Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0653 Staff AnalysisMay 13, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Avonshire Building Mixed Used "Short -Form PRD" (Z-4629) nFVP.T.nPER: Thomas Johnson 421 E. 9th Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-0334 AREA: .10 acres ZONING: "R-5" ARrRTTECT: Thomas Johnson & Assoc. 421 E . 9th Street 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 375-0334 NO. OF LOTS: FEET NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USE: Apartment/Offices A. Development Objectives 1. Conversion of an existing four unit condominium development into two quiet office uses on the downstairs level and two apartments units upstairs. 2. To providea project that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, will result in preservation of the building, and to alleviate an existing parking problem. B. Proposal 1. Conversion of a four -unit condo development on .10 acre into two quiet office uses (architectural . firm and psychologist office) and two one -bedroom apartments. May 13,- 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 2. Office space will consist of 1800 square feet. 3. Parking - Three new on -site parking spaces at the rear of the building and preliminary permission from the pastor of the adjacent Pulaski Heights Baptist Church has been received for the use of two to four additional parking spaces on its parking lot during normal office hours. Formal written approval from the Board of Deacons is anticipated at the March meeting. A copy will be provided to the Commission. C. Analysis D. E. There are several issues to be discussed, the most important is parking. Staff is a little uncomfortable with acceptance of such agreement; however, it is requested that the applicant submit a copy of agreement with the church as soon as possible. Also, the short -form PUD process is not necessarily for the conversion of older structures. The application is deficient in all bulk and area requirements of the Ordinance. Furthermore, it is contrary to the Hillcrest Plan, which does not allow office uses. The present zoning is 11R-5." Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. Subdivision Committee Review The Committee felt that the main issue to be discussed was the use, and its potential for starting precedent for this type of development in the area. The parking was not considered to be the major issue since the church's lot is not extensively used during the week. The applicant was asked to provide specifics of the agreement worked out with the church. rttiI ities: Sewer - Sewer available - Capacity contribution analysis required. May 13, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present. Staff reported that one parking space was inaccessible. The issues to be discussed were identified as: (1) deciding where to draw the line regarding use changes, and a fear of setting a precedent for further commercial expansion; (2) parking - especially since the agreement with the Church seems somewhat noncommittal on the Church's part. Mr. Tom Johnson, one of the applicants, described the project as being a "narrow exception" to the Zoning requirements, not precedent -setting. Ten residents were present in opposition. Mr. Davis Cockcroth was concerned about "encroaching commercial uses" in the area. Mr. Walter Riddick spoke of "impinging commercialization," and the potential for problems at the nearby intersection and parking to get worse as traffic increases and commercial uses expand. Ms. Margaret Whitlock felt that each additional business use approved, took a little more spirit away from the neighborhood. his. Tinckney of 2116 Kavanaugh, asked the Commission to vote against this project. One Commissioner felt that this proposal would provide the most minimal impact on Kavanaugh, even though he was a firm supporter of the Heights-Hillcrest plan. He felt that if there was ever an exception - this was it. A motion was made for approval, subject to: (1) two signs one square foot each; (2) restriction to one architects and one psychologists office, with no employees and individual clients only. No groups allowed. The motion was automatically deferred for thirty (30) days due to a vote of 4 ayes, 5 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-6-86) A motion to withdraw, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Kaye 12, 1006 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. ® - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-6-36) A motion to withdraw, as requested by the applicant, was Made and passed by a vote of li &yes, 0 noes and 0 absent. April 8, -1956 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: Avonshire Building Mixed Used "Short -Form PRD" ( Z-4629 ) DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: Thomas Johnson Thomas Johnson & Assoc. 421 E. 9th 421 E. 9th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, A 4 72202 Phone: 375-0334 Phone: AREA: .10 acres NO. OF LOTS: FEET NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-5" PROPOSED USE: Apartment/Offices A. Development Objectives 14 Conversion of an existing four unit condominium development into two quiet office uses on the downstairs level and two apartments units upstairs. 2. To provide a project that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, will result in preservation of the building, and to alleviate an existing parking problem. B. Pro sal 1. Conversion of a four -unit condo development on .10 acre into two quiet office uses (architectural firm and psychologist office) and two one -bedroom apartments. ll S, *1986 )IVISIONS n No. 2 - Continued 2. Office space will consist of 1800 square feet. 3. Parking - Three new on -site parking spaces at the rear of the building and preliminary permission from the pastor of the adjacent Pulaski Heights Baptist Church -has been received for the use of two to four additional parking spaces on its parking lot during normal office hours. Formal written approval from the Board of Deacons is anticipated at the March meeting. A copy will be provided to the Commission. C. Anal sis D. E. There are several issues to be discussed, the most important is parking. Staff is a little uncomfortable with acceptance of such agreement; however, it is requested that the applicant submit a copy of agreement with the church as soon as possible. Also, the short -form PUD process is not necessarily for the conversion of older structures. The application is deficient in all bulk and area requirements of the Ordinance. Furthermore, it is contrary to the Hillcrest Plan, which does not allow office uses. The present zoning is "R-5." Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. Subdivision Committee Review The Committee felt that the main issue to be discussed was the use, and its potential for starting precedent for this type of development in the area. The parking was not considered to be the major issue since the church's lot is not extensively used during the week. The applicant was asked to provide specifics of the agreement worked Out--with-the church. utilities: sewer - Sewer available - Capacity contribution analysis required. ING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present. Staff reported that one parking space was inaccessible. The issues to be discussed were identified as: (1) deciding where. to draw the line regarding use changes, and a fear of setting a.precedent for further commercial expansion; (2) parking - especially since the agreement with the Church seems somewhat noncommittal on the Church's part. Mr.. Tom Johnson, one of the'' applicants, described the project as being a "narrow exception" to the Zoning requirements, not precedent -setting. Ten residents were present in opposition. Mr. Davis Cockcroth was concerned about "encroaching commercial uses" in the area. Mr. Walter Riddick spoke of "impinging commercialization," and the potential for problems at the nearby intersection and parking to get worse as _traffic increases and commercial uses expand. Ms. Margaret Whitlock felt that each additional business use approved, took a little more spirit away from the neighborhood. Ms. Tinckney of 2116 Kavanaugh, asked the Commission to -vote against this project. One Commissioner felt that this. proposal would provide the most minimal impact on Kavanaugh, even though he was a firm supporter of the Heights-Hillcrest plan. He felt that if there was ever an exception - this was it. A motion was made for approval, subject to: (1) two signs one square foot each; (2) restriction to one architects and one psychologists office, with no employees and individual clients only.. No groups allowed. The motion was automatically deferred for thirty (30) days due to a vote of 4 ayes, 5 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention.