Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-7-1983January 17, 19 A - 4 Jp I� 4 2tz. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION 1. The applicai structure ai residential necessary nc Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT A. Enqineei Don Kirkpatrick 500 East 9th Street Long Legal "HR".High Density Residential Approval of a conditional use permit for the use of the site and existing structure for 2,300 square feet of office space. The subject permit is provided for in Section 43-37 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock. t states that the size and nature of the d the level of rents available as will not permit the costly restoration r the required maintenance. Residential Office space in the 2,300 square feet + in the front portion of the building and three apartments with a total of four bedrooms in the rear of the site. The subject 3ite has several street and access related issues. The new parking lot on the east side of the lot requires that cars be backed into East Ninth Street from the sta ls. The applicant suggests the turnout stub adjacen to the sidewalk would accommodate this maneuver. We have reservations about that stall being retained as constant open maneuvering space. The lot width is too narrow, plus the house on the east is quite close to the property line allowing no overhang of vehicles for a maneuver. The stalls dimensions are to narrow to comply with ordinance. The street adjacent on he west is approximately 30 feet in right-of-way with a narrow roadway and tight turning radius off E st Ninth. The corner radius at Ninth Street shoul be reviewed for possible reconstruction to a larger adius. / January 17, 198 Item No. A - Co tinued / B. Staff Anal sis .� The staff Niew of this proposal is that the owner proposes a cessive use of the site. It appears that even when leveloped as residential, five or six units, the site cnot accommodate parking within the property line. As office use, the problem is magnified by the unknowassociated with simply authorizing a quiet use as offe. Quiet office group of uses within the ordinance rmits an array of activities that are totally unceptable even if parking were not an issue. The site iimpacted by narrow yard spaces, narrow streets, hh traffic volume and two principle structuresn one lot.. There are options available in almost any circumstance which may resolve serious concerns. In this case, the option apparent is to acquire additional land for the vacant site to the north. Staff views the existing design of parking in the front and side yard as totally nonfunctional. It would become a long-term problem both for the tenants in apartments and office use. The potential for backing into East Ninth Street is too great. C. Staff Reco endation Staff recomiends that a conditional use permit not be issued for he use as proposed. We feel that there are too many as ociated problems without ready resolution. There is on y one approach which we feel will receive our endorsetent. That is, a single user office such as an attorney with living quarters above. This approach also requir s the addition of properly designed parking in a maneuv ring area which would require additional land be add d to the lot. OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The appa, . Don Kirkpatrick, filed a letter of requelic st for dentMfe ral of this item to the January 17, 1984, meeting. A Motil3n was made to accept the request and defer the matter. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position hnd 1 absent. STAFF REPORT: Since discussion at the December Board meeting, the staff has received no Additional comment from this applicant. January 17, 1984 em The applicant, M Charles Witsell, Mr. Witsell offe and additional c attendance repre to the north. M month to month p however, he stat arranged. He sw their property ii all that they coi they did not wane inasmuch as it m: vacant land at a opinions express( the options avail was made to apprc a circumstance wt be provided. Prc encouraged. The 2 absent and 1 or 7. Don Kirkpatrick, was present as was who represented Mr. Kirkpatrick. •ed a history of the structure and the site imments on the proposal. Bill Terry was in renting the adjacent vacant property lying . Terry stated a willingness to provide a rking arrangement for this activity; d that nothing long-term or a sale could be gested that nine parking stalls facing an unimproved state, perhaps gravel, is ld work with at this time. He suggested to encourage the paving of this property ght deter the proper development of this later date. There were no opposition 9 at the meeting. A lengthy discussion of able to Mr. Kirkpatrick was held. A motion ve the variance request as filed accepting ereby only two on -site parking places would iision of any spaces possible off -site is notion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 1 noe, ?n position. IIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 7, 1983 4:00 P.M. ITEM NO. 1 Located: In Block 5, Johnson's Addition, Little Rock, AR Address: 500 E. 9th Street Owner: Mr. Don Kirkpatrick Request: Six (6) parking spaces on -site ITEM NO. 2 Located: In Trapnall Block of Stevenson's Addition, Little Rock, AR Address: 506 E. 6th Street Owner: St. Clair Development Corporation Request: Twenty-six (26) parking spaces off -site ITEM NO. 3 Located: In lots 4 and 5, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, AR Address: 915 S. Cumberland Owner: Mr. Gus Walton Request: Addition on to rear of existing building MINUTES IC DISTRICT COMMISSIOM DECEMBER 7, 1983 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESE MR. JOHN JARRARD, CHAIRMAN MR. GOERGE WORTHEN MS. BETH FOTI MR. SAM