Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0517 Staff AnalysisJune 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No__23 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Thomas Wilkes 511 East 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 372-0861 ' STAFF REPORT: Penzel Place Final "PUD" Extension (Z-4075) NW Corner of East 7th and Sherman Streets ARCHTTECT: Dietrich Neyland/Joe Johnson The Cromwell Firm #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 This is a request to extend for one year a PUD approval for 30 apartment units. The plan was approved by the Commission on February 14, 1984, and by the Board on March 7, 1984 (Ordinance No. 14,615). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. February 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 MAMF Penzel Place Short Form "PRD" (Z-4075) LOCATION: NW Corner of East 7th and Sherman Streets nRVRTd)PRR ^ ARrRTTRrT e Thomas Wilkes Dietrich Neyland/Joe Johnson 511 East 7th Street The Cromwell Firm Little Rock, AR 72202 #1 Spring Street Phone: 372-0861 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: .59 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "H-R" PROPOSED USES: Apartments VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives 1. The construction of two buildings with 30 units and a density of approximately 50 units per acre. 2. To provide rental opportunity in an area of strong demand. 3. To maintain the existing character of the neighborhood streetscape by the provisions of flats with rear entrances, but with the buildings designed with the appearance of three-story town homes. 4. To maintain the character of the area by the provision of an iron fence along both sidewalks so as to continue the trend established by Fowler Square to the west and the Bill Davis property to the north. 5. The preservation of three willow oaks and two poplars along Sherman Street. H February 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 6. To obtain 12' of right-of-way along 7th Street from the City. C. Development Proposal 1. Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size Efficiency 6 Not Provided One -Bedroom 18 Not Provided Two -Bedroom 6 Not Provided 30 25,500 sq. ft. 2. The ground area of the buildings is 5,400 square feet which equals to 1 x 4.7 ratio to the total land area. 3. Access to be provided by the existing Sherman Street entrance and a proposed curb cut on 7th Street. 4. Parking will total 33 spaces. 5. A special request is made to the City for the release to develop a 12' strip of right-of-way along 7th Street. D. Engineering Comments 1. Raise and replace curb on 7th Street. 2. Reconstruct sidewalks on 7th and Sherman Streets. E. Staff Analysis Staff's major concern with this project is based on its density of 50 units per acre in an area which was intended for high-rise development where the required density could be met without impacting the ground. The applicant should consider lessening the density. Use presents no problem since a precedent has been firmly established in the area for apartment development. The proposed parking is inadequate since users requirements are for 1.5 space per unit. There is no problem with the request for the 12' strip of right-of-way; however, a replat is needed. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. February 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Tom Wilkes represented the application. A revised plan was submitted which changed the unit mix to 6 efficiencies, 14 one -bedrooms, 10 two -bedrooms and 32 parking spaces. Staff reported that the applicant was short on parking, but support would be given if the unit/parking ratio met requirements. There was some confusion as to what was actually approved by the Historic District Commission, and what the applicant actually thought was approved. Staff reported that the Historic District Commission had approved 30 parking spaces with a 5' screening fence required. The Planning Commission requested that staff inform the Historic District Commission that they should review the plan after the public -hearing so as to prevent confusion. The applicant stated that he would have to go back to the Historic District Commission to gain approval of the two extra parking spaces shown on the plan. A -motion for approval of the revised plan with 30 units and 32 parking spaces was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.