History of the Site: The site and immediate area has been noted for single family use through the years. II. Development Objectives and Philosophy: A. To remove an existing and vacant frame residence which is approximately 50 years old. B. The construction of a two-story, frame structure with brick and siding exterior, to be used as a four-plex. C. Sale of completed project to an investor for rental purposes. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued III. Project Characteristics: A. Parcel Size ........... 6,026 sq. ft. B. Existing Zoning ....... 11R-2" C. Development Scheme: (1) Four-plex First Level ........... 3,800 sq. ft. Second Level .......... 1,800 sq. ft. Total Building Size ... 3,800 sq. ft. (2) Lot Size .............. 131' x 46' (3) Building Coverage ..... 30% (4) Parking ............... 7 (5) Unit Size ............. 950 sq. ft. D. Timetable for Construction (1) Construction Start .... June 15, 1983 (2) Ready for Occupancy ... September 15, 1983 IV. Engineering Considerations: (1) Parking plan on Valentine is not satisfactory, since backing into the right-of-way is not permitted. (2) Engineering records show that 6th Street right-of-way is on the south side of the property rather than the alley shown on the submitted plan. 6th Street should be improved as a part of this project. V. Staff Analysis: Staff has severe reservations about endorsing this proposal. Technically, it is deficient relative to specific design criteria, as it does not allow sufficient space for the required amount of parking. More importantly, the proposal represents a direction in which staff is reluctant to support in regard to the June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued general character of the Neighborhood. If approved, this plan would represent a departure from many of the goals that have been set by the Neighborhood and City policy. The Woodruff Neighborhood is a part of the City which has been experiencing revitalization over the last five to seven years through the C.D.B.G. program and some private investment. Recently, it has begun to experience outside pressures due to the construction of a medical complex to the west. Staff feels that the efforts of the neighborhood should not go unheeded. Approval of this type proposal in an area that is single family and encouraging the demolition of a single family structure would only add to the external pressures and encourage instability in the area. The City must support the efforts of the neighborhood and try to ensure that the positive trends that have taken place recently are not reversed. Furthermore, this seems to be a good case for rehabilitation. Demolishing the structure and replacing it with the proposed would be removing affordable housing stock from the Little Rock from a desirable neighborhood. Only 1 1/2 block to the south of the site, 18 new units have been constructed, are under construction or have been approved by the City for construction. The concentration of all the new units in one area could have a very negative impact on the general character; so staff is in favor of keeping the site single family. There is some vacant land in the area that would accommodate some non -single family development. This would not necessitate setting a precedent for the demolition of existing structures. VI. Staff Recommendation: Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without recommendation, since the applicant was not present. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were approximately 20 persons there in opposition. Since the applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Commis.sion decided to defer the item to the June 14 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: A revised plan, which reduced tri-plex, was submitted. It subject to identification of (1) Density (2) Design of parking. (3) Concern of neighborhood. (May 26, 1983) the proposal to a 2-story was passed to the Commission, several issues: (4) Improvements to 6th Street. (5) The question of whether or not approval of this proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The applicant was favorable to the improvement of 6th Street. He was advised to meet with Engineering before the Public Hearing, so that the parking may be revised. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A revised plan showing an agreement worked out with Engineering was submitted. A number of residents from the Woodruff Neighborhood were present and in opposition to the plan as proposed. Mr. David Elms, President of the Woodruff School Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Committee was the first spokesman. He submitted a letter addressed to the Commission, which offered guidelines for the consideration of rezoning and PUD applications in the area. The major recommendations outlined in the letter included: (1) Disallowing rezoning out of conformity with the Neighborhood Plan. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued (2) Non -acceptance of a PUD proposal that increased the potential number of residential units on any platted block as zoned, taking into consideration development of other lots in the block. (3) Non -acceptance of a PUD proposal which would increase by more than 50 percent the number of units allowable per lot on any plat as zoned. The second person to speak was Reverend Murray Tucker of St. Peters Baptist Church, who expressed opposition to re -zoning and asked that the request be denied and that it remain single family residential. Mr. J.N. Dueheart, Sr. of 510 S. Valentine expressed similar concerns and a fear that the neighborhood was experiencing undue development pressure due to the new VA Hospital in the area. He submitted a petition with 65 signatures from the neighborhood. Rehabilitation of the structure was discussed. The Commission suggested reusing the same structure for the development, and Mr. Elms pointed out that $50,000 in rehab money was available for renovation in the area. The applicant stated that it was not economically feasible to rehabilitate the structure. He was then asked whether or not he would consider the possibility of the duplex on the property. He indicated that it was probable. A motion was made to approve the item as filed. The motion was denied by a vote of 1 aye, 8 noes and 2 absent. Staff was instructed by the Commission to give some comments at the June 28th meeting as to whether or not they are in support of the proposal submitted by the C.D.B.G. Committee. The applicant was advised to wait until these comments were presented before a decision was made whether or not to refile an alternate proposal. COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1983) The staff report to the Commission endorsed the criteria provided by the C.D.B.G. Committee. A general discussion was held. The result being an instruction to the owner that the issue has been retired from further consideration and if he desired to pursue the matter as a duplex using the existing house he should file the appropriate application. There was a motion and vote on this matter to retire the request. The vote - 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 397 NAME: Bodeman's Addition Lot 6, Block 11 "PRD" Short Form LOCATION: NW Corner of Valentine and 6th Streets n L+[7vr nn L,n. Tn/,L7 T M0 P,M. K.B. Company Bob Killingsworth #1 Inwood Circle #1 Inwood Circle Suite 202 Suite 202 Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Phone: 225-8587 AREA: 6,026 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USE: Four-plex n Vnr T P. CT. To reclassify an area zoned "R-2" to "PRD." I. History of the Site: The site and immediate area has been noted for single family use through the years. II. Development Objectives and Philosophy: A. To remove an existing and vacant frame residence which is approximately 50 years old. B. The construction of a two-story, frame structure with brick and siding exterior, to be used as a four-plex. C. Sale of completed project to an investor for rental purposes. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued III. Project Characteristics: A. Parcel Size ........... 6,026 sq. ft. B. Existing zoning ....... "R--2" C. Development Scheme: (1) Four-plex First Level ..........0 3,800 sq. ft. Second Level .......... 1,800 sq. ft. Total Building Size ... 3,800 sq. ft. (2) Lot Size .............. 131' x 46' (3) Building Coverage ..... 30% (4) Parking ............... 7 (5) Unit Size 950 sq. ft. D. Timetable for Construction (1) Construction Start .... June 15, 1983 (2) Ready for Occupancy ... September 15, 1983 IV. Engineering Considerations: (1) Parking plan on Valentine is not satisfactory, since backing into the right-of-way is not permitted. (2) Engineering records show that 6th Street right-of-way is on the south side of the property rather than the alley shown on the submitted plan. 6th Street should be improved as a part of this project. V. Staff Analysis: Staff has severe reservations about endorsing this proposal. Technically, it is deficient relative to specific design criteria, as it does not allow sufficient space for the required amount of parking. More importantly, the proposal represents a direction in which staff is reluctant to support in regard to the June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued general character of the Neighborhood. If approved, this plan would represent a departure from many of the goals that have been set by the Neighborhood and City policy. The Woodruff Neighborhood is a part of the City which has been experiencing revitalization over the last -five to seven years through the C.D.B.G. program and some private investment. Recently, it has begun to experience outside pressures due to the construction of a medical complex to the west. Staff feels that the efforts of the neighborhood should not go unheeded. Approval of this type proposal in an area that is single family and encouraging the demolition of a single family structure would only add to the external pressures and encourage instability in the area. The City must support the efforts of the neighborhood and try to ensure that the positive trends that have taken place recently are not reversed. Furthermore, this seems to be a good case for rehabilitation. Demolishing the structure and replacing it with the proposed would be removing affordable housing stock from the Little Rock from a desirable neighborhood. Only 1 1/2 block to the south of the site, 18 new units have been constructed, are under construction or have been approved by the City for construction. The concentration of all the new units in one area could have a very negative impact on the general character; so staff is in favor of keeping the site single family. There is some vacant land in the area that would accommodate some non -single family development. This would not necessitate setting a precedent for the demolition of existing structures. VI. Staff Recommendation: Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without recommendation, since the applicant was not present. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were approximately 20 persons there in opposition. Since the applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Commis.sion decided to defer the item to the June 14 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (May 26, 1983) A revised plan, which reduced the proposal to a 2-story tri-plex, was submitted. It was passed to the Commission, subject to identification of several issues: (1) Density (2) Design of parking. (3) Concern of neighborhood. (4) Improvements to 6th Street. (5) The question of whether or not approval of this proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The applicant was favorable to the improvement of 6th Street. He was advised to meet with Engineering before the Public Hearing, so that the parking may be revised. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A revised plan showing an agreement worked out with Engineering was submitted. A number of residents from the Woodruff Neighborhood were present and in opposition to the plan as proposed. Mr. David Elms, President of the Woodruff School Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Committee was the first spokesman. He submitted a letter addressed to the Commission, which offered guidelines for the consideration of rezoning and PUD applications in the area. The major recommendations outlined in the letter included: (1) Disallowing rezoning out of conformity with the Neighborhood Plan. June 28, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued (2) Non -acceptance of a PUD proposal that increased the potential number of residential units on any platted block as zoned, taking into consideration development of other lots in the block. (3) Non -acceptance of a PUD proposal which would increase by more than 50 percent the number of units allowable per lot on any plat as zoned. The second person to speak was Reverend Murray Tucker of St. Peters Baptist Church, who expressed opposition to re -zoning and asked that the request be denied and that it remain single family residential. Mr. J.N. Dueheart, Sr. of 510 S. Valentine expressed similar concerns and a fear that the neighborhood was experiencing undue development pressure due to the new VA Hospital in the area. He submitted a petition with 65 signatures from the neighborhood. Rehabilitation of the structure was discussed. The Commission suggested reusing the same structure for the development, and Mr. Elms pointed out that $50,000 in rehab money was available for renovation in the area. The applicant stated that it was not economically feasible to rehabilitate the structure. He was then asked whether or not he would consider the possibility of the duplex on the property. He indicated that it was probable. A motion was made to approve the item as filed. The motion was denied by a vote of 1 aye, 8 noes and 2 absent. Staff was instructed by the Commission to give some comments at the June 28th meeting as to whether or not they are in support of the proposal submitted by the C.D.B.G. Committee. The applicant was advised to wait until these comments were presented before a decision was made whether or not to refile an alternate proposal. COMMISSION ACTION: (June 28, 1983) The staff report to the Commission endorsed the criteria provided by the C.D.B.G. Committee. A general discussion was held. The result being an instruction to the owner that the issue has been retired from further consideration and if he desired to pursue the matter as a duplex using the existing house he should file the appropriate application. There was a motion and vote on this matter to retire the request. The vote - 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.