STRAUSS, JR. MR. BILL KENNEDY, III MEMBERS ABSENTj: NONE STAFF PRESENT: W. MIKE DOOLEY s The meeting was called Ito order by the Vice -Chairman Mr. George Worthen at 4:00 P.M. and finding q quorum to exist, the Commission moved to accept the Minutes of the previoul meeting as recorded. Staff reported that th4 required notification had been properly mailed to owners of property wit in the area of influence of all three (3) applications and that proof of said notification had been recieved. The Chairman, Mr. John meeting. The first item was Address: 500 E. qth Location: Part of B1 Owner: Mr. Don Ki Request: Six (6) pa Ms. Beth Foti advised 1(he this request. Mr. Mike Steelman was Mr. Steelman explained parking spaces on the side of the lot taking to be located on the e explained that the own bedroom apartments and as a two -bedroom apart by the apartments and entered and took part in the remainder of the bed as: Addition, Little Rock, AR ng spaces on -site Commission that she would abstain from voting on sent representing the owner Mr. Don Kirkpatrick. at this request was for the construction of six (6) e. Two (2) of the spaces to be located on the west cess from Commerce Street. Four (4) of the spaces side of the lot taking access from 9th Street. He wanted to use the main structure for two (2) one- 300 sq. ft. of office space, and the Carriage House t. The two (2) spaces on the west were to be used four (4) on the east for the offices. Staff explained that t owner had applied for a conditional use permit to allow the office use o the structure in a residential zone and that the apartments require 3.5 Iparking spaces and the +2,300 sq. ft. of office space requires an additional F.5 for a total of eleven (11). The Board of Adjustment will determine the use ssue as well as the number of parking spaces. The Historic District Commi lion should only concern itself with the location and design of the parking ard paving plan submitted. Mr. Steelman submitted�dditional plans showing dimensions of the design of the parking on the sit Staff was asked if the was a standard size for a parking space. They were advised that the stands d space was 9'x2O' with additional maneuvering area and that this plan did of meet those criteria. It was explained that if the Board of Adjustment werp to approve the conditional use permit as submitted then., in effect, they 4uld not only be approving an office use, but also a parking variance from t e number and design of parking spaces. Mr. Steelman was asked f the owner had tried to find any additional parking area. He stated that t ey had contacted the owner to the north where an area had been graveled, whicb apparently has been where previous occupants had parked, and that that o ner had been unwilling to do anything but sell their entire piece of proper. . Asked about the level of contact, whether it was a phone call or personal visit, Mr. Steelman said he was not sure of the full extent of the negotiate ns. 2. Mr. Jarrard questioned functional parking are to small cars but that Mr. Bill Kennedy asked turn around space whit said that he planned f use the space for in a backing out on 9th Str try to provide side by them two (2) deep if a Asked about the scr the proposed shrubs buffer and that was Mr. Worthen asked if .ther the spaces on the east could be used as a Mr. Steelman agreed it would be more accessible s was the only space available on the lot. if there wasn't a danger of people parking in the is provided in front of the structure. Mr. Steelman r visitors who do not work in the office all day to d out parking. Asked if the other autos would be et he replied, yes. He explained that he intended to side parking in the west parking area and could stack tenant should own two (2) cars. g on the east property line Mr. Steelman stated that d grow and mature to provide an adequate screening reason for selecting the plant type that was chosen. else would like to speak on the request. Ms. Eve Yancy represen ing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated that they felt it woul be more appropriate to provide parking at an off -site location. However, if all possible alternative locations are exhausted they would approve the on -site parking with the exception of the paving for the turn around in the fro t yard. They also felt that provisions should be made for the protection and Preservation of any tree adjacent to paving. Ms. Joann Jennings rep{esenting the Quapaw Quarter Association gave the following statement appp�oved by their Board of Directors: Although we would very much prefer that parking not be located in the area immediately east of the structure, we acknowledge the problem that faces the owner in providing parking in the immediate area. If parking cannot be secured immediately north or to the east of the structure, the Association is prepared to support the planned parking. The QQA Board is anxious that the Vinsonhaler House be utilized. Since parking is necessary for uses of the structure we would recommend ap roval. Staff was asked if the pplicant would have to come back to the Historic District Commission if hey negotiated parking to the north. It was explained that if that parking wa necessary and included paving, that the Commission would need to review th design of that parking. Staff was asked if an agree- ment were to be made fo parking to the north, and that property were then developed at a later da e, would it be necessary for the applicant to come back on this same request. hey were advised that the terms of the agreement could state that the negotiat d terms could be structured so as to terminate the parking when that prope ty develops. That would mean that the applicant could continue using the prop rty without adequate off-street parking. If they then wished to provide additional parking they would have to get any new design approved by the Historit District Commission. Mr. Jarrard made a moti n to deny the parking lot. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion. Mr. Kennedy st ted that his was a difficult decision and thought that Mr. Kirkpatrick should le rewarded for the risk he was taking but that the space was simply not av ilable. The turn -around would not be functional and autos backing out on 9t Street would create problems. The turn -around was not attractive visually and that he should try to work out an arrangement with the owners to the north a Mr. Worthen asked for a vote on the motion for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness which qas approved 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstention. The second item was described as: Address: Location: Tra Owner: St. Request: Twe lock of Stevensons Addition, Little Rock, AR Development Company (26) parking spaces off -site Mr. John Kooistra was resent representing the owners of St. Clair Development Company. He explained the company owned the land and structures at 424 and 500 E. 6th and the lan at 506 which was the proposed parking lot, but did not own the structure and 1 nd at 504 E. 6th which was between the St. Clair build- i ng and proposed parki g area. Mr. Strauss asked if t re were any lighting plans for the parking area and was informed that a regula night light was to be provided. Asked if Mr. Kooistra d reviewed the recommendations from the Quapaw Quarter Association and the Ar nsas Historic Preservation Program, he replied they had read and discussed hem prior to the hearing. He stated that the company was on a very tight bu et and that a brick fence type entrance might be too expensive but that the might put brick columns on each side of the entrance. There was lengthy disc Sion as to what type of other fencing was existing and proposed on the north, Past and west boundaries of the proposed parking lot. Staff was asked if the were any other regulations regarding fences. It was explained that a 4 ft. paque screen is required along all sides of a parking lot which abutts a resi entially zoned parcel, so that in this case screening would be required on al four (4) sides. Mr. Jarrard commented that even though the applicant has successfully addressed the physical issue of rking they still have not adequately provided for a visual need which exis in the Historic District in terms of screening and landscaping. Mr. Kooistra stated th a cedar fence was proposed on the east and south sides of the property with s ubs on the north and west. He agreed that the owners would do whatever the ndscape Ordinance required because this would be the only way the company co ld apply for and receive any sort of federal funding. Mr. Worthen asked how 4ny spaces were required for the federal funding and Mr. Kooistra replied th t eighteen (18) were required. Mr. Kooistra stated tha whatever the Historic District Commission required in the way of design, scre ning or total numbers of parking spaces would be accepta- ble to the owners. Mr. Jarrard asked if th� owners would be in favor of putting a period style light fixture on the si a rather than the night light and Mr. Kooistra answered, that they would, if it as not too expensive. He was advised that in addition to the purchase of the ight he would only have to pay to provide the power to the pole. 50fi E.1 6th Street ki Mr. Worthen asked if aryone else would like to speak on the application. Ms. Eve Yancy represen ing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated the following position from that agency: We have reviewed 1he plans for the St. Clair parking project and recommend that a ertificate of Appropriateness be issued with the following pro isions: 1.) The prohibit"on of vehicular access at the north end of site. 2.) The addition of visual screening consisting of a combination of deciduous nd evegreen plant material at the north end of the site. Plantinrgs should be of sufficient density and composition achieve visual screening affect at maturity. 3.) The addition f interior planting beds in the east and west parking aisl 4.) The substitu ion of the proposed redwood fence at the south end of the p king lot with a brick wall. The design of the wall shoPa be complementary to the style and form of the St. Clairtment building. They should be set back to avoid injto the large willow oak at the south end of the site. 5.) The preserval on of the large willow oak at the south end of the site. ISpecifically new curb cuts should not encroach any further op the tree than do existing cuts. It is the opinion f our agency that with the above provisions, the proposed St. Clair parking lot would be compatible with the surrounding Historic District. Ms. Joann Jennings repr senting the Quapaw Quarter Association agreed in principal to the conditions previously addressed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program anp submitted the following prepared statement by the Quapaw Quarter Association Board of Directors: It is our understa iding that the City's present ordinance requires sixteen (16) space and that eighteen (18) spaces are required by the federal government loan program the owners have applied for. The plans indicate twenty-six (26) spaces and we strongly urge that a maximum of twent -four (24) spaces be allowed. The twenty-six (26 spaces requested are 9'x20' which is an absolute minimum. Since th plan calls for only 20' of paving in between rows of parking, we fee maneuvering would be most difficult. The twenty-four (24) s aces recommended would mean the spaces would be almost 10' wide wh ch should serve much easier for the tenants to use. We would really mu h prefer that a maximum of 22 spaces be allowed, each 10'x20'. Thi would leave approximately 7'x20' on each side for a landscaped islan . We also strongly urge that: 1.) A 6' wall of rick of the type used in the St. Clair construc- tion with a c p such as the one at about the same 6' level in 5. St. Clair be erected on either side of the entrance to the park- ing lot; we leel a wood fence would be inappropriate; 2-) Radius of thd turnout onto 6th Street out of the lot should be located so as to maintain the existence of the large willow oak located on t east side of the proposed entrance; 3.) Access at thd north end of the lot be non-existent; some screen- ing now exis in the form of hedges and trees, but additional dense plantin is needed. When asked about tie 20' easement which runs from the north of the lot south to 6th Street, the applicant stated that it was a condition of the sale but that ie had no objection to fencing the north boundary of the lot to prohibit access through to Capitol Avenue. Mr. Strauss made a moti n for approval, conditional upon the provision of a 4' to 6' brick wall at he entrance on the south, the north boundary be planted so as to prohibit acces , a maximum of twenty-four (24) spaces and that lighting be of an appropriate nature. Mr. Jarrard seconded the motion with the amendment that landscaped islands be provided on each parking right-of-way. Mr. Kennedy further amended the motion to provide a 4' to 6' cedar fence on the north, east and west boundaries of he lot. Ms. Foti seconded the amendment. Mr. Kennedy made general comments regarding parking lots in the Historic District. He stated that he realized that these additional requirements will add expense to the project but that as a matter of policy the Historic District Commission should look at such proposals with a certain degree of skepticism. He felt in all cases they should be landscaped and dressed up as well as the situation allows and provide for he best possible safety, lighting and beautification elements. He advised t at any person who wishes to construct a parking lot in the Historic District b4 put on notice that these issues will be addressed. Mr. Worthen asked for a vote on the amendment to the motion which passed 4 for, 1 against (Mr. Strauss)l Mr. Worthen asked for a vote on the original motion with the amendment whicl passed 5 for, 0 against. The third item was descilibed as: Address: 915 S. Cumberland Location: In of 4 and 5, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, AR Owner: Mr. Gul Walton Request: Additi n onto rear of existing building Mr. Worthen explained t1at he was indirectly related to the applicant and if anyone had a concern ab ut any potential or conceived conflict of interest pertaining to the applUation that he would step down and abstain from deliber- ation of the issue. Hearing none, the publi hearing proceeded as Mr. Gus Walton, the owner, intro- duced his planner Mr. Jiln Moses and architect Mr. Rick Redden. Mr. Redden explained th4architectural style and the building materials to be used on the addition, w ch were the same material and style of the original building. He showed ho the same roof pitch and floor level would be con- tinued throughout the p posed addition as well as the window placement and exterior trim. 11 Asked about the destin� of the two (2) major trees located in the rear yard, Mr. Redden advised thatl they would both remain in place. Mr. Jarrard asked about the provision of parking for the expansion and Mr. Redden replied that they have an arrangement with the Knights of Columbus to use nine (9) parking spaces and that the four (4) provided on -site are the same as previously existed. He explained that the addition was not for additional employees but to make more space for those currently working at Poe Travel Agency. He added that the Knights of Columbus, being a non-profit organization, could not lease the space but would designate an area for the proposed use. Mr. Worthen asked if an�one else would like to speak on the application. Ms. Eve Yancy represent ng the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated that; in their opinion he design of the proposed addition is compatible with that of the original building and is located so as not to be a visual intrusion in the surrou ding neighborhood. In light of these considerations they recommend that the project be issued a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Joann Jennings repr senting the Quapaw Quarter Association stated that it was the recommendation f their Board of Directors that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issu d in light of the determination that the proposed addition does not detra t from the appearance or integrity of the district. The addition does not a feet the row (909, 913 and 923 Cumberland) that was ranked by the Associati n as having Priority I architectural significance. Further, it is their fe ling that Poe Travel, by locating its office on Cumberland, has contrib ted to the revitalization of downtown and added to the stability of Cumber and Street. Mr. Jarrard expressed his concern over this type of non permanent parking arrangement and stated 1hat parking problems in the Historic District and surrounding areas shoul be addressed by an appropriate board who could take some policy action on tie situation. Mr. Kennedy made a mots n to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Jarrard seconded the motion whi h passed by a vote of 5 for, 0 against. Advised that there was Mr. Worthen adjourned WMD/se further business to be conducted at this meeting, 5:15 P.M.