Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0477 Staff Analysisr January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 477 NAME: Ash Place Planned Residential District LOCATION: North End of North Ash Street One Block North of "I" Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: H. Elvin Shuffield Jr. Finley William Engineers Suite 1021 210 Victory Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR AREA: .537 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Requesting change to "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily in a condominium format with 6 units per acre VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existina Conditions Terrain involved is somewhat difficult due to a change in elevation of almost 40' from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. The surrounding land on the north is a part of Alsopp Park and has a heavy vegetation with little public use in this area. The existing street accessing the site is improved, but does not have a turnaround device at the end. Adjacent driveways to residences are now utilized for this purpose. B. Development Proposal The owner states he is desirous of developing a condominium project at the north dead end of Ash Street in the City of Little Rock utilizing one unit as my personal residence and causing the remaining units to be sold on the open market as single family residences. This will be a high budget, high quality project with the following information outlining my proposed development as to structural and legal composition. a January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued 1. Size of tract - 23,400 sq. ft. 2. Net density per acre - 6 3. Number of buildings and units - 1 building with 3 units 4_ Ratio of parking to units - 2 to 1 5. Ratio of building to land - 2,600 sq. ft. of building to 23,400 sq. ft. of land 6. Number of access points - 1 7. P.erimeter treatment - a buffer zone will be maintained around the entire perimeter of the project with the natural grade and growth being retained 8. Unit composition - each unit will have 3 bedrooms and a two car covered garage 9. Perimeter setback - 8' on the north and south sides, 25' on both east and west sides with privacy fence along the south property line C. Legal Considerations The only question in this area is titled to the street right-of-way along the north side of this project. However, this does not appear to be an impediment to the plan proposed. D. Engineering Considerations Request details on entrance drive to include driveway cross-section and location of driveways to adjacent properties. E. Analysis The neighborhood surrounding these lots is predominantly zoned "R-5" multifamily, except for the two blocks on each side of Ash Street. There are several existing multifamily structures nearby, but most of the structures are large older homes that appear to be well cared for. The mix of use in the neighborhood and the low density proposed on these lots suggest compatibility. The project is listed on the quantitative list as being six units per acre net. This represents on two lots less than duplex density. A project of this type located adjacent to a large permanent open space and providing good access to nearby arterial streets we feel entirely appropriate. El January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued Attorney Engstrum pleaded that the PUD process should not be permitted to cause overfill, instead of the infill development that it was designed to stimulate. Other speakers from the neighborhood included: (1) Mr. John Toney, an abutting property owner for whom the proposal presented a precarious situation due to an encroachment of right-of-way on his property. He requested engineering data that would give some indication as to the potential for crashes. (2) Mr. Bill Rath of 816 North Ash, a property owner to the west, who stated reasons for opposition based on safety factors since Ash is currently 21' wide and there were existing traffic problems caused"by persons having to turn around in yards. (3) Ms. Dorothy Webb of 814 North Ash who owns a home occupied by her elderly parents. She cited an incident last year when an emergency vehicle was called for her father and had to park in Mr. Rath's yard. (4) Ms. Shirley Koonce of 422 "I" Street who spoke against the project and its encroachment on the parks since no setback was left after elimination of the 30'. (5) Mr. Robert Saunders, whose mother lives in the neighborhood, had a question concerning the property's boundaries. Attorney Kemp explained his reason for not locating the deed was because of improper indexing. It was pointed out that the petition presented to the Commission requesting that the area be kept single family included the names of apartment dwellers and commercial establishments. He also pointed out that Ms. Barber was not present to defend her sworn affidavit. Some commissioners expressed that they were more concerned about the potentially hazardous situation created by the relationship of the proposed drive to Mr. Toney's driveway than with the proposed use of the property. A motion was made for approval. The motion failed to pass by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued We've viewed this project as having very few negative issues associated. The only comment we would put forward as a requirement would be that this owner work with the Parks Department in this development to assure that no conflicts arise. F. Staff Recommendation Approval of the project subject to comments made in the analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was instructed to work with his neighbors to the south on the buffer to be provided and with the City Engineers on design of access to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:. The applicant was present. Twenty persons from the neighborhood were present in opposition. Staff reported that both fire and engineering's approval had been obtained, and that the applicant had amended his application by eliminating the north 30' of the property, reducing the site to 18,000 square feet. As a result, staff modified its position to approval of the site plan, provided that the decks did not encroach into this strip. The applicant agreed to this. Attorney Hal Kemp spoke in favor of the application. Attorney Steve Engstrum represented the neighborhood. A petition with over 100 signatures of persons in opposition to the change in zoning was presented. The opposers claimed that: (1) the lots were obtained under false pretenses since a sworn statement signed by Mrs. Barber, the previous owner, was submitted as evidence; (2) the applicant was trying to appropriate part of the City park since it took Attorney Engstrum only 30 minutes to find a deed that Attorney Kemp had stated was misplaced; (3) the proposal was even less appealing with its present size of approximately 18,000 square feet which is a result of eliminating the 30'; (4) there was no buffer totally surrounding the plan and (5) this type of development is not consistent with the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. t 0 January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 477 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: H. Elvin Shuffield Jr. Suite 1021 Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR Ash Place Planned Residential District North End of North Ash Street One Block North of "I" Street ENGINEER: Finley William Engineers 210 Victory Little Rock, AR AREA: .537 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Requesting change to "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily in a condominium format with 6 units per acre VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. 99 Existing Conditions Terrain involved is somewhat difficult due to a change in elevation of almost 40' from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. The surrounding land on the north is a part of Alsopp Park and has a heavy vegetation with little public use in this area. The existing street accessing the site is improved, but does not have a turnaround device at the end. Adjacent driveways to residences are now utilized for this purpose. Development Proposal The owner states he is desirous of developing a condominium project at the north dead end of Ash Street in the City of Little Rock utilizing one unit as my personal residence and causing the remaining units to be sold on the open market as single family residences. This will be a high budget, high quality project with the following information outlining my proposed development as to structural and legal composition. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued C. D. 1. Size of tract - 23,400 sq. ft. 2. Net density per acre - 6 3. Number of buildings and units - 1 building with 3 units 4. Ratio of parking to units - 2 to 1 5. Ratio of building to land - 2,600 sq. ft. of building to 23,400 sq. ft. of land 6. Number of access points - 1 7. Perimeter treatment - a buffer zone will be maintained around the entire perimeter of the project with the natural grade and growth being retained 8. Unit composition - each unit will have 3 bedrooms and a two car covered garage 9. Perimeter setback - 8' on the north and south sides, 25' on both east and west sides with privacy fence along the south property line Legal Considerations The only question in this area is titled to the street right-of-way along the north side of this project. However, this does not appear to be an impediment to the plan proposed. Engineering Considerations Request details on entrance cross-section and location properties. E. Analysis drive to include driveway of driveways to adjacent The neighborhood surrounding these lots is predominantly zoned "R-5" multifamily, except for the two blocks on each side of Ash Street. There are several existing multifamily structures nearby, but most of the structures are large older homes that appear to be well cared for. The mix of use in the neighborhood and the low density proposed on these lots suggest compatibility. The project is listed on the quantitative list as being six units per acre net. This represents on two lots less than duplex density. A project of this type located adjacent to a large permanent open space and providing good access to nearby arterial streets we feel entirely appropriate. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued Attorney Engstrum pleaded that the PUD process should not be permitted to cause overfill, instead of the infill development that it was designed to stimulate. Other speakers from the neighborhood included: (1) Mr. John Toney, an abutting property owner for whom the proposal presented a precarious situation due to an encroachment of right-of-way on his property. He requested engineering data that would give some indication as to the potential for crashes. (2) Mr. Bill Rath of 816 North Ash, a property owner to the west, who stated reasons for opposition based on safety factors since Ash is currently 21' wide and there were existing traffic problems caused by persons having to turn around in yards. (3) Ms. Dorothy Webb of 814 North Ash who owns a home occupied by her elderly parents. She cited an incident last year when an emergency vehicle was called for her father and had to park in Mr. Rath's yard. (4) Ms. Shirley Koonce of 422 "I" Street who spoke against the project and its encroachment on the parks since no setback was left after elimination of the 30'. (5) Mr. Robert Saunders, whose mother lives in the neighborhood, had a question concerning the property's boundaries. Attorney Kemp explained his reason for not locating the deed was because of improper indexing. It was pointed out that the petition presented to the Commission requesting that the area be kept single family included the names of apartment dwellers and commercial establishments. He also pointed out that Ms. Barber was not present to defend her sworn affidavit. Some commissioners expressed that they were more concerned about the potentially hazardous situation created by the relationship of the proposed drive to Mr. Toney's driveway than with the proposed use of the property. A motion was made for approval. The motion failed to pass by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued We've viewed this project as having very few negative issues associated. The only comment we would put forward as a requirement would be that this owner work with the Parks Department in this development to assure that no conflicts arise. F. Staff Recommendation Approval of the project subject to comments made in the analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was instructed to work with his neighbors to the south on the buffer to be provided and with the City Engineers on design of access to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Twenty persons from the neighborhood were present in opposition. Staff reported that both fire and engineering's approval had been obtained, and that the applicant had amended his application by eliminating the north 30' of the property, reducing the site to 18,000 square feet. As a result, staff modified its position to approval of the site plan, provided that the decks did not encroach into this strip. The applicant agreed to this. Attorney Hal Kemp spoke in favor of the application. Attorney Steve Engstrum represented the neighborhood. A petition with over 100 signatures of persons in opposition to the change in zoning was presented. The opposers claimed that: (1) the lots were obtained under false pretenses since a sworn statement signed by Mrs. Barber, the previous owner, was submitted as evidence; (2) the applicant was trying to appropriate part of the City park since it took Attorney Engstrum only 30 minutes to find a deed that Attorney Kemp had stated was :misplaced; (3) the proposal was even less appealing with its present size of approximately 18,000 square feet which is a result of eliminating the 30'; (4) there was no buffer totally surrounding the plan and (5) this type of development is not consistent with the Heights/Hillcrest Plan.